my reply was to the OP, not your reply. Is your name Dan? I didn’t know that.
Tris
No, but it’s getting a bit more lurid.
Doesn’t that depend on which one of them was naked?
I knew that. What I didn’t know is that I’m not allowed to respond to posts that are not specifically addressed to me. I thought this was more like a group conversation. My bad. :rolleyes:
(imagining the situation in each of four ways then hosing the ICK! out of my brain) Nope. Doesn’t seem to matter.
No, the next question is what will the pages whom Foley supposedly did not molest go on to do later in life? And when they’re caught, what will they say about Foley?
Actaully, there are a lot more than 4 combinations, but I assumed the one the guy was talking about was both of them are naked and the priest is the masseuse. But I agree that it doesn’t matter which combination it was. I also assume **Cervaise **was joking.
Never. 
Actually, I was making an attempt at a wryly off-kilter observation of how the various news stories are almost uniformly using the phrase “naked massage” without trying to dispel the ambiguities of what precisely that is supposed to mean.
Masseur, actually. Otherwise, that priestess has pulled a fast one on the Church.
Honestly, are there any non-sexually depraved* politicians OR priests out there?
*And by sexually depraved, I refer to the seduction of children, not being gay.
:rolleyes: ?
You knew that.
You post to my name, beginning with: “That’s not what I’m saying.”
When I explain that I never thought it was what you were saying, but rather was saying something directly to someone else, you come back with a “rolleyes” little snark at me, implying that I objected to what you were saying.
Please put me on your ignore list.
Tris
I’m trying to suss out how this is playing in the literal scheme of things:
Foley, backpedalling as “victim”, via alcohol, or as a young person in the trusted church. Ok, I can sympathize with that travesty; poor boy.
But why did the powers that be enable Foley to be on the forefront of legislation against that specific type of activity? If he knew he was a mess of it because of said priest’s abuse, he should not be counsel to legislation dealing with that type of abuse.
That’s the biggest glaring error for me, that Foley was allowed to be quite two-faced in his approach to legislation.
You don’t really have to be a hypocrite to be a politician. To be a successful politician, however…
This priest’s a riot. “Well, there was that time I put his dick in my mouth, but, uh…he liked it! I mean, maybe blowing altar boys could be seen as inappropriate in certain contexts, but we were pals! Why’s he making trouble for me now, olla sudden? I meen, cripes, what about all the great, great baby-oiled fun we had a camp? This is really disappointing!”
Well, they tried, “Clinton Lied!” and it didn’t work. They tried the full Shultz. (I knew nothing! I saw nothing.) They tried “The Democrats set us up!”, and that didn’t work any better for them that it did for you remember who.
Anything is better than saying aloud that “We elected Hastert because we knew he would do anythting to keep a party majority, and we were really glad about it up until now.” “Oh, look, a priest! A fag! Clinton lied!”
Tris
See, Tris, I just don’t get the Moral uprightness coupled with the Blame It On A Priest thing.
Cuz, uhhh…
Because of such concepts as personal responsibility, actual values, repugnance for moral relativism?
The folks who are spooning this crap out, and the ones lapping it up have no interest in actual morality, real values, or any other thing. It is one hundred percent about maintaining political power. Oh, and don’t forget, Clinton lied!
Tris
He just happens to be one year short of three score and ten … just a coincidence :dubious: