In my family, we sop everything from eggs (over medium - I can't stand a runny egg-white), to gravy, to the fugitive jelly that squishes out from an over stuffed PB&J. My wife's family the same. We are both degreed professionals, and do not think that this behavior in any way contradicts good table manners (if done with discretion). Of course, it may have something to do with our geographic habitation, which happens to be old-south Virginia. Sopping is an indication of having eaten a great meal, by virtue of letting none of it go to waste.

For proof that sopping is an ages old and highly respectable practice, consider

John 13:26

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

Or, in this contemporary english version:

Jesus answered, "I will dip this piece of bread in the sauce and give it to the one I was talking about."

If it's good enough for Jesus, it good enough for me.

Poco

and I'll set you free!

Poco

The Christians are coming, THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING!!! Dun, dun, dunnnnnnnnn! (scary music) "They would prefer this to be the "Pentecostalgon," not the Pentagon." What a goofy, paranoid statement. And Salon is giving him a pass on it. Mr. Weinstein hates Christianity, that's all. Big deal. A Jewish guy that hates Christians. Nothin' new here folks, move along.

To all those that use that sorry, pathetic, ignorant line that religion is the cause of all wars, consider Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, the war of 1812, Napoleon, Rome, Atilla, the war of the roses, the Mexican/American war, the first and second world wars, Korean war, Vietnam, The Gulf Wars, and the fact that the catholic church was/is just another branch of the Roman government, and therefore all wars attributed to it can be considered a measure of political control (identical to the "muslim" conflicts - no religion, just political control, or another opportunity for humans to kill other humans - Something we seem to enjoy).

That line is old and busted. The hot new line is simply "I hate religion".

Poco

by some newsman as looking like "a sad old tree". That never ceases to bring a smile to my face.

Poco

You are "so wrong". Read my other posts. *Yawn*

"Blue and Poco, weren't you the 2 fellows who rubbed down Ted Haggard?"

So much for the tolerant, loving left. Live and let live. Tolerate those with a different viewpoint, even if you strongly disagree, right. Wrong. Bash and denigrate anyone that you do not agree with, especially if they claim some form of moral absolute. That one seems to set the kind, loving left into spasms of hate-filled drivel like the line above. It's funny. Many of you accuse Christians of hatefulness, yet you cannot find one statement that I, and most of the other Christians that post here, that comes close to the vulgar responses that are so easy to find from people of who hold a non-religious world view, or otherwise disagree. Tell me, which group is the more civilized, intellectual, and tolerant?

I am constantly being accused of supporting Bush and/or republicans, but a great number of my posts close with P.S. I am not a republican, or contain statements wherein I decry the base and perverted nature of politics in general. Tell me, who is the more accurate, and logical? It would appear that many of you care little about the truth, rather, you just prefer to inflict insult on those who are not like you.

And most of the rest of you (responders) are just plain paranoid. Another sign of the depth of hatred for all things God.

This forum is quite the study on the validity of worldviews, don't you think?

Poco

P.S. A real fundamentalist practices the teachings of Jesus. Those that use any religion to control others are just tyrants.

P.P.S I am not a republican.

-P

I read the entire article, and picked up on this disturbing pattern: "That black men are a class unto themselves when it comes to homicide will not come as a surprise to most Americans. Black men are America's primary crime victims." Unless I missed something, the article does not state who the perpetrators are, just the victims. Am I wrong in assuming the "primary crime victims" are the victims of "primary crime perpetrators" that are also black? Why is this left out of the article? I don't get it it. It seems the author is incapable of naming the perpetrators. The perpetrators are, without question, without fail, and without argument, the cause of all the crime. No one makes someone shoot another person. Why focus on the victims for answers?

Poco

I also picked-up on the tattoo. It clearly states "The GOOD die young", not "The HOOD die young". I guess the author has never seen a cursive G, or perhaps the victim mentality is preventing it (i.e. all the young black urban men die young, victims to some unseen evil - as apposed to all the young black urban men who are murdered, generally die by the hand of another young black urban man).