1. religionistas of numerous factions DO WANT to impose THEIR theocracy upon us ALL; in that, they are just as whacked-out as osama bin forgotten and other mooselimb extremists... my point wasn't that the squishy soft jello 'religion' of haught was attempting to do so (although, that is basically the endgame of nearly ALL religionistas: they can't be happy until they've made everyone as uptight and self-righteous as themselves...), but that the religious authoritarians who ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE BRAYING MINORITY of xtians DO WANT THEIR OWN LITTLE THEOCRACY here and now...

(you know, for our own good...*snort*)

OF COURSE, there are a few 'reasonable' (kinda-sorta) religions which don't seek to impose their will on others, who don't endlessly proselytize 'heathens', and probably *don't* believe in a theocracy...

BUT these kind and gentle souls ARE NOT who are in ascendancy in the media and in politics: it is the loudmouthed, 'persecuted', fundie xtians who WANT TO IMPOSE THEIR THEOCRACY; and haught is facilitating them, whether he agrees with their extreme aims or not...

i DON'T want them to 'not believe' (i don't freaking care), but THEY WANT ME TO 'BELIEVE' what they 'believe'; and some of them would do it at the point of a gun...

2. again, my point was also haught was leading us down the primrose path of REDEFINING 'religion' and xtianity until it is devoid of ANY catechism, unbelieveable fairy tales, crazy prescriptions for behavior, or (generally) patriarchal/authoritarian organizations; and, thus, 'religion' simply comes down to 'being nice'... WHO is 'against' all the better aspects of religion which encourage people to be nicer to their brothers and sisters ? but i don't think that has a thing to do with dog almighty, that is what REGULAR PEOPLE (90% - 99% of us) DO, with or without 'religion'...

(are there any xtians/religionistas in jail for 'sinning'/lawbreaking ? are all agnostics/atheists in jail because they simply can't keep themselves from 'sinning'/lawbreaking without an invisible-cloud-being to scare them ? i recall some stats recently where xtian fundie-types had MORE divorces, MORE infidelities, etc than non-believers... how can that be ? ? ? *snicker* gee, sorry for being such a meany-weaney atheist... *snicker*squared*)

3. on a personal level, i don't give a shit what religionistas believe; on a societal level, it is both insane and INIMICABLE to society when ALL OF US are affected by idiotic laws/etc DRIVEN BY religionistas and their phoney politicians... i also think it is similarly insane that cult-bidnesses (you call them churches) -which are con games- are not taxed as everyone else is... religionistas get a FREE RIDE, and EVERYBODY ELSE (of other 'minor' religions or atheists) HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT, whether we want to or not... (which THEY are attempting to compound by having ME pay for THEIR religious schooling through vouchers, etc ! ! !)

yeah, that makes me mad...

(dog damn ! why couldn't i be a cynical hack like l ron hubbard/joseph smith/etc and make up my own stupid fucking religion so i can shear stupid sheeples ! ! !)

4. IF po' wittle religionistas are so persecuted, WHY IS IT that self-identified agnostics/atheists hardly dare mention their non-belief in public due to the 'normal' reaction of tsk-tsking religionistas and the -yes- prejudice atheists CONSTANTLY suffer ? if po' wittle religionistas are such a beleaguered group, WHY IS IT that unbelievers are virtually UNELECTABLE in this nominally secular (if not 'heathen') nation ? ? ?

5. for the catholics in today's studio audience: do you REALLY believe (as i'm told all 'good' catholics must) that when you take communion, the mogen david and saltines REALLY transmorgify into the blood/flesh of jesus h. christ ? ? ? really ? no, i mean REALLY, you do REALLY believe that ? okay, then why hasn't some enterprising catholic either upchucked or surgically removed said blood/flesh of christ, and then cloned him ? ? ? seems like just another method for the second coming, what's the big deal...

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

eof

1. words have meaning ONLY in that the preponderance of nekkid ape's USAGE gives them CONTEXT and meaning...

2. dictionaries ONLY RECORD the common usage and 'meaning' up to that point, they DON'T ORIGINATE the meanings...

3. denotation/connotation can/does change/mutate (even sometimes end up 180 degrees from 'original' meaning; see: cleave/cleave) from USAGE, NOT FROM dictionaries proclaiming it so...

4. yes, i too have heard mon mere and jeune fils talk about 'poofing' up hair (especially back in the day when teased hair was a more common occurrence)...

5. further, it is not uncommon to hear someone talk about their hair was 'poofy' from taking a nap or from a hat, whatever, and it has NEVER had any 'faggot'/gay connotation that i heard...

6. just because a (insert harp glissando here) revered dictionary DOES NOT have a word in it, doesn't mean the word doesn't exist, or isn't in use, or doesn't have an alternative 'definition'; dictionaries -by their nature!- are ALWAYS lagging behind common parlance and usage...

c'mon, you are just a teensy bit oversensitive about this, and -not that it matters that much- wrong about how people -in general- may use the word poofy/poofed up to legitimately (and accurately) describe a universal hair condition...

NOT THAT it isn't like noonan and ilk to use sly slights and slurs to denigrate (and that *probably* was her intention), but the word itself is not illegitimately used to accurately describe a common human bean condition...

more parasitic blogging later, kampers; including a stirring defense of bloodlust in service to preserving democratic ideals ! ! !

kids, collect all the parasitic blogs in the series !

play catch ! invent games !

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

eof