I've restricted myself to much shorter posts in an attempt to keep me from going on long rants about how everyone is dumb and to keep my interest up.
Author Archive for Zennalathas
So...I kind of up and moved on to a different blog location 'cause it's prettier and I'm a sucker for that kind of thing. If you're still interested in what I have to say about things then you can still find me here: CLICK ME
I've restricted myself to much shorter posts in an attempt to keep me from going on long rants about how everyone is dumb and to keep my interest up.
I've restricted myself to much shorter posts in an attempt to keep me from going on long rants about how everyone is dumb and to keep my interest up.
So...I kind of up and moved on to a different blog location 'cause it's prettier and I'm a sucker for that kind of thing. If you're still interested in what I have to say about things then you can still find me here: CLICK ME
I've restricted myself to much shorter posts in an attempt to keep me from going on long rants about how everyone is dumb and to keep my interest up.
I've restricted myself to much shorter posts in an attempt to keep me from going on long rants about how everyone is dumb and to keep my interest up.
The more I hear about crap like this: Fight Club Musical rumours, the more I have to ask myself:
Why the fuck would you want to a copy of a great piece of art by removing the good acting, the great budgets and the grotesque violence? WHY?!
Plays are dead. Deal with it and write for TV.
-Zennalathas
Why the fuck would you want to a copy of a great piece of art by removing the good acting, the great budgets and the grotesque violence? WHY?!
Plays are dead. Deal with it and write for TV.
-Zennalathas
The more I hear about crap like this: Fight Club Musical rumours, the more I have to ask myself:
Why the fuck would you want to a copy of a great piece of art by removing the good acting, the great budgets and the grotesque violence? WHY?!
Plays are dead. Deal with it and write for TV.
-Zennalathas
Why the fuck would you want to a copy of a great piece of art by removing the good acting, the great budgets and the grotesque violence? WHY?!
Plays are dead. Deal with it and write for TV.
-Zennalathas
I was reading this cute little article on the ten reasons why women convert to Islam, and almost made it through the tenth without breaking out into laughter...almost...
Apologists have to begin to realize that regardless of what these millenia(s) old books say in relation to one another, the modern day practices and interpretations differ greatly from the actual, literal readings. If everyone read and believed these books to be 100% literal in every sense of the word, the world be a radically different place.
Leviticus 21:17-36 outlines how the church cannot allow a deformed person to worship yahweh with the others. is that practiced nowadays? No! Even the most literal, fundamentalist nutjobs don't kick people out who cannot walk, or need classes, or are infertile, etc.
Religions everywhere have evolved into ugly retarded fish-frog versions of themselves, and to compare what one said 1500 years ago to what the other said 1500 years ago is NOT a comparision of the religion at all.
Oh ya: Islam totally disrespects bitches, yo. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to drive-by shoot the thesis' premise.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky. There have been Muslim Women Presidents through out the centuries, but to this date, the oppressive mentality of the men in the Western U.S.A. has stopped any Women from becoming Presidents in predominately Christian countries, while the Muslim countries have voted for and elected Female Presidents.Chron.commons | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Apologists have to begin to realize that regardless of what these millenia(s) old books say in relation to one another, the modern day practices and interpretations differ greatly from the actual, literal readings. If everyone read and believed these books to be 100% literal in every sense of the word, the world be a radically different place.
Leviticus 21:17-36 outlines how the church cannot allow a deformed person to worship yahweh with the others. is that practiced nowadays? No! Even the most literal, fundamentalist nutjobs don't kick people out who cannot walk, or need classes, or are infertile, etc.
Religions everywhere have evolved into ugly retarded fish-frog versions of themselves, and to compare what one said 1500 years ago to what the other said 1500 years ago is NOT a comparision of the religion at all.
Oh ya: Islam totally disrespects bitches, yo. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to drive-by shoot the thesis' premise.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
I was reading this cute little article on the ten reasons why women convert to Islam, and almost made it through the tenth without breaking out into laughter...almost...
Apologists have to begin to realize that regardless of what these millenia(s) old books say in relation to one another, the modern day practices and interpretations differ greatly from the actual, literal readings. If everyone read and believed these books to be 100% literal in every sense of the word, the world be a radically different place.
Leviticus 21:17-36 outlines how the church cannot allow a deformed person to worship yahweh with the others. is that practiced nowadays? No! Even the most literal, fundamentalist nutjobs don't kick people out who cannot walk, or need classes, or are infertile, etc.
Religions everywhere have evolved into ugly retarded fish-frog versions of themselves, and to compare what one said 1500 years ago to what the other said 1500 years ago is NOT a comparision of the religion at all.
Oh ya: Islam totally disrespects bitches, yo. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to drive-by shoot the thesis' premise.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
10. Islam has unconfined Women and has given them the human right to reach for the sky. There have been Muslim Women Presidents through out the centuries, but to this date, the oppressive mentality of the men in the Western U.S.A. has stopped any Women from becoming Presidents in predominately Christian countries, while the Muslim countries have voted for and elected Female Presidents.Chron.commons | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Apologists have to begin to realize that regardless of what these millenia(s) old books say in relation to one another, the modern day practices and interpretations differ greatly from the actual, literal readings. If everyone read and believed these books to be 100% literal in every sense of the word, the world be a radically different place.
Leviticus 21:17-36 outlines how the church cannot allow a deformed person to worship yahweh with the others. is that practiced nowadays? No! Even the most literal, fundamentalist nutjobs don't kick people out who cannot walk, or need classes, or are infertile, etc.
Religions everywhere have evolved into ugly retarded fish-frog versions of themselves, and to compare what one said 1500 years ago to what the other said 1500 years ago is NOT a comparision of the religion at all.
Oh ya: Islam totally disrespects bitches, yo. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to drive-by shoot the thesis' premise.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
So, I figured it was about time to get off my ass and get back to blogging. I had a nice little rough patch this month with school, but now I have time to get back to what matters: the sin overhaul.
I have to say, I think the Pope has made a few nice little revisions, and I'm now an even bigger sinner than before:
It's now well known that major music distributors do not end up dolling our royalty payments. So, buying from these corporations is really just supporting Financial Gluttony, and just plain not taking a stand for a great social injustice! Moreover, these gaint corporations inflate the costs of CDs and DVDs to such ridiculous amounts that audiophiles are chased into poverty - see: STARVING STUDENTS!
Therefore, downloading music and movies off of the internet illegally is not only morally justified, but doing otherwise is sending you to hell! Quickly, download µTorrent, hit up Torrentz, and start saving your soul!
It's good to know that the Pope is still spewing out proverbial fuck-yous.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
I have to say, I think the Pope has made a few nice little revisions, and I'm now an even bigger sinner than before:
1 - Genetic ModificationSo...if we have the ability to alter a child's genetics to he/she doesn't come out with Down's Syndrome, we shouldn't use it? God created us in his image right? I'm assuming god doesn't have Down's, so I don't see the theological problem here...
2 - Experimentation on HumansSo, we're not allowed to perform a single act that's "morally debatable"? Well shit; it's not like abortions, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, aspirin, pain killers, Viagra, psychological studies, nano-technology, etc has or ever will help anyone, right?
3 - PollutingWe totally needed god to tell us this. Stfu Al Gore. Besides, if god really liked the environment, he'd go out into the forest and live in a log!
4 - Social injusticeOkay, so here's where I think the Pope is endorsing something really, really funny, because if we his take his word for what the fuck is good in this world, look at all the iconoclastic things we can justify:
5 - Causing Poverty
6 - Financial Gluttony
It's now well known that major music distributors do not end up dolling our royalty payments. So, buying from these corporations is really just supporting Financial Gluttony, and just plain not taking a stand for a great social injustice! Moreover, these gaint corporations inflate the costs of CDs and DVDs to such ridiculous amounts that audiophiles are chased into poverty - see: STARVING STUDENTS!
Therefore, downloading music and movies off of the internet illegally is not only morally justified, but doing otherwise is sending you to hell! Quickly, download µTorrent, hit up Torrentz, and start saving your soul!
7 - Taking DrugsSo, I'm on Seroquel XR to help deal with a Panic Disorder and Agorophobia, and I'm going to hell for it? You're right, Pope, I should just sit back and enjoy the way god made me: fucking crazy.
It's good to know that the Pope is still spewing out proverbial fuck-yous.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
So, I figured it was about time to get off my ass and get back to blogging. I had a nice little rough patch this month with school, but now I have time to get back to what matters: the sin overhaul.
I have to say, I think the Pope has made a few nice little revisions, and I'm now an even bigger sinner than before:
It's now well known that major music distributors do not end up dolling our royalty payments. So, buying from these corporations is really just supporting Financial Gluttony, and just plain not taking a stand for a great social injustice! Moreover, these gaint corporations inflate the costs of CDs and DVDs to such ridiculous amounts that audiophiles are chased into poverty - see: STARVING STUDENTS!
Therefore, downloading music and movies off of the internet illegally is not only morally justified, but doing otherwise is sending you to hell! Quickly, download µTorrent, hit up Torrentz, and start saving your soul!
It's good to know that the Pope is still spewing out proverbial fuck-yous.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
I have to say, I think the Pope has made a few nice little revisions, and I'm now an even bigger sinner than before:
1 - Genetic ModificationSo...if we have the ability to alter a child's genetics to he/she doesn't come out with Down's Syndrome, we shouldn't use it? God created us in his image right? I'm assuming god doesn't have Down's, so I don't see the theological problem here...
2 - Experimentation on HumansSo, we're not allowed to perform a single act that's "morally debatable"? Well shit; it's not like abortions, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, aspirin, pain killers, Viagra, psychological studies, nano-technology, etc has or ever will help anyone, right?
3 - PollutingWe totally needed god to tell us this. Stfu Al Gore. Besides, if god really liked the environment, he'd go out into the forest and live in a log!
4 - Social injusticeOkay, so here's where I think the Pope is endorsing something really, really funny, because if we his take his word for what the fuck is good in this world, look at all the iconoclastic things we can justify:
5 - Causing Poverty
6 - Financial Gluttony
It's now well known that major music distributors do not end up dolling our royalty payments. So, buying from these corporations is really just supporting Financial Gluttony, and just plain not taking a stand for a great social injustice! Moreover, these gaint corporations inflate the costs of CDs and DVDs to such ridiculous amounts that audiophiles are chased into poverty - see: STARVING STUDENTS!
Therefore, downloading music and movies off of the internet illegally is not only morally justified, but doing otherwise is sending you to hell! Quickly, download µTorrent, hit up Torrentz, and start saving your soul!
7 - Taking DrugsSo, I'm on Seroquel XR to help deal with a Panic Disorder and Agorophobia, and I'm going to hell for it? You're right, Pope, I should just sit back and enjoy the way god made me: fucking crazy.
It's good to know that the Pope is still spewing out proverbial fuck-yous.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday dear MEEEeee
Happy BIRTHday tooooooooo ME!
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday dear MEEEeee
Happy BIRTHday tooooooooo ME!
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday dear MEEEeee
Happy BIRTHday tooooooooo ME!
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Happy Birthday to ME
Happy Birthday dear MEEEeee
Happy BIRTHday tooooooooo ME!
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
This is the best and most ridiculous comment I've read all day...I mean, all three hours of this day...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!
Types of slavery? Really? I think this blogger's forgotten something: SLAVERY IS SLAVERY!
The Old Testament allowed for the enslaving "conquered enemies", according to the blogger, and then claims that American slave traders were simply kidnappers? He seems to have completely forgotten the 1800s and all the little wars Europe fought to "conquer" Africa. Africans were very much a conquered people. The West just didn't really give enough of a crap about the human beings to force them into non-autonomous roles.
Conversely the Bible's version of slavery was meant for a man who might "sell" himself to another to pay off a debt. But that person is not a slave. That's a servant. That's why we have these wonderful words that describe similar, but different things. They're similar, but different.
The blogger then quotes Roman slave practices without realizing that Roman society was established in such a way LONG before the Bible was babbled out.
I could keep picking the post apart, but I just laughed out loud at my quoted sentence, and suggest to not bother with the rest of the piece, since it simply tries to affirm that:
Of course, there'd have to be truth there for that argument to apply. It's simply ludicrous to think that the truth system is valid if both sides are using the same source to support opposing arguments. It'd be like Creationism using Evolution's evidence to prove itself correct and Evolution incorrect...
Oh wait...that's what happens...and, hold on...isn't Creationism blatantly false? Heh, irony.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
I would like to say that in no instance does the Bible ever endorse or ever support the type of slavery that was forced upon African Americans in the United States.chron.Commons Blog | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!
Types of slavery? Really? I think this blogger's forgotten something: SLAVERY IS SLAVERY!
The Old Testament allowed for the enslaving "conquered enemies", according to the blogger, and then claims that American slave traders were simply kidnappers? He seems to have completely forgotten the 1800s and all the little wars Europe fought to "conquer" Africa. Africans were very much a conquered people. The West just didn't really give enough of a crap about the human beings to force them into non-autonomous roles.
Conversely the Bible's version of slavery was meant for a man who might "sell" himself to another to pay off a debt. But that person is not a slave. That's a servant. That's why we have these wonderful words that describe similar, but different things. They're similar, but different.
The blogger then quotes Roman slave practices without realizing that Roman society was established in such a way LONG before the Bible was babbled out.
I could keep picking the post apart, but I just laughed out loud at my quoted sentence, and suggest to not bother with the rest of the piece, since it simply tries to affirm that:
One should not determine that validity of a truth system by the level of its abuse.Let's remember that atheists don't attack the truth system, but the "truth" itself. But, even under the assumption that there is some sort of truth hiding beneath the disgusting rubbish called religion, the statement does not hold up. Let's play a little game of analogous comparison:
One should not determine that validity of a justice system by the level of its abuse.Well, if a justice system consistently was misused to entrap innocent people, then it would be invalid, and it would be replaced. (I realize some people may jump down my throat for assuming that modern justice systems ARE indeed in need of replacement. To you I say: they don't consistently fuck up, so suck it up. It'll get better as time goes on. Give it some time.) Even assuming truth in the religious text of the Bible, the fact that it so often is misused to distort the truth proves its invalidity, and it ought to be replaced with a system that does not allow for such errors.
Of course, there'd have to be truth there for that argument to apply. It's simply ludicrous to think that the truth system is valid if both sides are using the same source to support opposing arguments. It'd be like Creationism using Evolution's evidence to prove itself correct and Evolution incorrect...
Oh wait...that's what happens...and, hold on...isn't Creationism blatantly false? Heh, irony.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
This is the best and most ridiculous comment I've read all day...I mean, all three hours of this day...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!
Types of slavery? Really? I think this blogger's forgotten something: SLAVERY IS SLAVERY!
The Old Testament allowed for the enslaving "conquered enemies", according to the blogger, and then claims that American slave traders were simply kidnappers? He seems to have completely forgotten the 1800s and all the little wars Europe fought to "conquer" Africa. Africans were very much a conquered people. The West just didn't really give enough of a crap about the human beings to force them into non-autonomous roles.
Conversely the Bible's version of slavery was meant for a man who might "sell" himself to another to pay off a debt. But that person is not a slave. That's a servant. That's why we have these wonderful words that describe similar, but different things. They're similar, but different.
The blogger then quotes Roman slave practices without realizing that Roman society was established in such a way LONG before the Bible was babbled out.
I could keep picking the post apart, but I just laughed out loud at my quoted sentence, and suggest to not bother with the rest of the piece, since it simply tries to affirm that:
Of course, there'd have to be truth there for that argument to apply. It's simply ludicrous to think that the truth system is valid if both sides are using the same source to support opposing arguments. It'd be like Creationism using Evolution's evidence to prove itself correct and Evolution incorrect...
Oh wait...that's what happens...and, hold on...isn't Creationism blatantly false? Heh, irony.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
I would like to say that in no instance does the Bible ever endorse or ever support the type of slavery that was forced upon African Americans in the United States.chron.Commons Blog | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!
Types of slavery? Really? I think this blogger's forgotten something: SLAVERY IS SLAVERY!
The Old Testament allowed for the enslaving "conquered enemies", according to the blogger, and then claims that American slave traders were simply kidnappers? He seems to have completely forgotten the 1800s and all the little wars Europe fought to "conquer" Africa. Africans were very much a conquered people. The West just didn't really give enough of a crap about the human beings to force them into non-autonomous roles.
Conversely the Bible's version of slavery was meant for a man who might "sell" himself to another to pay off a debt. But that person is not a slave. That's a servant. That's why we have these wonderful words that describe similar, but different things. They're similar, but different.
The blogger then quotes Roman slave practices without realizing that Roman society was established in such a way LONG before the Bible was babbled out.
I could keep picking the post apart, but I just laughed out loud at my quoted sentence, and suggest to not bother with the rest of the piece, since it simply tries to affirm that:
One should not determine that validity of a truth system by the level of its abuse.Let's remember that atheists don't attack the truth system, but the "truth" itself. But, even under the assumption that there is some sort of truth hiding beneath the disgusting rubbish called religion, the statement does not hold up. Let's play a little game of analogous comparison:
One should not determine that validity of a justice system by the level of its abuse.Well, if a justice system consistently was misused to entrap innocent people, then it would be invalid, and it would be replaced. (I realize some people may jump down my throat for assuming that modern justice systems ARE indeed in need of replacement. To you I say: they don't consistently fuck up, so suck it up. It'll get better as time goes on. Give it some time.) Even assuming truth in the religious text of the Bible, the fact that it so often is misused to distort the truth proves its invalidity, and it ought to be replaced with a system that does not allow for such errors.
Of course, there'd have to be truth there for that argument to apply. It's simply ludicrous to think that the truth system is valid if both sides are using the same source to support opposing arguments. It'd be like Creationism using Evolution's evidence to prove itself correct and Evolution incorrect...
Oh wait...that's what happens...and, hold on...isn't Creationism blatantly false? Heh, irony.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
This is an outrage! How dare the military not let the troops read this brilliant blog!
What if one of my two readers volunteers?! US Military: think about what you're doing to my reading base!
Okay, on a more serious note: What's the reasoning behind this? Are troops going to hit up the internet, read a blog, and suddenly regret their decision to be in Iraq? We can only hope so! That's half the point of "freedom of expression"! You have to have other people's expressed opinions and pieces available so that other people can see it, read it and evaluate the content, thus opening them up to an opportunity to changes their preexisting opinions/notions.
Censorship isn't appropriate in any situation. What are they afraid is going to happen: a huge morale loss?
Regardless of how necessary the soldiers are to the war, removing any ridiculously improbable means through which they might lose faith in the war is unnacceptable. They have to want to be there, and they have to be able to decide that for themselves.
They are not conscripts being forced into a conflict. The military hierarchy has to respect that their decision to join the war effort is sincere, and (I hope) informed. More information shouldn't change the opinion of someone with such a resolve, and the military shouldn't be so scared that more information would change their position.
Of course, this is all a little rant about the little word: should.
Now, another reason, which I admit is a lot more reasonable, is that if they allowed the troops to access blogs, comment, or even post their own blog threads, they'll leak out secrets. But, seriously, the Air Force fucks up enough at their own official site to really warrant much concern from troops who are less-in-the-know, and the military protocols require each outward transmission to be approved before it can be sent. So...seriously...what's the problem?
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Air Force Blocks Access to Many Blogs | Danger Room from Wired.com
What if one of my two readers volunteers?! US Military: think about what you're doing to my reading base!
Okay, on a more serious note: What's the reasoning behind this? Are troops going to hit up the internet, read a blog, and suddenly regret their decision to be in Iraq? We can only hope so! That's half the point of "freedom of expression"! You have to have other people's expressed opinions and pieces available so that other people can see it, read it and evaluate the content, thus opening them up to an opportunity to changes their preexisting opinions/notions.
Censorship isn't appropriate in any situation. What are they afraid is going to happen: a huge morale loss?
Regardless of how necessary the soldiers are to the war, removing any ridiculously improbable means through which they might lose faith in the war is unnacceptable. They have to want to be there, and they have to be able to decide that for themselves.
They are not conscripts being forced into a conflict. The military hierarchy has to respect that their decision to join the war effort is sincere, and (I hope) informed. More information shouldn't change the opinion of someone with such a resolve, and the military shouldn't be so scared that more information would change their position.
Of course, this is all a little rant about the little word: should.
Now, another reason, which I admit is a lot more reasonable, is that if they allowed the troops to access blogs, comment, or even post their own blog threads, they'll leak out secrets. But, seriously, the Air Force fucks up enough at their own official site to really warrant much concern from troops who are less-in-the-know, and the military protocols require each outward transmission to be approved before it can be sent. So...seriously...what's the problem?
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
This is an outrage! How dare the military not let the troops read this brilliant blog!
What if one of my two readers volunteers?! US Military: think about what you're doing to my reading base!
Okay, on a more serious note: What's the reasoning behind this? Are troops going to hit up the internet, read a blog, and suddenly regret their decision to be in Iraq? We can only hope so! That's half the point of "freedom of expression"! You have to have other people's expressed opinions and pieces available so that other people can see it, read it and evaluate the content, thus opening them up to an opportunity to changes their preexisting opinions/notions.
Censorship isn't appropriate in any situation. What are they afraid is going to happen: a huge morale loss?
Regardless of how necessary the soldiers are to the war, removing any ridiculously improbable means through which they might lose faith in the war is unnacceptable. They have to want to be there, and they have to be able to decide that for themselves.
They are not conscripts being forced into a conflict. The military hierarchy has to respect that their decision to join the war effort is sincere, and (I hope) informed. More information shouldn't change the opinion of someone with such a resolve, and the military shouldn't be so scared that more information would change their position.
Of course, this is all a little rant about the little word: should.
Now, another reason, which I admit is a lot more reasonable, is that if they allowed the troops to access blogs, comment, or even post their own blog threads, they'll leak out secrets. But, seriously, the Air Force fucks up enough at their own official site to really warrant much concern from troops who are less-in-the-know, and the military protocols require each outward transmission to be approved before it can be sent. So...seriously...what's the problem?
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Air Force Blocks Access to Many Blogs | Danger Room from Wired.com
What if one of my two readers volunteers?! US Military: think about what you're doing to my reading base!
Okay, on a more serious note: What's the reasoning behind this? Are troops going to hit up the internet, read a blog, and suddenly regret their decision to be in Iraq? We can only hope so! That's half the point of "freedom of expression"! You have to have other people's expressed opinions and pieces available so that other people can see it, read it and evaluate the content, thus opening them up to an opportunity to changes their preexisting opinions/notions.
Censorship isn't appropriate in any situation. What are they afraid is going to happen: a huge morale loss?
Regardless of how necessary the soldiers are to the war, removing any ridiculously improbable means through which they might lose faith in the war is unnacceptable. They have to want to be there, and they have to be able to decide that for themselves.
They are not conscripts being forced into a conflict. The military hierarchy has to respect that their decision to join the war effort is sincere, and (I hope) informed. More information shouldn't change the opinion of someone with such a resolve, and the military shouldn't be so scared that more information would change their position.
Of course, this is all a little rant about the little word: should.
Now, another reason, which I admit is a lot more reasonable, is that if they allowed the troops to access blogs, comment, or even post their own blog threads, they'll leak out secrets. But, seriously, the Air Force fucks up enough at their own official site to really warrant much concern from troops who are less-in-the-know, and the military protocols require each outward transmission to be approved before it can be sent. So...seriously...what's the problem?
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
Golly gosh gee, Mary and Joseph. Look at this hick-tastic comic I came across. It's praise-the-Lord funny:
Must...resist...lude joke about...sexual...repression...
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Believe Out Loud | HoustonBelief
Must...resist...lude joke about...sexual...repression...
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
Golly gosh gee, Mary and Joseph. Look at this hick-tastic comic I came across. It's praise-the-Lord funny:
Must...resist...lude joke about...sexual...repression...
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Believe Out Loud | HoustonBelief
Must...resist...lude joke about...sexual...repression...
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
