Wednesday, June 13, 2012

ASA adjudication on the Coalition for Marriage Ltd


In the troubling case of Sundry Anonymous vs. Coalition for Marriage Ltd, the ASA finds the defendant 'Not Guilty'. The timing is good, for today is the last chance to express an opinion to HM Government in the matter of their decision to redefine the institution of marriage (click ad up right). Here is the judgment report in its entirety:

ASA Adjudication on Coalition For Marriage Ltd
Date: 13 June 2012
Media: Internet (display), Magazine, National press
Sector: Non-commercial
Number of complaints: 26
Complaint Ref: A12-192907

Four ads for the campaigning group Coalition for Marriage:

a. A press ad, seen in Country Life Magazine, featured photos of couples on their wedding day. The ad stated "’I do’ 70% of people* say keep marriage as it is. We agree: politicians should not be meddling with one of our great national institutions. 190,000 people have signed our petition in favour of keeping the definition of marriage unchanged. Whilst fully recognising the rights and views of others, we're asking you to support us. If you want to keep the true meaning of marriage as it is, and has been for thousands of years, say ‘I do’ - by signing our petition at PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION visit today ... Coalition for Marriage". Small print stated "(*Source: ComRes poll for Catholic Voices)".

b. The ad was the same as ad (a), and was seen in the Daily Telegraph.

c. An online ad, seen on the blog of 'Archbishop Cranmer', featured photos of couples on their wedding day on the first frame. The second frame stated "I do". The third frame stated "70% of people* say keep marriage as it is ... (Source: ComRes poll for Catholic Voices)". The final frame stated "Help us keep the true meaning of marriage. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Click here ... Coalition for Marriage".

d. The ad was the same as ad (c), and was seen on blog of 'Guido Fawkes'.


1. Twenty-four complainants challenged whether the claim "70% of people say keep marriage as it is" in ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) was misleading and could be substantiated.

2. Eleven complainants objected that ads (a) and (c) were offensive.

3. Three complainants objected that ad (a) was misleading, as they did not believe it made clear that the aim of the online petition was to oppose same sex marriage. CAP Code (Edition 12)


1. Coalition for Marriage said the poll on which the claim was based was carried out by ComRes, who were a well-known and reputable polling company used by many sources. They said the poll asked whether "marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman". They provided a link to the full poll results, and said they did not believe it was misleading to base the claim "70% of people say keep marriage as it is" on the answer to this question. They pointed out that the question referred to "continue" and "defined" and said these meant the question related to whether the definition of marriage should be kept as it is, and not widened. They said the existence of other polls on the issue of gay marriage were not relevant, and that readers were free to make up their own mind about the opinions behind the polling figures. They pointed out that the ads stated clearly the source for the polling figure and that the poll was commissioned by Catholic Voices.

2. Coalition for Marriage did not believe the ads contained anything that was likely to cause offence. They said that pictures of happy couples on their wedding day appeared regularly in the media, and that the rest of the ad merely contained further information about their campaign. They said the aim of the ad, and their campaign, was to defend the definition of marriage enshrined in UK law as it had existed for hundreds of years. They believed those complaining were intolerant of opposing views. They believed the ads were an upbeat, warm-hearted presentation that simply endorsed the longstanding, globally accepted legal definition of marriage.

Country Life said their magazine covered a diverse range of subjects and they were not afraid to put forward a point of view or encourage debate. They said they accepted ad (a) because, in their opinion, it was simply an organisation's point of view and in theory no different to any other campaigning ad, about which there would always be differing opinions. They said they had received a small number of complaints from people who felt the ad was offensive but did not believe all had been from people who were actually readers. They said it was not their intention to cause offence and they welcomed all readers, whatever their point of view.

'Archbishop Cranmer' did not believe that ad (c) would be seen as offensive or homophobic. He pointed out that it merely featured pictures of photos of couples on their wedding day and a quotation from the marriage liturgy, and did not believe any rational or reasonable person would find this offensive.

3. Coalition for Marriage did not believe the ad was likely to mislead readers as to the purpose of the petition. They believed that asking people to sign to show their support for the current legal definition of marriage explicitly signalled objection to same sex marriage. They believed anyone signing the petition would be aware of the current political debate around marriage. They also pointed out that the ads directed people to their website to sign the petition, and that more information about their campaign and the current political debate about same sex marriage was available there.


1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that Coalition for Marriage based the claim "70% of people say keep marriage as it is" on a poll carried out by ComRes for Catholic Voices, and this was clearly stated in the ads. The question asked in the poll was whether respondents agreed with the statement "Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman" and 70% said they did. The poll related to an online panel of 2004 people, and the data had been weighted to be representative of the general population. Although some complainants believed the claim made in the ads was misleading because it did not reflect the results of other polls on the issue of same sex marriage, we considered the claim accurately represented the responses received to the poll conducted by ComRes and that the source for the claim was sufficiently prominent to ensure that those viewing the ad would be aware that it referred to the results of that poll only. Most people would expect polls relating to matters of opinion to lead to differing results depending on the exact wording of the question and the context in which it was asked. Also, the ad stated on which poll the claim was based and who had commissioned it. Finally, the poll was publically available on the ComRes website. We concluded that the claim was not misleading,

On this point we investigated ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainants believed that ads (a) and (c) were offensive as they considered them to be homophobic. However, the ads focused on the current legal definition of marriage and its history. We considered that, although some people might disagree with the advertisers' opinions on the matter of same sex marriage, the ads in themselves did not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld

The ad appeared in the context of a high-profile public debate around the issue of same sex marriage. We considered that readers seeing the ad would infer from the references to keeping marriage "as it is" that Coalition for Marriage were opposed to same sex marriage and that this was the purpose of the petition. The petition was on Coalition for Marriage's own website, which contained further information about their campaign. Therefore, we concluded the ad was unlikely to mislead readers about the aim of the online petition.

On this point we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.

Action: No further action necessary.


His Grace is pondering whether their 'No further action necessary' accords with his own judgment. For a response has been received to the FoI request concerning Lord Smith's shifting declarations of interest, for it appeared as though his had been amended specifically at the time that the complaint against the Coalition for Marriage was brought in order to disclose that he was Vice President of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality. On 23rd May, the following was sent to the ASA:
Dear Advertising Standards Authority,

This is a follow-up to my previous request for a copy of the Council Members' Register of Interests, which you provided very promptly and for which I thank you.

I note that all of the entries, except one, are dated March 2012 and either show "no change", were updated on that date or were new on that date. The exception is the entry for Chris Smith, which is dated May 2012.

Please could you, therefore, let me know what has changed on Chris Smith's entry since March.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Goodge
On 6th June, they made the following response:
Dear Mark

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry about the delay in responding to you.
Further to your query, all ASA Council members and the Chairman update their Register of Interests on an annual basis. They can be updated at any point, however. We do not keep a record of what was added when, we just ask that Council and the Chairman keep them in order.

Kind regards

Matt Wilson
Advertising Standards Authority
His Grace finds this disingenuous, if not deceitful. Is the ASA really saying, in the 21st century, that they have no means of knowing what a document contained prior to an update? If amendments are made by means of paper forms, there will be an audit trail. If they are carried out online, there will be electronic footprints. If changes are made by email correspondence, these are easily traceable. It is, frankly, inconceivable that the ASA do not know what Lord Smith's declarations were prior to May 2012, not least because he himself must know what changes he made. Unless, of course, they have something to hide...


Blogger Naomi King said...

Well done Your Grace !

13 June 2012 at 10:06  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

A small victory for commonsense, but none the less a great testament to YG's sterling efforts and tenacity.

However and sadly, the record of this event will no doubt be lost as the unaccountable QUANGOs like the ASA continue to crush British traditions and culture further into the stodgy mush of menacing multiculturalism.

13 June 2012 at 10:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And all paid for from the public purse! 24 so called 'offended people' complain and all this paper-work and hot-air. From and organisation overseen by a chief executive with political and personal leanings in favour of the offended and on a nice litttle earner of £120k pa - yes, more than the Prime Minister.

Close the ASA down!

13 June 2012 at 10:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dreadnaught, ASA is not a quango it's a limited company. ASA Ltd's name is misleading in that the word 'Authority' implies some form of official standing. There is none, quite pythonesque.

Unaccountable? Most definitely.

13 June 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

ASA is not a quango it's a limited company

Even worser!

13 June 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger bluedog said...

A fine victory, Your Grace, and importantly the principle of freedom of speech was upheld thanks to your efforts.

The battle for marriage has moved to centre stage of course. Your communicant suspects that the electorate is well behind the debate and a long period of education of the risks will be required. One wonders if C4M might not widen it's campaign to protect children from being forced to learn about the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, it seems that children may be forced to learn that same sex marriage is both right and good, against the wishes of the children's parents. A great evil is being forced upon families.

Time to deal with these homosexual initiatives on the basis of zero tolerance.

13 June 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Even worseR"

Worse is the comparative to bad but 'Worst' is the superlative!

Comparative degree is used when you compare two things...and superlative is used when you use it as an absolute expression.

It's a non word, bit like 'moral atheist'! ;-O

E S Blofeld

13 June 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger Joe Daniels said...

FINALLY! Congratulations on your victory - it must be a weight off your head.

13 June 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


"It's a non word, bit like 'moral atheist'! ;-O"

That's two words!

13 June 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

In rejecting the complaint, the ASA tacitly assumes the right to judge the ad in the first place. Since this is a political ad, their response should have been "We have no jurisdiction." This response allows them to expand their reach even as they bury the controversy. Who knows what will happen with the next such case?


13 June 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

ASA conclusion:

"Action: No further action necessary."

Oh, I can think of all sorts of future that are necessary!

My recent resolution to attempt to curtail my tendency to be abusive prevents me from listing them.

13 June 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Flossie said...

A victory for common sense indeed. God bless Crannie for his tenacity.

I do think (like bluedog) that the scope of the whole gay marriage debate needs to be widened. I read a lot of blogs, and it is quite obvious that supporters of GM simply haven't thought it through. There is lots of talk of 'love' and 'commitment' but this is all very juvenile. I can understand this from people who identify as gay, as they don't generally have a vested interest in the future - the nation's children.

People don't like to think too much about gay sex, because it is pretty revolting, but they must be made to think about it, as they can be sure that their children will. If gay marriage is to be given equal moral standing, so must sex education. It is no good telling kids that sodomy (amongst other things) is dangerous and they shouldn't do it, because this immediately begs the question 'then why are people who do this kind of thing given equal moral standing?'

It is high time some of these practices were exposed. I have been banging on about this for years. I read articles in the press about parents being outraged at pop videos and high street stores sexualising children, and I think 'you ain't seen nothin' yet'.
Just wait until the Terrence Higgins Trust gets into your children's schools (it already is in some schools) with the vile material on their website just a mouse click away.

13 June 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And I'm only doing this to help prevent carl from drinking too much American beer (an oxymoron?)and ending up on the streets. Calvinists are afterall such fragile creatures.

13 June 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed, Flossie @ 12.13.

There is a very fine line between 'education' and grooming where homosexuality is concerned.

One can imagine a specialised flying squad of educators (all gay) visiting schools to lecture on homosexuality and SSM. No questions permitted, of course. The net effect will be that impressionable minds are left with the idea that succumbing to the advances of a homosexual predator is risk free.

13 June 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

If I may address this latest example of blatant Anti-Americanism. Not all American beer is bad. OK, maybe most American beer is completely undrinkable. Even so, a few brands are downright ... almost tolerable. Anyways, I was once inspired by watching 'Inspector Morse' to buy some Bass Ale. Much too bitter.

who prefers Sapporo

13 June 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger Flossie said...

Bluedog, it is already happening. Terrence Higgins Trust were given a substantial grant (of our money!) to do just that! What is more, this is endorsed by the NHS, no less. I have seen copies of handouts with logos of both the THT and NHS. Any enterprising child can go onto the site and access this material.

I can assure all parents that they will NOT think this is okay for their children to see, or for their schools to be endorsing.

Please read this letter to an MP, which goes into much more detail about what is on this website. I wrote a similar letter to my own MP some time ago, but as a supporter of gay marriage he has not replied - I shouldn't think he knows what to say.

It is high time the mainstream media got hold of this stuff so people will understand all the ramifications of gay marriage. They might not be so keen to support it then.

13 June 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Probably the only conclusion they could come to but they should never have taken it to this level with all the inconvenience that it caused.
Well done to get that off your shoulders.

13 June 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

'It's a non word, bit like 'moral atheist'! ;-O'

1. As the bird-dog said.

2. Regarding your grammatical tut - it was purely intentional as a passing humourous aside to dumbed-down Britain and the antics of the ASA.

But anyway, when has the record of the Church ever stood the test of moral consistency and rectitude? Of course a person can be atheist and hold what you term 'moral' or moral comparatives. Atheists as you should well know, are not an homogenous group who have to rely the herd mentality of religion or on often contradictory passages from some dubious book of hearsay, to justify their existence and actions.

It wasn't so long ago that the Christian Church condoned absolution for cash, slavery, public hanging and child marriages. No wonder Christianity is rapidly loosing ground to Islam - Islam does what it says in the book and Christians open their arms to include Muslims as ones of their own!

Christian morality - my Arse.

13 June 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Atheists as you should well know, are not an homogenous group who have to rely the herd mentality of religion or on often contradictory passages from some dubious book of hearsay, to justify their existence and actions.

That's right. They justify their actions the old-fashioned way - by assertion of will. The Will to Power. What, after all, but your own ipse dixit tells you that slavery and or any other action you might care to mention is wrong? How ironic that you must assert objective moral categories in order to judge when your world view precludes the existence of objective moral categories.


13 June 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Flossie @ 12.52 - the stuff of nightmares.

13 June 2012 at 14:01  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...



13 June 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace


I have news of a second front opening up in cyberspace.

massresistance is an American website that defends, family, faith and freedom.

It has been shut down on the basis of complaints to its ISP server by those who support ‘garage’ (I understand that this is now the latest and trendiest term to use about the new institution to be established by law).

13 June 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


You have no answer to carl other than "NUTS? At best you are amoral and at worst immoral.

Of course atheists depend on their own "passages" and what pours forth from them.

13 June 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger David B said...

It is indeed a victory for common sense, and to His Grace's tenacity.

The ASA, in my view, should confine itself to preventing ads that are false or seemingly deliberately misleading.

To a number of communicants I would make the point that we need do not need absolute values in order to make value judgements, any more than one needs absolute knowledge in order to know things well enough.

No-one can absolutely disprove solipsism or last thursdayism, but no-one has any trouble dismissing them for all practical terms.

Similarly with morals - we don't need absolute, objective morality to judge that slavery is bad.

David B

13 June 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger William said...

David B

Or indeed to judge that slavery is good.

13 June 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger William said...

As in you also don't need objective morality to judge that slavery is good do you? You can work it out for yourselves can't you?

13 June 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Flossie said...

I would like to elaborate a little, if I may, about D Singh's post about MassResistance.

This is, or was, a website charting the fallout from gay marriage in Massachussetts in 2004. Gay activists have managed to get the web host to pull the website. Australian theologian and Culture Watcher Bill Muehlenberg has a good handle on this - the link is here, but I will post much of what he says as I don't think people open links.

See next post

13 June 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Flossie said...

One concerned father, Brian Camenker, was so appalled by all this that he wrote up the very real results. While his entire article deserves careful reading, I here offer large slabs of it. This is vitally important information which everyone needs to be aware of. Here is what this concerned Massachusetts father has to say about how the public schools have been impacted by all this:

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision. At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

13 June 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Flossie said...


Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe! In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state. It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.


13 June 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Flossie said...

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

He also examines how business has been adversely affected by all this:
-All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc. Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
-The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
-Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality”.

After examining a number of other key areas which have been impacted by this, he concludes with these words: Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun. It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.

And to the rest of the world: you’ve been forewarned.

13 June 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Flossie said...

Your Grace, I am sorry to have hijacked your blog post like this, but I felt it important that people should know that the website which produced the above was bullied out of existence by gay activists - which could well happen to Your Grace, as I am sure you are aware.

13 June 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

For Your Grace's present advance: Congratulations. And Deo Gratias.

13 June 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Chilling stuff, what ! “The Thought Police will take no further action against you on this occasion”

That they even considered it, and masqueraded as a body wielding official powers is the real crime here. This organisation needs pillorying and wing clipping. Made an example of, and publically humiliated, its CEO shamed !

There. That’s all the Inspector wishes to say on the matter…

13 June 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Flossie. Have visited Higgins site. Found plenty of information on disease. Makes one wonder how much sick gay men cost this country in treatment costs, and whether they should be denied that treatment at a cost to the public purse. Let them die out naturally, as nature has made it clear that’s how she would like it. Sterile beasts, so they are. They’re hardly necessary for the future. Even a ‘luxury’ in these hard times, if you will.

Burn the corpses. Don’t want a future Tony Robinson digging the bastards up and catching HIV or gonorrhoea from them…

Now you’ve got to hand it to Mother Nature. What a superb job she’s done to get us to this point, man’s interfering not withstanding. We should be extremely cautious to go against her. She too sees gay men as an abomination, not very PC, so what are the gay organisations going to do about it ?

How about ‘Gay Defiance’ marches. That should do it.

heh heh

13 June 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "As in you also don't need objective morality to judge that slavery is good do you? You can work it out for yourselves can't you?"

I wouldn't fancy getting snatched off the street when I was minding my own business and forced to work for the sole benefit of another person. I doubt many people would, you know. Isn't that the starting point of some shared ethics about it right there?

13 June 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger IanCad said...

OIG @ 18:06

"Your Grace. Chilling stuff, what ! “The Thought Police will take no further action against you on this occasion”

Sometimes, Mr. Inspector, you get it absolutely right.

13 June 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"I wouldn't fancy getting snatched off the street when I was minding my own business and forced to work for the sole benefit of another person ... Isn't that the starting point of some shared ethics about it right there?"

What? The 'Golden Rule'? Based on the radical idea we are all equal because we are all made in God's image? Now, who was it that taught us this objective, absolute moral standard?

"And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner."

13 June 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The notion of recipocity hardly just came into being 2000 years ago in the Middle East.

13 June 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Your Grace, Your victory should be only the initial skirmish in the battle. You have rightly pointed out the conflict of interest of Chris Smith. He has to go. Please follow up.

13 June 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Flossie said...

Inspector, I can enlighten you there - patients with HIV/AIDS cost the NHS a lifetime average of £300,000 - the most serious cases upto £48,000 per annum. That is beside the point, though - I think obesity, smoking and drinking cost much more.

What is the point is that obesity, smoking and drinking are actively discouraged, being harmful {and expensive}. Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust have vast amounts of public money thrown at them, and the net result has been the doubling of new cases of HIV in the past ten years.

Money well spent? I don't think so. And a quick inspection of the THT website shows why. Their publications, available online, 'Below the Belt' and 'The Bottom Line' are instruction manuals on how to carry out various homosexual activities (safely, of course!!) and include details of gay hookup sites.

13 June 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger William said...


You seem to be saying that it's possible to bootstrap onto a morality system based on a system of shared ethics and come to the conclusion that slavery is bad. But it's also possible to do something similar and come to the opposite conclusion. Are your shared ethics consistent across cultures? Across time? Does it matter?

13 June 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Flossie. obesity, smoking and drinking cost much more.

Good news there, old gal. Smokers and drinkers through excise duty pay for their treatment many times over. The obese are a good job creation scheme for those in the industry of death and for architects designing even bigger crematoria. You see, they don’t have to wait until they are old aged.

Hmmm. Inspector has idea. Let’s tax ‘body lube’ (...heavily advertised on the Higgins site, I can tell you...) which enables sodomy to take place. What do you think ?

13 June 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said...
"The notion of recipocity hardly just came into being 2000 years ago in the Middle East."

The Golden Rule is not reciprocity. That is an exchange and requires equal power. It requires nothing in return. It is an absolute standard regardless of the actions of others.

And Christians believe it was implanted in the conscience of man and didn't just evolve. It is expressed in very many world religions, including early Judaic writing, although not with the clarity Christ gave it.

13 June 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

For example, it rules out "social engineering", your favoured modus operandi.

13 June 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger David B said...

William, the Bible endorses slavery, and was used by many people over hundreds of years to justify it.


13 June 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And Christians believe it was implanted in the conscience of man and didn't just evolve."


There are many and various weird beliefs around.

13 June 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Public Information Notice

The blogger using the moniker DanJ0 has disclosed he uses the deceptive and manipulative tactics of cyber "social engineering". Of course he does so "ethically" and for the good of the victim.

"Social engineering ... is ... the art of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential information. While it is similar to a confidence trick or simple fraud, it is typically trickery or deception for the purpose of information gathering, fraud, or computer system access.

"Social engineering" as an act of psychological manipulation had previously been associated with the social sciences, but its usage has caught on among computer professionals."

13 June 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

From past experience, there'll be a couple of weeks of the sort of stuff above until his sense of humilation subsides. Sorry.

13 June 2012 at 21:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just doesn't wash anymore DanJ0.

13 June 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Let's see now:

"(Disclosing my name was) ... just my handing out some rope and inviting you to hang yourself again ... It's called a 'social engineering' attack in unethical hands."

It was intended to generate alarm.

"I was hoping you'd deny it. (Googling your name.) If you did that then I'd obviously show that you were lying previously. (I have denied it - categorigally.) If you did the intrusion outrage thing ... I'd show that I did no such thing afterall. (But you did. You published my name.) Either way, it's a win-win. It's forum chess, Dodo."

Forum chess! Social engineering! Manipulation! I think this reveals your basic moves on this site and your character.

13 June 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said Mr Dodo @ 22.20.

All communicants owe Mr DanJO a vote of thanks for showing us the real character, the viciousness, venality, and amorality of the atheist homosexual mindest. The end justifies the means and whatever it takes are Mr DanJO's working assumptions. It is Mr DanJO, not us, who is worthy of his own sneering contempt.

Let Zero Tolerance be our motto.

13 June 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Thank you. Your support is very much appreciated.

13 June 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Updated Public Announcement

I have now researched our friend DanJ0. Not to gain personal information on him to use in future debates. There will be none of those. No. I sought a greater insight into him andhis motives triggered by his apparent alarm that I might already know something about him.

I make no accusations, just consider what I have learned:

- He posts on the Guardian website and has done so for some time.

- His comments, in the main, are concerned with commercial matters. Things like sales in shops, Tesco products and bargains; investment opportunities; planning old age pensions; buying one's house; mortgage protection insurance; the high risk of redundancy.

- He says very little.

Now, and again I make no accusations, just reflect on what he has openly revealed on here:

- He describes himself as a very well paid, flexibly employed "engineer".

- He is knowledgable, passionate even, about internet security.

- He appears to know all about internet "social engineering attacks" and how to manipulate people.

Put this together and draw your own conclusions.

13 June 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It is completely unethical to reveal a person's identity when the person has assumed an anonymous persona. It is always done in a threatening manner,and out of spite and rancour. I have been visiting this site and commenting for a number of years ( with long lapses)and I must say the nature of the site has changed and not for the better. And yes, with another identity.There were strong differences of opinion in the past but it was never reduced to the gutter level and prurience that seems to dominate this blog now.There are only a few communicant survivors from those times and I am sure they notice the the change as well.
Revealing identities in my opinion is really the last straw.

14 June 2012 at 01:58  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo's real name is, allegedly: Ernestine Troutfoot, Spinster of Gourock, nr Glasgow. Minor convictions for: i. theft of undergarments from a washing-line. ii. driving a 'mobility scooter' whilst inebriated. iii. practicing taxidermy without a accredited licence.

Miss Troutfoot has also received a Police Caution: for the misappropriation of a 2 kilo bag of ''Flea-be-Gone'' from the shop premises of Mr. Dhavarinda Rupparratagee. B.A. Calcutta (Failed), of Gourock.

Neighbours have reported ''stange smells and effluvia'' emanating from Miss Troutfoot's garage. This matter is currently under investigation by the Gourock Board of Public Sanitation. 'Samples' are currently undergoing analysis at Dounreay.

14 June 2012 at 03:30  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Well Oswin, I do hope that you believe Dodo is an unattached female since you were very keen to squeeze and kiss him on more than one occasion ( and something I have never been able to forgive you for.)Fantasising about Miss Ernestine Troutfoot is no excuse when you already have Miss Scarlet de Borgia.

I, on the other hand am convinced that he is an alpha male.There are undeniable strong whiffs of testosterone seeping through the text .Something I'm all too familiar with.I do not wish to know what kind of taxidermic practices
occur on his property but I do believe his has a Christian licence to perform these accomplished feats.
Mr Rupparratagee is paying you a visit tomorrow. I can't imagine why!

14 June 2012 at 04:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "It is completely unethical to reveal a person's identity when the person has assumed an anonymous persona."

I agree.

In my case, I simply called him Peter of course, a name he said was his own here on this site some time ago.

I'll let you get back to the sound and light show now. It's quite something to behold! :)

14 June 2012 at 05:51  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I love a show. My other soubriquets are Fairy Moans, Courtney Act and Barbra Seville.What can I simply call you? I like Alfonse ou Marcel.Danjo is not bad for a Japanese name.

14 June 2012 at 06:13  
Blogger len said...

What`s in a name?.

My name is len, I don`t care who knows it.

The REAL name people should be concerned about is Jesus.

14 June 2012 at 08:17  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

len could you lighten up a bit? You sound like one of those dreary apostles who make Jesus sound like a complete misfit. I blame the translators. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ,len.
To be the son of God Jesus would have had to have been an endearing
sweet fun charismatic sort of person. He should be your role model.Start working on it! I tell you this out of kindness.

14 June 2012 at 08:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"I'll let you get back to the sound and light show now. It's quite something to behold!"

Will wait for that with bated breath. There must be a manual somewhere advising on how to respond when a "social engineering attack" back fires?

14 June 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Reciprocity = Golden Rule.

(Positive form): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. example

Matthew 7:12

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Jesus.

(Negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. example “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” Confucius

Confucius vs Jesus : Who established the true golden rule?

According to the Gospel of Luke (10:29-37) a traveller (who may or may not be Jewish, it could be any race, is beaten, robbed, and left half dead along the road. First a priest and then a Levite come by, but both avoid the man. Finally, a Samaritan comes by. Samaritans and Jews generally despised each other, but the Samaritan helps the injured man. Jesus is described as telling the parable in response to a question regarding the identity of the "neighbour" which Leviticus 19:18 says should be loved.

Silver rule; Do not go kick the man injured by the side of the road as he has suffered enough, least you find yourself in this situation. Just do not do him any further harm!

Golden Rule; Do not walk away from the man by the side of the road least you find yourself in this situation. Go and do him actual good as it could be you lying there.!!

"The notion of reciprocity hardly just came into being 2000 years ago in the Middle East." Nonsense!

Ernst S Blofeld

14 June 2012 at 14:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Well said, that man!

As if Christ was a modern day liberal. It is one of the fundamental attributes placed in our hearts (used metaphorically, in case len is listening) by our Creator and so wonderfully taught and extended by Jesus to everyone we encounter.

Does it apply to blogging?

What do evolutionists offer? The 'selfish gene'; the idea of 'reciprocity' - or as you have called it the 'Silver Rule'.

14 June 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len said...

"What`s in a name?

Afraid you're missing the point, again!

Who cares if people know my Christian is Peter?

Read the outline I have given on DanJ0's basic blogging strategy as evidenced in his manipulative use of this information - "forum chess" and "social engineering attack". Then consider the background I have provided on him, his blogging and stated employment.

It's not about a name!

14 June 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear Bird

The problem with modern liberal thinking.

We present moral rules as we think they should be interpreted and then give and take by means of argument both objective and subjective, until we arrive at a compromise. But what authority do we have to compromise, are the rules of our own imagining/making and enforcement or are they supernaturally supplanted within us. What is conscience, so that even a child knows wrong from right?

Theft. Is it only a theft if the item taken has personal meaning to the owner.

To steal from a shop is reasonably acceptable as the person taking had needs and the item had no personal value to the owner other than a commercial value? They have insurance etc etc.
This is where we are driven but obviously the arguments are a million times more subtle we are being led by the nose with!

Moral Salami slicing until there is nothing left for the believer to believe in anymore.


14 June 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


It is good to be able to agree with you. Moral, more properly, ethical relativism springs from liberalism and is the curse of this generation.

14 June 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida @ 04:23 :

Oh dear, I now wish I'd opted for my second choice of: Merkin Ayres, itinerant 'hedgehog sexer' of no fixed abode.

PS. Would that be Miss 'Scarlatina' de Borgia? (had her in my youth...happy days!)

14 June 2012 at 16:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oswin ...Nah, Miss Ernestine Troutfoot story was a giggler. My Anglican boy thought it was great.

I am not sure it is a good idea broadcasting your affair with the de Borgia girl.This is a religious site and sexual encounters outside of the married state are frowned upon. Although admittedly it was in war time and being holed up in a trench with a Sophia Loren lookalike resistance fighter would probably earn you a dispensation from the Anglican Catholic Church. Just don't mention she was RC.

14 June 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "What can I simply call you? I like Alfonse ou Marcel.Danjo is not bad for a Japanese name."

I quite like the name Marcel, as it goes. Very glam. Point of note though, it's DanJ0 not Danjo. That's Dan for Daniel, capital J, zero. Thinking it is "Danjo" is what got Marie into the same sort of humiliating pickle as Dodo is in now, for much the same sort of reasons.

14 June 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's probably enough squawking, flapping, and feathers flying around already but I have a second point of note. Exhibit one: a mangled quote purported to be by me, including this bit:

"It's called a 'social engineering' attack in unethical hands."

Here's the original:

"It's called a 'social engineering' attack in unethical hands, but luckily my hands are ethical, you should clue yourself up you know."

That sort of 'sexing up', or deception as lots of people might call it, got the Blair government into all sorts of trouble a few years ago.

14 June 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "What is conscience, so that even a child knows wrong from right?"

Very young children don't, though, do they? Their behaviour and emotional responses are largely conditioned. It's when they become self-aware that they start to understand and, I suppose, start to empathise [1]. It's actually a long process right up until the age of about 10 and possibly beyond where they have developed a properly functioning conscience. In fact, if you ask an 8 year old what a suitable punishment is for a crime (appropriate for that age to understand) then the response is often well over the top. They don't seem to appreciate the notion of migitating factors until later.

[1] Key thing, that, for morality I'd say.

14 June 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Is that the recommended tactic for a 'social engineer' - attempt to discredit one's critic and play down one's own actions?

Let's just remind ourselves what a "social engineer" does:

"Social engineering ... is ... the art of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential information. While it is similar to a confidence trick or simple fraud, it is typically trickery or deception for the purpose of information gathering, fraud, or computer system access.

"Social engineering" as an act of psychological manipulation had previously been associated with the social sciences, but its usage has caught on among computer professionals."


How can psychological manipulation and trickery for hidden motives ever be ethical?

Your posts on the Guardian are very informative.

14 June 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

DanJo...It was very unkind announcing that Marie was looking for men on a dating site and you say very sexually offensive and hurtful things about Dodo.If you want a glam 'Marcel' image you have to adopt a more elegant and Proustian approach to these matters.

There is far too much obsession and discussion on this site of homosexual sexual practices.I do not see the point of the constant repetition of some communicants.

Homosexuals are depicted here as depraved animals and you are contributing to that view. As you are representative here of the group I would have thought that you would be more considered in your posts, giving a more favourable impression.On a personal level I resent this enormously as no homosexual I know behaves like this. They are refined and intelligent .Some of these communicants do not know any homosexuals and your representation is really doing them a great disservice.

I think people should be able to strongly diagree with each other without this descent into the mire.
.I am sure you do not behave like this in your real life with your friends.I look forward to your Marcel transformation.

14 June 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 June 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You seem to have left a bit of a mess there, Dodo. ;)

14 June 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova

An insightful comment.

Maybe the communicant to whom you refer deliberately seeks to provoke hostile, angry responses in order to argue opposition to homosexuality is unreasonable, not based on a belief in God but is rooted in hatred and homophobia. All part of forum chess and a social engineer attack

I wouldn't expect a Marcel transformation any time soon. If my suspicions are correct, how would that suit his purposes?

14 June 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "DanJo...It was very unkind announcing that Marie was looking for men on a dating site [...]"

Ah, it's not the first time so she's used to it by now. She has a very thick skin, too, bless her. It all came about from here, about three quarters down. I actually reckon she's gone further than anyone in trying to intrude on private, off-site life. I only wish there was actually a "Danj0" profile on Gaydar featuring a man with an enormous nob as the profile picture when she looked. :)

14 June 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh, and Cressida, I look forward to your insights on just how kind Marie was in that wider dialogue. I was rather restrained, I thought, and fairly droll given the stuff about sex changes.

14 June 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

OK Marie was definitely out of order and I found her commentary most unacceptable.Unfortunately she can only be classified as an extremist as many others are on this site.

You already know that I understand that homosexuality is not a life style choice and I have
sympathy for any child or young person who is bullied or ostracised to the extent of wanting to commit suicide. I am sorry that you went throught this but people in general are cruel and vile and that is why religion is important ,to keep them from being complete monsters.

You were far more restrained in your responses back then and I wish you were like that now.

Don't retaliate blow for blow.Retain your dignity.Actually you are a mine of information about homosexuality and it is a pity that the right questions are not being asked e.g.

In your experience is it the aim of most homosexuals to find that special other and nest. Is fidelity important?

Do homosexuals find demonstrable heterosexual behaviour like kissing etc uncomfortable or offensive?

Do you prefer heterosexual or homosexual company. Apart from sexual orientation do you find any marked differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

14 June 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

My, somebody does keep very organised and informative records to use as and when necessary to demonstrate his innocence and the sheer unreasonableness of others.

Good technique too of dropping in the odd inflamatory remark to fan any possible flame of suspected intolerance.

14 June 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "In your experience is it the aim of most homosexuals to find that special other and nest. Is fidelity important?"

Ah, I can write quite a lot about this but I'll try to keep it short. You need to recognise, I think, that things have changed dramatically in the last 20 years. One massive driver of that change has been the advent of the Internet.

Gay people are no longer isolated. When I was a youngster, there was no obvious way of meeting other gay people socially with a view to forming long-term relationships at some point. Outside places like central London, anyway.

Webpages, social media, and forums have all served to bring people together so that youngsters don't need to feel isolated and alone anymore, and so that ideas and information and experiences can be shared. I can't tell you how important that has been for normalising sexual orientation.

I think most gay men in the past have wanted a long-term partner as they have got older, if only for company. Now, gay teenagers are dating just like straight ones. The process has changed a lot to be more like heterosexual dating. I expect to see gay people in the late 20s and early 30s buying houses together and settling down.

Of course, you have to bear in mind that there's no biological clock ticking in all of this so the imperative is not so strong to try to settle down. However, as more people settle down earlier I think it will become more aspirational to set up a shared home.

The media, especially TV, has helped make people more comfortable with gay people being in the public eye. Most older gay people have been exasperated by the gay stereotypes used in soaps and in programmes like Big Brother. However, that's changing too. Also, people are much more likely to know gay people who identify as such so the reality is becoming more well know.

Gay marriage (I include civil partnerships in that, as well as co-habitation or 'common-law' gay marriage) will encourage fidelity and stability and aspiration, I believe. But bear in mind all this has only been going on for 20 years or so. Internal culture changes slowly, even if laws change rapidly sometimes.

14 June 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "Do homosexuals find demonstrable heterosexual behaviour like kissing etc uncomfortable or offensive?"

I often find 'making out' in public to be distasteful and uncomfortable to see, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Two men kissing affectionately, or a man and a woman kissing in the same way, is fine.

If you go to some South Asian countries, or to places like Morocco, then you will often see young men holding hands. It's not a sexual thing, though some Westerns are surprised or even shocked at the sight.

14 June 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "Do you prefer heterosexual or homosexual company. Apart from sexual orientation do you find any marked differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals."

Most of my friends are heterosexual. My circle of friends is mixed, with a similar proportion of gays to straights as most of the population. Sexual orientation is not that remarkable or significant in my social circle. People are people, you see. Some are left-handed, some have ginger hair, some have a disability; they're just attributes and differences when you are primarily interested in people and personalities. Gay men fall across the spectrum, as I'm sure you know. There are camp ones, alpha males, down-to-earth ones, artistic ones, and so on. Some gay men actually find camp gay men very annoying, and that's the stereotype of course.

14 June 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger len said...

Cressida ,
thanks for your advice.

I will of course totally ignore it.

I am not ashamed of the Gospel or mentioning the name ' Jesus' and will continue to do so, if the name of Jesus offends well that is your problem not mine.

14 June 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dont be ridiculous len. You have completely misunderstood my comment.I did not say the name of Jesus offended me. I said you ought to cultivate a Jesus like of kindness grace and gentle humour. You are so filled with hatred for Catholicism. You are a Christian and you are not supposed to hate anyone. It is the antithesis of Christianity.That goes for your opponents as well.All this brawling between you and the others is really objectionable.

14 June 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger William said...

Cressida de Nova

I like your style - and I haven't even enlarged your avatar yet.

14 June 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger len said...

Cressida, heat... kitchen?.

I am here to defend the Gospel and will do whatever that takes!.

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities but the truth is more important to me that' being polite when people come against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and seek to undermine it. Jesus demands that we are red hot for the Gospel, not wishy washy lukewarm Christians which you would possibly prefer?

I try to keep my comments confined to the Catholic'religious system' not the catholic people (not always easy when being constantly insulted by your Catholic friends)

If people are being polite to me I will reciprocate in like manner but just look at the poison which spews out of your Catholic friends.

14 June 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Cressida - If I may make so bold, you are indeed a breath of fresh air in this fugged up, Old Duffers' Club - and, without prejudice to my own atheism, beg you go easy on young Len, he stoically endures much vitriolic abuse here and has rarely if ever, stooped as low in ad-hominism as the dreadful, scraggy necked Dodo. As much as I don't agree with his beliefs, I would go as far as opining that he generally behaves as I was lead to believe as a child, the way all true Christians should.

One man and his God - if you like :)

14 June 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len
Good evening, weasel.

When did this hatred of Catholicism first arise? Was it part of your upbringing or did it comeafter your conversion to Christianity when you fell under the influence of those weird websites?

You will go blind trying to read the tattoo on the leg of cressida. I should add very quickly that I myself have not tried!

14 June 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger len said...

Cressida, the Biblical truths that I have stated would once have earned me a death sentence and some Christians in the World are suffering exactly that for preaching the Gospel today!

True Christianity will boldly rebuke and hate evil to such a large extent that those who preach the truth will greatly upset those who are evil. Those who preach Biblical truth will suffer persecution as a result, this is an established fact.

Luke 12:51-52
New King James Version (NKJV)
51 Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three.

Biblical Truth offends many... some even within the' World of religion!'.

14 June 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught said ...

" ... the dreadful, scraggy necked Dodo."

You say the sweetest things gorgeous but I am a happily married heterosexual male.

14 June 2012 at 20:29  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Thank you William. I feel as if I am under attack here so your nice comment is very welcome.

len I am not responsible for the behaviour of other Catholics on this site. I am only responsible for my own.

14 June 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger len said...


The' bottom line' for me is the Truth.I have tried to compromise and see others perspective but I cannot keep silent. Jeremiah`s words describe my feelings exactly.

Jeremiah 20:9

But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.

14 June 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

litttle pope len

His prayer:

"God, I thank you, that I am not like the dreadful Inspector and the nasty Dodo, all other Papists, the unrighteous, those not "born again" like me and a few chosen others who have been redeemed and saved. Or even like so many of those calling themselves Christian who are caught up in religion. I am so grateful I am not like other men"

14 June 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

but I am a happily married heterosexual male.

As were 39 Popes (apparently).

14 June 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger William said...


"William You will go blind trying to read the tattoo on the leg of cressida. I should add very quickly that I myself have not tried!"


Dodo while I have your attention, can I put in a plea (along the lines of Dreadnaught's magnanimous comment) that you refrain from using personal abuse with Len - I understand that you feel sorely tried but ...

14 June 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Doddles you have to stop calling len names. When the temptation arises just think


William is a very nice Christian. More along your theological lines. Play nicely with him for a while:)

14 June 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Great work Flossie, you're a star !

14 June 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

No Pope could ever be happily married! Lust and failure in the highest of all vocations can only cause great unhappiness and misery.

Now you must put all thoughts of my "scraggy neck from your mind.

With regard to your request, believe I try! I will renew my efforts its just ...........

What does that tatto on your leg say?

14 June 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It does not say:
God loves a preacher

16 June 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressie, I gathered that much.

16 June 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger len said...

Buzz off duckie?.

16 June 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It does not say:
Hot Rod len

16 June 2012 at 23:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older