10 Jan '13 11:20>
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes the 60's.
" 60's"?
That time between the 50's and the 70's.
The decade in which the long and as yet incomplete journey towards women's equality really got going.
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd yet you support and believe in a religion who's holy book says outright that women
No kidding.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd frankly, you do not know what you are talking about.
And yet you support and believe in a religion who's holy book says outright that women
are inferior to men and that they are, can and should be, the property of men.
You support and promote a religion that is not only not helping women's rights, it is actively
fighting against them.
You are supporting part of the problem.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbychicks dig kilts and poetry
[b]What Women Want In a Man (An Analogy)
Truth be known, women want only one significant package in a man: A man who has the integrity of character to be trustworthy; the strength
and sensitivity to cradle her body, her life, her soul; and the strength to bring it off. Same questions we should be asking in the spiritual realm.
.[/b]
Originally posted by SuzianneNo I know exactly what I am talking about.
And frankly, you do not know what you are talking about.
My church's Presiding Bishop is a woman, and so is my local priest.
The Episcopal Church offers more support for women's rights than most Christian denominations, including such topics as abortion and birth control.
Obvious assumption-making is obvious.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou say that Suzianne is oppressing women and standing in the way of equality simply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok to believe in the god of the bible.
No I know exactly what I am talking about.
I mean it's great that your church is less backwards ass than (lets say) RJHinds one is.
But that's not saying much.
The fact that your version of Christianity might be better on this topic than many/most
other versions doesn't make your version actually good on this topic.
Good and bad are not rel ply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok
to believe in the god of the bible.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, I can see how you think your argument is valid, but you still err.
No I know exactly what I am talking about.
I mean it's great that your church is less backwards ass than (lets say) RJHinds one is.
But that's not saying much.
The fact that your version of Christianity might be better on this topic than many/most
other versions doesn't make your version actually good on this topic.
Good and bad are not rel ply by being a Christian and saying that it's ok
to believe in the god of the bible.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf they do, I don't hear them. 🙂...50's and the 70's...
What, these don't scream at you?
Originally posted by SuzianneOh I'm fine with the apostrophe on the left, in fact I find it rather soothing. It's probably some sort of mental illness. I actually feel a little bit nauseated when I see a grocer's apostrophe.
If they do, I don't hear them. 🙂
Actually, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Manual_of_Style uses a single s after numbers represented as figures. 70s, 60s, 50s.
You learn something new every day, but I still say this is confusing because such usage could mean 70 seconds, etc.
Although the case could also be made for this style: '70s, '60s, '50s (for years only).