Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnnyguitar

Fundamentalist Christian in Amphetamine Fuelled Gay Sex Scandal

Recommended Posts

Which reminds me that we've lost the entire point of this thread, which was to take the right royal piss out of the hypocritical bum-bandit, Ted Haggard.

Is that the correct use of a hyphen? Or should there be one between 'right' and 'royal'? I suspect there might just be a comma.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurred to me with hindsight that "bum-sex" doesn't really work in this context as, strictly speaking, turd-burglary is not an exclusively homosexual practice. For the sake of accuracy and, (by way of happy coincidence), upping our hyphen-quotient, the phrase "male-on-male bum-action scandal" might prove adequate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurred to me with hindsight that "bum-sex" doesn't really work in this context as, strictly speaking, turd-burglary is not an exclusively homosexual practice. For the sake of accuracy and, (by way of happy coincidence), upping our hyphen-quotient, the phrase "male-on-male bum-action scandal" might prove adequate.
Hmmm...interesting. Leaving aside the tautological concept of viewing 'bum-sex' with hindsight (is there another way?) and ignoring the oxymoronic use of 'coining' someone else's phrase...
"the beast with two backs", to coin a Spenserian colloquialism).

I do feel you may have, indeed, a point. Quite which way it's pointing... is another question.

I know I am on somewhat dodgy ground when deriding someone's legitimate right to express their sexuality with another consenting adult (or, indeed, paid employee....in this case) and the form of their congress should be of complete indifference to me. Similarly, whilst illegal in most states, the use of stimulant drugs to enhance the pleasure of said act should not, in itself, attract my opprobrium. Neither the act of fudge pushery, nor the use of illegal substances have any bearing on Ted's right to an opinion on the tenability of evolutionary theory....so, he is not really a hypocrite at all.

He's still a twat though!

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know what it means. The "joke" was about his focus and determination. And no, it wasn't a knock on anybody currently in that field.

just in case (because misunderstandings tend to happen a lot around here,) I wasn't offended or anything like that, I just didn't understand the relevance of what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am on somewhat dodgy ground when deriding someone's legitimate right to express their sexuality with another consenting adult (or, indeed, paid employee....in this case) and the form of their congress should be of complete indifference to me. Similarly, whilst illegal in most states, the use of stimulant drugs to enhance the pleasure of said act should not, in itself, attract my opprobrium. Neither the act of fudge pushery, nor the use of illegal substances have any bearing on Ted's right to an opinion on the tenability of evolutionary theory....so, he is not really a hypocrite at all.

He's still a twat though!

;)

Surely "fudge pushery" should be hyphenated? Do you never learn??? :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets better. Apparently one of his fellow Pastors (Pastor Mark Driscoll)in the church has said that Pastor's wives have a tendancy to 'let themselves go a bit' after they marry (and have five of their children) and they feel so secure, once they've snagged a Pastor, that they get a bit lazy....so, it's her fault then.

The Lord really does move in mysterious ways... :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 seconds is what guys do best.

Rachel and B-F - 'twas a bad joke, as evidenced by the forthcoming explanation. If you (being B-F) applied yourself to curing cancer with the same passion that you do in curing grammatical errors...Good times. Anyhoo...

And Rachel, I didn't think you were offended. I just figured I'd put a disclaimer in there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...interesting. Leaving aside the tautological concept of viewing 'bum-sex' with hindsight (is there another way?)....

I think I know what you mean, but realistically bum-sex could be viewed with foresight, (e.g if one were planning ahead).... or wide-eyed anticipation, even...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×