1
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / THX KIM!
« on: April 28, 2004, 06:48:00 PM »
YOU GOT THAT FACE OFF THE IST PAGE OFTHE SITE!! Thank you ;o)
Christy
Christy
Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / >>>>>>>>>>>I HAD A DREAM
« on: February 27, 2004, 11:43:00 AM »
Sorry dude :smile:
3
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: February 22, 2004, 11:54:00 PM »
Kathy -
CONGRATS AGAIN! Sooo cool to see the pix! Here is a fun email from my mom to me (she is a WAY liberal minister) - some biblical quotes on the institution of marraige!
Christy J
Subject: In defense of Biblical marriage
>
> The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the
> President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of
> marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any
>
> forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word
>
> and His standards will be honored by our government."
>
> Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action.
> So
> here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed
> Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical
> principles:
>
> A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man
>
> and one or more women.
> (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
>
> B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition
>
> to his wife or wives.
> (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
>
> C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
> the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.
> Deut 22:13-21)
>
> D. Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden.
> (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh
> 10:30)
>
> E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
> constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
> construed
> to permit divorce.
> (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
>
> F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
> widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
> not
> give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise
> punished in a manner to be determined by law.
> (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
>
> G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it
> is
> required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he
> had
> previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming
>
> with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you
> are
> female.
> (Gen 19:31-36)
>
>
> Posted at Protestants for the Common Good
> "cgn@thecommongood.org
CONGRATS AGAIN! Sooo cool to see the pix! Here is a fun email from my mom to me (she is a WAY liberal minister) - some biblical quotes on the institution of marraige!
Christy J
Subject: In defense of Biblical marriage
>
> The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the
> President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of
> marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any
>
> forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word
>
> and His standards will be honored by our government."
>
> Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action.
> So
> here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed
> Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical
> principles:
>
> A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man
>
> and one or more women.
> (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
>
> B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition
>
> to his wife or wives.
> (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
>
> C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
> the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.
> Deut 22:13-21)
>
> D. Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden.
> (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh
> 10:30)
>
> E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
> constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
> construed
> to permit divorce.
> (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
>
> F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
> widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
> not
> give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise
> punished in a manner to be determined by law.
> (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
>
> G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it
> is
> required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he
> had
> previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming
>
> with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you
> are
> female.
> (Gen 19:31-36)
>
>
> Posted at Protestants for the Common Good
> "cgn@thecommongood.org
4
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / I am so creative in these dreams!
« on: February 14, 2004, 12:54:00 PM »
I know many (or all?) of us have them - but sometimes I just wake up flabberghasted that its been over 15 yrs and once in a while I get them nutty dreams! I think it is cuz I noticed a few days ago on the 12th that I went in 19 yrs a go ( a hard date to forget!)
Anyway, me and my fine self (in my dreams) escaped via helicopters - rafts on the river, holes in bathrooms - it was one of those never ending dreams - that my parents had tried to put me BACK in - now - but it was a traveling program - weird.
Have a nice day.
Christy
Anyway, me and my fine self (in my dreams) escaped via helicopters - rafts on the river, holes in bathrooms - it was one of those never ending dreams - that my parents had tried to put me BACK in - now - but it was a traveling program - weird.
Have a nice day.
Christy
5
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: February 07, 2004, 01:53:00 PM »
Why am I still single? Dunno. Too picky, wrong choices, hard to meet men in thirties when your girlfriends are all married & home with their kids... who knows. I do know I am real serious about waiting till I am sure. I am dating, but nothing has really stuck in a while.
Dating ex-kids-kids. Now there's a topic for therapy! With Joel. I think it was so deeply tied into "losing him" b/c of "them" a decade before - and it sent me down a road I maybe needed to go to tie up some unfinished stuff. It certainly is a choice I regret. With Craig, that was pure optomism - probably for both of us - at the time, thinking it all seemed to make sense & seeing what we wanted to see in each other. We really are not compatible. I am certainly quite OVER the dating ex-kid-kids. More deeply, I think those choices when I was younger had a lot to do with the closeness I felt to those I went thru that with - and how hard its been since to feel 100% "gotten" by men I've men. Its all tied up in the insanity of the long lasting effects of good ole KIDS, I can assure you that.
Thanks for asking & the kind words.
PS - If you saw where I live now - in nowheresville PA (a career move) - you would wonder much less how I could have trouble meeting men!!!! :wink:
Dating ex-kids-kids. Now there's a topic for therapy! With Joel. I think it was so deeply tied into "losing him" b/c of "them" a decade before - and it sent me down a road I maybe needed to go to tie up some unfinished stuff. It certainly is a choice I regret. With Craig, that was pure optomism - probably for both of us - at the time, thinking it all seemed to make sense & seeing what we wanted to see in each other. We really are not compatible. I am certainly quite OVER the dating ex-kid-kids. More deeply, I think those choices when I was younger had a lot to do with the closeness I felt to those I went thru that with - and how hard its been since to feel 100% "gotten" by men I've men. Its all tied up in the insanity of the long lasting effects of good ole KIDS, I can assure you that.
Thanks for asking & the kind words.
PS - If you saw where I live now - in nowheresville PA (a career move) - you would wonder much less how I could have trouble meeting men!!!! :wink:
6
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: February 05, 2004, 11:39:00 PM »
PS -
AND... If it wasn't a friendly joke - at this point - all I can say to ANON is BITE ME :razz: and all your interest in MY "emptiness", ironically implies you have a bit of your own. Whatever. If I am helping you feel superior - enjoy!
AND... If it wasn't a friendly joke - at this point - all I can say to ANON is BITE ME :razz: and all your interest in MY "emptiness", ironically implies you have a bit of your own. Whatever. If I am helping you feel superior - enjoy!
7
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: February 05, 2004, 11:35:00 PM »
I will take that as a friendly joke - and it made me smile! Thanks for the support guys. I guess you can't be liked by everyone. And for the record - my life is like most I know - busy, up & down, rewarding and yes, sometimes not so much "empty", but lonely! I am not ashamed to admit that! Single in your 30's brings a range of emotions. I just think its a shame YOU (anon) find joy in announcing you"suspicion" (like a good little upper phaser) of my possible greif! Odd.
8
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: February 02, 2004, 10:39:00 PM »
And if someone here suffers from emptiness, (what a CRIME!) you wish them, what? More of it? NICE. You all turned out soooo well, spitefull & arrogant pr&cks. Wow. You all are sooo above me. For keeping in touch. For being there for Lulu. For giving a sh*t about Mrs. LeBlanc. NICE.
9
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: February 02, 2004, 10:34:00 PM »
Wow! Do you all just wait for someone to bash? We go thru this hell together, yet you love to find fault. That's really too bad.
Christy
Christy
10
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: January 28, 2004, 11:00:00 PM »
Unfortunately, it was not an act. Or it became a real deal b/c of KIDS, who knows. He suffers from a the experience more than just PTSD. He is living in AZ I think. In a very different kind of place. He could use all of our prayers, I think. His Mom speaks with him and yet doesn't know how to help him. He is weary of the meds he needs b/c of KIDS.
11
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: January 28, 2004, 10:59:00 PM »
She is happily remarried and in touch with both of her children. At the trial it was painful to see how KIDS has brought so much pain to her family.
12
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: January 28, 2004, 10:57:00 PM »
Unfortunately, it was not an act. Or it became a real deal b/c of KIDS, who knows. He suffers from a the experience more than just PTSD. He is living in AZ I think. In a very different kind of place. He could use all of our prayers, I think. His Mom speaks with him and yet doesn't know how to help him. He is weary of the meds he needs b/c of KIDS.
13
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: January 27, 2004, 10:19:00 PM »
I was talking to Mrs. LeBlanc & we were laughing at how Todd & Chris could get under staff's skin sooo well.
Anyone know about Chris?
Christy
Anyone know about Chris?
Christy
14
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Anticipating New Baby
« on: January 18, 2004, 08:01:00 PM »
It was such a pleasure getting to see you two last summer. I am very happy for you. Best wishes,
Christy
new email: christylynn1@comcast.net :grin:
Christy
new email: christylynn1@comcast.net :grin:
15
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / What about Ruthie!
« on: January 05, 2004, 10:45:00 PM »
I always thought she was fake, full of herself & b/c she played the compassion card - even MORE FOS than her freak-show husband
Saw her in court though - will say she is aging ok. She was meek in her deposition, which was amusing
She really blew their cover - but not as well as Jeff Stallings exposed them for what they were & are
Saw her in court though - will say she is aging ok. She was meek in her deposition, which was amusing
She really blew their cover - but not as well as Jeff Stallings exposed them for what they were & are