================================================ Subject: Re: FINE From: "Debbi" To: Date: Sat 17 Nov 2001 22:15:32 -0800 ================================================ Sorry, my grammar parser imploded. You're delusional if you think that someone with a child is automatically assumed to have married biological parents. Of course, I have no idea what you wrote so I had to guess. -----Original Message----- From: Creed Discussion List [mailto:CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM] On Behalf Of Creed - 7M3 - Live Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:16 PM To: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM Subject: Re: FINE It is customary to assume that a person that is carrying around a son. Is a person that is married. Just as it is customary that a man with unmatched socks is single. What secret messages in the post are you not comprehending? So what you are saying is that it is a rare thing to see a married man. Who is also a father. But being 2001, instead of 1957. It is not a valid assumption that Scott is married. Jim Debbi wrote: >Well, I guess it depends on who's doing the "considering", doesn't it? >The baby was conceived and born in wedlock. Lots of "religious" people >split up or divorce. You're still not making much of a point. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Creed - 7M3 - Live [mailto:creed7m3live@columbus.rr.com] >Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 9:49 PM >To: Debbi >Cc: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM >Subject: Re: FINE > > >I was born in 59. But that fact aside. Sporting a child and being >considered a religious band usually makes one think of a wife and >child. > >IMO. > >Jim > >To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, >visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp > To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp