If that photo is 'not' Roger as so claimed, why then is he going to the
effort of having it removed?
A previous poster was right about Roger in that the more vehement the
denial, the more veracity there is to the accusation.

This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.



"Stagger Lee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:26:52 +0200 (CEST), Secwet Woger Swaggart wrote:
:
: To make it appear to sound like something it wasn't intended to
: do.
:
: He quotes 1 Corinthians 11:14, but fails to mention (as usual
: his sloppy, biased "research" is like him, flawed) that Chapter

Here's a fuller quote: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that,
if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have
long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a
covering."

That's not hard to understand at all, Woger, and yet you seem to be
having difficulties with the ideas that St. Paul tried to convey in
his letter. The quote is not out of context at all, unless failing to
quote the whole New Testament is the context which you seek.

Also, the original Greek text used the word "ATIMA" when describing
long hair. That word can be translated as "shameful" or "vile,"
where vile refers to the offensiveness of a dead body. In fact, "atima"
is used in the latter way in several other biblical passages.

So it is likely that Paul would have thought that your hair reminded
him of the unseemliness and offensiveness of a dead body

We, on the other hand, know that it only smells that way.

===

Ezekiel:
http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/7...8mq08033of.jpg

(Image restored after Woger had it removed. Not Woger, eh?)