Sex

Its a silly question radio, as well you know. The answer to my question is, 'nothing' - Einstein was never mentioned. Wu Li on the other hand, is a philosophy of life and as Sex is a importent function of life radio, Wu Li has its own mind set in how to Chanel Biological instinct, rather than suppress it. Which takes us right back to Juds question.

errrr....John..... Author: John (---.cmbg.cable.ntl.com) Date: 01-17-05 19:21 Bigger dosn't mean more mass missi. Very small objects can have great mass and so more energy yield per M^2

Wot was his question?

That was a response to missi radio. Not part of the general subject. I assumed that any way.

Hence why my response was simply 'no' It was you who brought Einstein in to it radio, not me. >Mass has no energy unless it's in motion< Remember?

For me Jude this is a human rights issue. For an employer to require people to give up something that is an entirely NATURAL not to say ESSENTIAL part of life, before they can work for them is to my way of thinking a GROSS abuse of the employee's human rights and an unacceptable intrusion into private matters over which an employer should have no jurisdiction.

I know, but somehow, these all got intertwined together....I was getting confused...rita has changed the way I'm thinking.

the word employer is incorect. This is a vocation not a career move...the life and vows are chosen freely

Well i suppose your friend is right radio.. We are all goofy..

Now you see where Sex can get you? Be warned.. Always take precautions!! *Tty's out Ely's theory*

Milton, your argument has the depth of a cats water bowl.

Thank you Radio. I've seen some DEEP cat water bowls in my time, so I'll take that as an expression of support. Jude, being a doctor is also a vocation but the NHS as the employer would not be allowed to place such an INHUMANE restriction on those who chose that vocation. I am a Christian, you may be interested to know, but even I recognise that churches often overstep the mark, and this for me is a CLEAR example of that. A church is still an employer and should be bound by basic human rights and workers' rights considerations. Denying a key group of its workers a sex life is to my mind a GROTESQUE VIOLATION of those rights by the church, and an abuse of its power over the faithful. At the very least it should give its workers a choice in the matter.

Transparent et sans poids, raisonneur sans mérite.

It is an interesting view Milton. The Church's position remains essentially what it was at the Council of Trent. Celibacy is not an essential element of priesthood (in other words there could be a priesthood which is not celibate), but it is considered as an important part of priesthood, and a sign of the priest's commitment to be free to serve God and his people. Married former anglicans can be priests, but consecrated celibacy is different.

Pretentious, moi?

In case of confusion, that last contribution of mine was a reference to radio's post and not to Jude's.

I know, I'm being a pain in the ass....you're argument still lacks gravity. Nothing personal.

look out Denver...Ely will insist on the Queen's version which is "Arse" (pronounced "aaaahhhhrse") as in "Oh Philip do be quiet and stop talking out of your royal arse."

depends on the occasion kick his ASS! get your ASS over here! but then again... pain in the ARSE! you ARSE hole! hmmm, nice ARSE!

The only people that say "arse" over here are Brits that fled England.

She got the flight!