On 10/28/2011 12:25 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In g.com>,
> Dave > wrote:
>
>> On 28/10/2011 10:02 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>> The statement was made here more than once that secrecy and *obscurity*
>>> must be maintained to keep undesirable elements out.
>>
>>
>> The cabal??? LMAO.... it is a standing joke.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Wow. You're still not getting it. Oh well. Moving on.
>>
>> No. You are not moving on. You are still whining
>
>> As I pointed it out before, if we were keeping the news to ourselves (we
>> the cabal) then it would not have been immediately posted here.
>
> Yeah, it would have been posted just to the secret Email list.
>
> Oops! I wasn't supposed to mention that, was I?



Ah HAH!!


You know that you have to chew up and swallow the Usenet archives now,
right?

On 28/10/2011 1:25 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>
> It's okay. I had already found YOU you on the group's page. As I said, I
> can get there using the link. I don't understand, however, why the group
> doesn't turn up using the search function.

Curiously, the group shows up for the rest of us.


> <or why that leaves me open to insults>


That is pretty easy to explain. In response to my post about the passing
of Blake you whined that you were not informed. You were informed in a
public message in the RFC group, so you go the same notification that
most everyone else got. You whined that you were not notified on FB, but
you were not a FB friend of Blake's, nor had you signed on to the RFC FB
group. Then you whined that you can't find the R.F.C. On FaceBook group,
but many others were able to do it. Several people told you how and you
continued to whine.


You have continued to whine about secrets being kept from you. Unfounded
thoughts of persecution are a sign of paranoia. We are doing you a
favour by mocking you. That lifts your suspicions from paranoid feelings
of persecution to a more realistic perception that people really are
making fun of you.

On 28/10/2011 1:48 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>
>> Yep... I searched, found and joined that group this morning. Easy as pie
>> for anyone.
>>
>> Except you.
>
>
> It's not coming up using the FACEBOOK SEARCH BAR. Jesus, you are an
> asshole.
>

It is coming up for everyone else. Jesus you are an asshole.

On 28/10/2011 2:19 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 8:43 AM, Bull wrote:
>> In >, Andy > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Surprised you would even show your low life mush for brains face in this
>> thread!
>>
>> BULL
>
> Don't you think that it would be better if these personal attacks were
> transferred to a differently named thread?
>
> De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.
>


I thought about that, but then I figured that Blake would appreciate the
crusade against her paranoid stupidity..... Andy's female alter ego..

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:

> On 10/28/2011 9:20 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> > On 10/27/2011 11:31 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Answers would help.
> >
> > Search for RFC on Facebook.
>
> Thanks for your response. I did just that, and I got a lot of results
> for unrelated pages and groups that also contained RFC in their names,
> but not this group. Varied searches had already revealed some inactive
> page with no members (someone else mentioned having gotten this page,
> too, but I don't remember who it was that posted it). Until I got the
> link last evening, there was no way for me to get to the page at all.
> Even this morning, I still cannot find the page/group with a search.

Very strange. The group is called "RFC on Facebook" -- without the
quotation marks. When I am logged into Facebook and type that in the
search window in the blue bar at the top of the page, it turns up the
group. No clue as to why it doesn't work when you do it.
--
Barb,
http://web.me.com/barbschaller September 5, 2011

On 10/28/2011 12:58 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> That is pretty easy to explain. In response to my post about the passing
> of Blake you whined that you were not informed.

No, I didn't. Read it again, for comprehension this time. Also, I didn't
*whine* about anything.



> You were informed in a
> public message in the RFC group, so you go the same notification that
> most everyone else got.

Understood. Understood it then, too.



> You whined that you were not notified on FB, but
> you were not a FB friend of Blake's, nor had you signed on to the RFC FB
> group.


Nope. I didn't *whine* about not being notified on Facebook, either.
Read it again, for comprehension this time.



> Then you whined that you can't find the R.F.C. On FaceBook group,
> but many others were able to do it. Several people told you how and you
> continued to whine.

Nope. Didn't *whine* about not being able to find it, but was getting
irritated by the evasion and secrecy, then infuriated by some group
members' offers of only insults instead of real assistance. It is
immaterial that others were able to find it readily. After all of the
explorations and diagnostics, it didn't (and still doesn't) come up for
me using the Facebook search. That is the point. Insulting me gets us
nowhere. Being up to date on the status of the conversation, however,
would allow other n.g. members to contribute to this part of this thread
somewhat more constructively. For instance, if you had been up to date,
you would have seen by now that others have had the same trouble.



> You have continued to whine about secrets being kept from you. Unfounded
> thoughts of persecution are a sign of paranoia. We are doing you a
> favour by mocking you. That lifts your suspicions from paranoid feelings
> of persecution to a more realistic perception that people really are
> making fun of you.

What are your qualifications, Doctor? Did you really diagnose me through
newsgroup posts? You're a card, you are!

And were you really making fun of me, with by exercising frequent
reiterations of how unbalanced I am "lift my suspicions... to a more
realistic perception" because the search wasn't turning up the group?
Really? Well, what does that say about you? What a prince!

<face it, prince, you started this off badly right at the beginning...
learn to put a coherent sentence together>

On 10/28/2011 1:03 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 1:48 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yep... I searched, found and joined that group this morning. Easy as pie
>>> for anyone.
>>>
>>> Except you.
>>
>>
>> It's not coming up using the FACEBOOK SEARCH BAR. Jesus, you are an
>> asshole.
>>
>
> It is coming up for everyone else. Jesus you are an asshole.

If you were reading for comprehension, you would have seen by now that
it has not been. Asshole.

On 10/28/2011 1:16 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 2:19 PM, James Silverton wrote:
>> On 10/28/2011 8:43 AM, Bull wrote:
>>> In >, Andy > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Surprised you would even show your low life mush for brains face in this
>>> thread!
>>>
>>> BULL
>>
>> Don't you think that it would be better if these personal attacks were
>> transferred to a differently named thread?
>>
>> De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.
>>
>
>
> I thought about that, but then I figured that Blake would appreciate the
> crusade against her paranoid stupidity..... Andy's female alter ego..

Never mind. I took care of it for ya!

There it is again. Both paranoid and stupid. But I'm enjoying it, Dave,
so you might have to stop.

On 10/28/2011 1:20 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:17:48 -0500, George Leppla wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 12:04 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>> The "more results" takes me to Bing and page after page of everything it
>>> can find that has "RFC" and "Facebook" in its name... except
>>> rec.food.cooking's FB page.
>>>
>>> When I type "RFC," "RFC o," "RFC on," "RFC on Facebook" or "RFC on
>>> FaceBook" into the search bar, nothing happens automatically. I've got
>>> to tell it to start the search.
>>
>> Congratulations... you are officially dumber than a stump. You may be
>> on a Facebook page, but you are typing your search query in your browser
>> search bar, not the Facebook search bar.
>
> That's what it sounds like to me, too. I'm sure of it.

Nope. You too, read up. All entered into the Facebook search bar (even
though I'm sure you'll NEVER believe my descriptions of what I was doing).

On 10/28/2011 1:18 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:49:33 -0700, Christine Dabney wrote:
>
>> When I start to put it in the search bar on FB, the group is the first
>> thing that pops up. Don't even have to get beyond RFC...
>
> That's because you're already a member. Facebook prioritizes your
> searches to people/groups to which your already familiar, or friends
> of friend, or groups of friends, etc... I'm sure if you type in
> "Steve" in the search bar, two of first results will be Steve Pope,
> Steve Wertz, etc... Rather than all the people named 'Steve" on
> facebook.
>
> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.

Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only person
who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.

On 10/28/2011 1:29 PM, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 9:20 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2011 11:31 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Answers would help.
>>>
>>> Search for RFC on Facebook.
>>
>> Thanks for your response. I did just that, and I got a lot of results
>> for unrelated pages and groups that also contained RFC in their names,
>> but not this group. Varied searches had already revealed some inactive
>> page with no members (someone else mentioned having gotten this page,
>> too, but I don't remember who it was that posted it). Until I got the
>> link last evening, there was no way for me to get to the page at all.
>> Even this morning, I still cannot find the page/group with a search.
>
> Very strange. The group is called "RFC on Facebook" -- without the
> quotation marks. When I am logged into Facebook and type that in the
> search window in the blue bar at the top of the page, it turns up the
> group. No clue as to why it doesn't work when you do it.

Even now, that does not work in the Facebook search bar.

On 10/28/2011 1:29 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:25:33 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> I appreciate the help, Christine, but I have bad news for you. Have you
>> tried searching your name on Facebook?
>
> You MUST be using the wrong search bar. Either that or you have some
> sort of spyware on your computer that is somehow intercepting your
> facebook search requests.
>
> It's that simple. Nothing works the way you say it does.

I'm using the Facebook search bar. Why is it so hard for you to believe
that?

Spyware? Don't know. It's possible, but it only interferes with the RFC
on Facebook (FaceBook) search.

And I disagree with your final statement. More correctly, it's just that
one function hasn't worked the way you guys say it does. It's THAT simple.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:25:18 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> On 28/10/2011 10:02 AM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> > The statement was made here more than once that secrecy and *obscurity*
>> > must be maintained to keep undesirable elements out.
>>
>>
>> The cabal??? LMAO.... it is a standing joke.
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Wow. You're still not getting it. Oh well. Moving on.
>>
>> No. You are not moving on. You are still whining
>
>> As I pointed it out before, if we were keeping the news to ourselves (we
>> the cabal) then it would not have been immediately posted here.
>
>Yeah, it would have been posted just to the secret Email list.
>
>Oops! I wasn't supposed to mention that, was I?

The Newbies don't know that the correct nomenclature is "the cabal
(there is no cabal)."

On 10/28/2011 1:53 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:48:18 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 1:18 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
>>> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.
>>
>> Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only person
>> who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.
>
> Who else hasn't been able to find it?

Read the thread.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:48:18 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 1:18 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
>>> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.
>>
>> Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only
>> person who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.
>
> Who else hasn't been able to find it?
>
> -sw

All of those people. You know, the ones that show support by sending the
E-mails. All dozens of them.

Sheesh

On 10/28/2011 11:49 AM, Christine Dabney wrote:

> Wish I could see a screen shot of your page...

I have screen shots of my search results, if you really want to see what
I've been doing.

On 28/10/2011 3:48 PM, Pennyaline wrote:

>>
>> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
>> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.
>
> Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only person
> who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.
>

Yours would carry more weight had not so many others managed to find it.
There are more than a 100 members. They obviously found it. Many of them
appear not to be regulars here. Goodness knows how many looked at it
without joining.

On 10/28/2011 2:14 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:06:33 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 1:53 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> Who else hasn't been able to find it?
>>
>> Read the thread.
>
> And read all your whining again? No thank you.
>
> Now I'm REALLY out of here. I PROMISE!

Skip over mine, then. That will speed things up.

Pennyaline > wrote in news:4eaad069$0
:

> On 10/28/2011 9:38 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> But the name of the group DOES NOT NOT APPEAR IN THE LINK.
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/45106798639/
>>
>> Now you're just making stuff up.
>
> No, but it appears on the FB page when you arrive at the page. What you
> were telling me somewhat cryptically was to join RFC on Facebook. That's
> not how it appears on the page.
>
> At the time, I thought that was the reason. However, it seems that it
> was not the case after all, because when I searched FB again to get back
> to the group this morning, I couldn't find it by either spelling or
> capitalization variation. It didn't show up in any search combination,
> either. Only the link took me back to it.
>

you're not crazy...same thing here. i can't get to it either without the
direct link. weird.

On 10/28/2011 2:20 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 3:48 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That's why I tried it from a facebook account that has never even
>>> glanced at RFC on Facebook. And I still found it just fine.
>>
>> Your explanation would carry more weight if I were not the only person
>> who's been unable to find it using the Facebook search bar.
>>
>
> Yours would carry more weight had not so many others managed to find it.
> There are more than a 100 members. They obviously found it. Many of them
> appear not to be regulars here. Goodness knows how many looked at it
> without joining.



That's the same as saying Mr. X's complaints that his car isn't running
right can't be credible because so many other people are not having car
trouble. Read the thread.

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:
>On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members and no
>>> activity.
>>
>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course, that's in
>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...cebook-privacy) But if
>> you friend some of the RFC Facebook participants (e.g., Christine Dabney)
>> you might gain access that way.
>
>Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
>And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>shit, too.

Wow. Overreact, much?

Charlotte

--

On 10/28/2011 3:10 PM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>
>>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members and no
>>>> activity.
>>>
>>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course, that's in
>>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...cebook-privacy) But if
>>> you friend some of the RFC Facebook participants (e.g., Christine Dabney)
>>> you might gain access that way.
>>
>> Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>> shit, too.
>
> Wow. Overreact, much?

Another county heard from.

Dave Smith > wrote in
om:

> Then you whined that you can't find the R.F.C. On FaceBook
> group, but many others were able to do it.

Actually all the clues given were false leads. The only thing that
worked was a direct link which was not provided until Christine
(re)posted it.

Instead what we got was "try this", "try that", "you dumbass, you
obviously can't use a computer worth shit" all of which were doomed
for failure.

QED

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:09:00 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> "gloria.p" wrote:
> >
> > Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
> > pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.
>
> RFC is a newsgroup, not a site.

Usenet is made up of newsgroups, so Usenet = newsgroups.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

Melba's Jammin' > wrote in
:

> Very strange. The group is called "RFC on Facebook" --
> without the quotation marks. When I am logged into Facebook
> and type that in the search window in the blue bar at the top
> of the page, it turns up the group. No clue as to why it
> doesn't work when you do it.

You're on the group. Now that I am too, doing that works. It
didn't before. So all these insults that were lobbed earlier did
not take a simple fact into account. It doesn't work the same from
the inside as it does from the outside.

I believe some people (George, Dave, and others) have apologies to
offer.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On 10/28/2011 3:26 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:19:58 -0600, Pennyaline
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2011 11:49 AM, Christine Dabney wrote:
>>
>>> Wish I could see a screen shot of your page...
>>
>> I have screen shots of my search results, if you really want to see what
>> I've been doing.
>
> I want a screen shot of where and what you are typing into the search
> bar...


Is the e-mail address on your posts active?

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > I can think of three losses in the time I've been following this group.
>
> Here's a list of ten. Hopefully Blake will be added:
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/memoriam.html

I didn't realize some of those people were dead.
Susan Hattie Steinsapir is not listed.

"Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:58:25 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>Sad news.... for those of you not on FaceBook.... I just got news on FB
>>from Stephanie, a friend of Blake's, that he has died. I don't know the
>>details, just that his father contacted her and said that he is not
>>longer with us.
>
> This sucks. He wasn't even 60 was he?
>
> Lou

Snoogins?


W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)

On 10/28/2011 3:48 PM, Christine Dabney wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:42:51 -0600, Pennyaline
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> I want a screen shot of where and what you are typing into the search
>>> bar...
>>
>>
>> Is the e-mail address on your posts active?
>
> Yes, nothing is munged. This is my main email address.
>
> Christine


Thank you. They are on the way.

Phred wrote:
>
> What's Facebook? Is it something I should know about?

Do a Google search on "monetizing privacy", but be sure
you're not logged in to Google when you do it.

On 10/28/2011 4:39 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> You're on the group. Now that I am too, doing that works. It
> didn't before. So all these insults that were lobbed earlier did
> not take a simple fact into account. It doesn't work the same from
> the inside as it does from the outside.
>
> I believe some people (George, Dave, and others) have apologies to
> offer.


So explain how over 100 people we able to find the group and join
without much problem.... but dear Penny couldn't and instead of figuring
it out, blamed members of the group for excluding her.

If you are looking for an apology from me, don't hold your breath.

George L

On 10/28/2011 3:52 PM, George Leppla wrote:

> So explain how over 100 people we able to find the group and join
> without much problem.... but dear Penny couldn't and instead of figuring
> it out, blamed members of the group for excluding her.

Over one hundred people didn't join the group just this morning, George,
right after doing a little Facebook search. I'm confident of that.



> If you are looking for an apology from me, don't hold your breath.

Suit yourself.

On 10/28/2011 3:34 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave > wrote in
> om:
>
>> Then you whined that you can't find the R.F.C. On FaceBook
>> group, but many others were able to do it.
>
> Actually all the clues given were false leads. The only thing that
> worked was a direct link which was not provided until Christine
> (re)posted it.
>
> Instead what we got was "try this", "try that", "you dumbass, you
> obviously can't use a computer worth shit" all of which were doomed
> for failure.
>
> QED
>

Not so. The message I got from Sqwertz should have worked, according to
his experience. When he gave me the link last evening, it worked just fine.

Christine Dabney wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:28:55 -0600, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
>
> >I was tempted to try to find it. I know nothing about Facebook. But
> >I am really computer clueless and don't want to ask for help. By now
> >I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be welcome.
> >Janet US
>
> You would be very welcome, Janet. Try it..

Yes, we're sharpening our knives in anticipation.

In article >,
Christine Dabney > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:46:57 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >Yes, "RFC on Facebook" works. Sorry about the post to Becca, when I
> >actually tried it - it took me to the rfc unofficial website. Didn't
> >realize FB did that.
>
> When I start to put it in the search bar on FB, the group is the first
> thing that pops up. Don't even have to get beyond RFC...

I suspect FB is too smart for itself. I think the only reason it does
that is that you are already subscribed to the group.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"gloria.p" wrote:
>
> Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
> pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.

RFC is a newsgroup, not a site.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:52:43 -0500, George Leppla
> wrote:

> So explain how over 100 people we able to find the group and join
> without much problem.... but dear Penny couldn't and instead of figuring
> it out, blamed members of the group for excluding her.

I had a lot of trouble finding it, Christine finally just added me by
hand.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:49:00 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:09:00 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "gloria.p" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
> > > > pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.
> > >
> > > RFC is a newsgroup, not a site.
> >
> > Usenet is made up of newsgroups, so Usenet = newsgroups.
>
> Yes, but singular or plural it's still not a site.

Why does it matter to you?

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

In article >,
Janet > wrote:

> In article > ,
> says...
> >
> > Whatever you do, do not admit to being part of the cabal.I already told
> > her that it doesn't exist and the moderator will smite me with get broom
> > if we reveal her identity.
>
> There is no moderator; not since the hogroast cookalong.

That's not correct. "Moderator" is one of the officer positions for the
cabal (TINC).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

George Leppla > wrote in
:

> So explain how over 100 people we able to find the group and
> join without much problem.... but dear Penny couldn't and
> instead of figuring it out, blamed members of the group for
> excluding her.

Well, given the same information, I couldn't find it either.

> If you are looking for an apology from me, don't hold your
> breath.

Not surprised.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)