Karen Winter, schismatic Episcopalian (self-described "anglo catholic")
from Santa Fe who has long and openly endorsed pedophilia and
bestiality, recently admitted to being personally involved in "regular"
sexual contact with an animal:

I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
-- Karen "Glorfindel" Winter, 08/08/06
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals
http://tinyurl.com/kcq27

For some reason, she has long attempted to bait me and turn this into a
religious discussion rather than one of normative ethics. So I'm
reluctantly taking her bait and cross-posting to ARCE to get the
sentiment of other "anglo catholics" and Episcopalians.

Is this kind of behavior between man and beast common or accepted in
your congregation? Or, even with all the schism (of which Karen is an
active and eager radical participant) and the sexual libertines now in
power, is buggery still frowned upon in the pews?

I know for some of you the Bible isn't particularly important -- just a
five-pound hurdle on the way to doing whatever you see as right in your
own eyes, which you confuse as the work of the Holy Ghost. But St Paul
did write:

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the
body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own
body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the
Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are
not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify
God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
-- I Corinthians 6:18-20

Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church the
same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
spirits by diddling with critters?

Discuss.

chico chupacabra wrote:
> Karen Winter, schismatic Episcopalian (self-described "anglo catholic")
> from Santa Fe who has long and openly endorsed pedophilia and
> bestiality, recently admitted to being personally involved in "regular"
> sexual contact with an animal:
>
> I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> -- Karen "Glorfindel" Winter, 08/08/06
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals
> http://tinyurl.com/kcq27

BTW, she defended this even when taken to task by other animal rights
activists and bragged about how the poor bird liked her more than he
liked other birds:

...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
to forbid him.
http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc

I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
http://tinyurl.com/rvyua

Is this consistent with "anglo catholicism"? Or is it just pretty
@&*#$*% weird to y'all, too?

> For some reason, she has long attempted to bait me and turn this into a
> religious discussion rather than one of normative ethics. So I'm
> reluctantly taking her bait and cross-posting to ARCE to get the
> sentiment of other "anglo catholics" and Episcopalians.
>
> Is this kind of behavior between man and beast common or accepted in
> your congregation? Or, even with all the schism (of which Karen is an
> active and eager radical participant) and the sexual libertines now in
> power, is buggery still frowned upon in the pews?
>
> I know for some of you the Bible isn't particularly important -- just a
> five-pound hurdle on the way to doing whatever you see as right in your
> own eyes, which you confuse as the work of the Holy Ghost. But St Paul
> did write:
>
> Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the
> body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own
> body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the
> Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are
> not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify
> God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
> -- I Corinthians 6:18-20
>
> Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
> included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
> Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
> Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
> object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church the
> same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
> its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
> reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> spirits by diddling with critters?
>
> Discuss.

> >
> > Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
> > included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
> > Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
> > Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
> > object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church the
> > same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
> > its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
> > reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> > spirits by diddling with critters?
> >
> > Discuss.

I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on your
hand.

Archie Bunker wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
> > > included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
> > > Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
> > > Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
> > > object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church the
> > > same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
> > > its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
> > > reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> > > spirits by diddling with critters?
> > >
> > > Discuss.
>
> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on your
> hand.

Welcome to the "new" Episcopal
Church.

Jim

If the Episcopal Church wants to
change its religion, I see no reason
to change mine.



Ro 13:14 - But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision
for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Archie Bunker wrote:

>>>Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
>>>included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
>>>Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
>>>Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
>>>object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church the
>>>same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
>>>its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
>>>reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
>>>spirits by diddling with critters?
>>>
>>>Discuss.
>
> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA

The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference" for
sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on occasion. If
your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with you, then she thinks
it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle up with it on the couch"
and alienate your human companionship for a little animal sex:

...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species, just
as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner. But
some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being done
to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8

BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's to be
expected from someone who feels special and that it was "sweet" that a
bird got off in her hand.

> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on your
> hand.

*Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think it's
a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly" having sexual
relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in general?

chico chupacabra wrote:
> Archie Bunker wrote:
>
> >>>Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
> >>>included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
> >>>Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
> >>>Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
> >>>object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church the
> >>>same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
> >>>its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
> >>>reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> >>>spirits by diddling with critters?
> >>>
> >>>Discuss.
> >
> > I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
> > ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
>
> The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference" for
> sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
> preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
> foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on occasion. If
> your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with you, then she thinks
> it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle up with it on the couch"
> and alienate your human companionship for a little animal sex:
>
> ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species, just
> as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
> get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner. But
> some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
> with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
> such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being done
> to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
> non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
> http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
>
> BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
> don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's to be
> expected from someone who feels special and that it was "sweet" that a
> bird got off in her hand.
>
> > just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on your
> > hand.
>
> *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think it's
> a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly" having sexual
> relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in general?

If what you say about her is true,
she needs prayer not personal attacks.

Jim



Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone at her.

wrote:

>
> chico chupacabra wrote:
> > Archie Bunker wrote:
> >
> > >>>Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small
> > >>>animals is included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul
> > >>>tells the church in Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior
> > >>>okay now since the Holy Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline
> > >>>Epistles? Would your parish object if she brought one of her
> > >>>little "friends" with her to church the same way she has her
> > >>>FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got its jollies
> > >>>with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly reasonable
> > >>>for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
> > >>>spirits by diddling with critters?
> > >>>
> > >>>Discuss.
> > >
> > > I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
> > > ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
> >
> > The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference"
> > for sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
> > preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
> > foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on
> > occasion. If your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with
> > you, then she thinks it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle
> > up with it on the couch" and alienate your human companionship for
> > a little animal sex:
> >
> > ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species,
> > just as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
> > get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner.
> > But some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
> > with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
> > such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being
> > done to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
> > non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
> > http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
> >
> > BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
> > don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's
> > to be expected from someone who feels special and that it was
> > "sweet" that a bird got off in her hand.
> >
> > > just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on
> > > your hand.
> >
> > *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think
> > it's a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly"
> > having sexual relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in
> > general?
>
> If what you say about her is true,

It is. Click on the links and you can read her posts that I
quoted yourself.

> she needs prayer not personal attacks.

To paraphrase St James,
If one of you says to her, €œGo, I wish you well; keep warm and
stop molesting animals,€� but does nothing about her *real*
[mental health] needs, what good is it?

> Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and
> said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
> stone at her.

...Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
thee: GO, AND *SIN NO MORE*.
John 8:11

She needs more than prayer, and she's the least bit embarrassed by
jacking off a little bird.

...I think we made his last years as happy as was possible for
him... If he wanted to use my hand as a sex toy, I wasn't going
to forbid him.
http://tinyurl.com/p4vrc

I thought it was rather sweet, in fact. He certainly was a
happier bird with me than with the other 'tiels.
http://tinyurl.com/rvyua

Look up her old posts when she used her "rat" pseudonym on the issue of
zoophilia and you'll find she's an impenitent apologist for the
practice of animal molestation.

chico chupacabra wrote:

> Archie Bunker wrote:
>
>>>> Is it the sentiment among Episcopalians that sex with small animals is
>>>> included in this "sexual immorality" which St Paul tells the church in
>>>> Corinth to flee? Or is this kind of behavior okay now since the Holy
>>>> Spirit has obviated most of the Pauline Epistles? Would your parish
>>>> object if she brought one of her little "friends" with her to church
>>>> the
>>>> same way she has her FAS-defective ******* partner, and maybe even got
>>>> its jollies with her during, say, vespers? Or is it all perfectly
>>>> reasonable for "anglo catholics" to "glorify God" in their bodies and
>>>> spirits by diddling with critters?
>>>>
>>>> Discuss.
>>
>>
>> I guess I better stop letting the dog hump my leg..or should I say
>> ankle since he is a chihuahua. HA HA HA HA
>
>
> The issue according to Karen is whether your dog has a "preference" for
> sex with your leg, ankle, or humans in general, over and above a
> preference for sex with other dogs. I've never known a dog to have a
> foot/ankle/lower leg fetish, aside from eating up shoes on occasion. If
> your chihuahua prefers sex with your ankle or with you, then she thinks
> it's perfectly acceptable for you to "cuddle up with it on the couch"
> and alienate your human companionship for a little animal sex:
>
> ...[S]ome animals don't want a mate of their own species, just
> as some humans don't. We may think it is better for a human to
> get out, mingle with other humans, find a human partner. But
> some humans just want to curl up on the couch or go out hiking
> with their companion dog or cat. I think we need to respect
> such personal preferences. As long as no *harm* is being done
> to another, we have no right to tell another human, OR another
> non-human, how to live his/her life, or who to live it with.
> Karen Winter
> http://tinyurl.com/m7ff8
>
> BTW and nevermind sex, have you ever considered hiking with a CAT? I
> don't know where she comes up with her examples, but I guess it's to be
> expected from someone who feels special and that it was "sweet" that a
> bird got off in her hand.

For what it's worth, almost 30 years ago, my then
girlfriend and I took our two cats up into the Angeles
National Forest, north of L.A., for a day trip. We
mostly hung around the campsite, but we did go on a
short walk, and the cats, perhaps a little freaked out
by the strange environment, stayed right with us. I
did take the precaution, however, of attaching little
cat string leashes to their collars, to make it easier
to try to catch them if they wanted to bolt. It was a
pretty amusing experience, once, but wasn't worth
repeating.


>
>> just kidding! It does seem a bit odd letting an animal get off on your
>> hand.
>
>
> *Very* odd, and thanks for your reply. Anyone else out there think it's
> a bit queer? Anyone care to defend Karen, her "regularly" having sexual
> relations with a small animal, and/or bestiality in general?

chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Of course, you wouldn't consider putting this all in context,
would you, you scuzzy creep?

> I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> -- Karen "Glorfindel" Winter, 08/08/06
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals
> http://tinyurl.com/kcq27
>
> For some reason, she has long attempted to bait me and turn this into a
> religious discussion

No, I specifically told you I *didn't* want to discuss that on the TPA
group.

<snip>

Karen Winter, living in a shitty trailer at 825 Calle
Mejia in Santa Fe, NM, wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, liar, wrote:
>
> Of course, you wouldn't consider putting this all in context,
> would you?

He provided *far* more than enough context for your
advocacy of and *participation in* bestiality, Karen.


>
>> I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
>> -- Karen "Glorfindel" Winter, 08/08/06
>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals
>> http://tinyurl.com/kcq27
>>
>> For some reason, she has long attempted to bait me and turn this into
>> a religious discussion

Karen Winter lied:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> Karen Winter lied:
>
> Of course

I don't have to make up anything about you, Karen. Truth IS stranger
than fiction.

> > I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on my hand.
> > -- Karen "Glorfindel" Winter, 08/08/06
> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan,
> > talk.politics.animals http://tinyurl.com/kcq27
> >
> > For some reason, she has long attempted to bait me and turn this
> > into a religious discussion
>
> No

Yes. You repeatedly brought up the issue of sin and state.

> I specifically told you I *didn't*

Liar.

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

'A large majority of dairy cows in the US, Canada and European countries
are artificially inseminated.
...
Semen is most commonly collected from bulls in bull studs using an
artificial vagina, as described below.
...
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...eval/bull.html

Here you can see a bull being enticed to mount a restrained steer (male).
A man diverts the penis into a simulated cow vagina he holds in his hand.

Comment.

pearl wrote:

> 'A large majority of dairy cows in the US, Canada and European
> countries are artificially inseminated.
> ..
> Semen is most commonly collected from bulls in bull studs using an
> artificial vagina, as described below.
> ..
> http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...eval/bull.html
>
> Here you can see a bull being enticed to mount a restrained steer
> (male). A man diverts the penis into a simulated cow vagina he holds
> in his hand.
>
> Comment.

Hmmm, you may have found helped Karen find her next job. She certainly
has the experience.

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > 'A large majority of dairy cows in the US, Canada and European
> > countries are artificially inseminated.
> > ..
> > Semen is most commonly collected from bulls in bull studs using an
> > artificial vagina, as described below.
> > ..
> > http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...eval/bull.html
> >
> > Here you can see a bull being enticed to mount a restrained steer
> > (male). A man diverts the penis into a simulated cow vagina he holds
> > in his hand.
> >
> > Comment.
>
> Hmmm,

Thought so.