--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > "> Sure, Judy, and the fact that a number of people living > > > > on top of grates in DC say they like "their neighborhoods" > > > > must mean they're not homeless either, right? You just > > > > can't give up on your fantasies." > > > > > > I think the exemption only extends to guys who claim to have a > > > connection with God. Those homeless guys are the saints that we > > > should think of differently. Here in DC that is about one out > > > of three guys on the street. In fact I handed a George > Washington > > > to a guy the other day who was quoting the Bible so convincingly > > > I almost let him put his hand on my head to save me. > > > > Maybe you should have let him. > > > > I'm just fascinated by the nearsightedness of this > > perspective and the extremely selective way you > > pick and choose the evidence for it. > > > > How many of these homeless guys, if you plucked > > them off the street, dressed them up in robes, > > gave them a fancy house with lots of servants, > > and appointed them the leader of, say, a prominent > > Christian denomination, would actually end up > > fulfilling the expectations for a person in such a > > position? > > > To say nothing of coping with Guru Dev's well known rule for > accepting *zero* donations or income from the outside. Nothing.
If one of Curtis's street people were successful in these respects, it would be awfully difficult not to view them as "special." (Or let's say "remarkable," since "special" has acquired such negative baggage on this forum.)
