by

Shalom all:

It’s time for me to regale you with yet more tales from the steak house, which could also be classified as bobular blunders. As the above suggests, Ray and I went to Ryans again last night, and the food was considerably better. Note to self: Don’t go to Ryans, or any other restaurant for that matter, any later than two hours before they close. we ended up going after making a trip to the Sprint Store to have our phones configured with reliable sighted assistance. Bob would not have been good for that one. Things would have straight down the drain, without delay at that point. So anyway, we get the phones configured, and then go get some dinner. Begin bobular blunders. We sit down at the table, and Bob starts to discuss the current case of the cross-burning, and oppines that a man who happened to be a witness to the crime, and didn’t stop it, got too harshly judged. Apparently, eight years in jail, where you have cable and ‘net access, and eat better than a lot of people on the outside is just too much to deal with. Then, the conversation spirals down to the statement, made by Bob, that the law is as corrupt as could be, and that someone who witnesses a crime and does nothing is not as guilty as the other miscreants involved. Furthermore, when I brought up biblical support, (Bob relies heavily on the King James translation of the Bible for the underpinnings of a lot of the choices he makes and encourages others to make), for the concept of guilt by association in a case like that, Bob promptly declared that “do not stand idly by while your brother’s blood is shed” is a spiritual law as opposed to a civil law. That tends to be the way a lot of Christians, though not all, explain away the non-ceremonial requirements, (which, consequently, make up the majority of what Christians like to refer to as “the law”), when confronted with the question of why they don’t follow the law when Jesus specifically commanded it, or when you ask them how Jesus was supposed to have fulfilled commandments like that. But, I seriously digress. The point is, a statement like “do not stand idly by while your brother’s blood is shed” is very obviously a civil law, even if one does not take the time to look the verse up within its proper context. Ray didn’t say much during this point of the conversation, which I find interesting, given that Ray has an oppinion on most things. As the evening progressed, the conversation spiraled to yet new levels of depravity. Bob decided to tell Ray and I a story about a local woman, in her late twenties, who married a man in his eighties. He extolled this as right and proper. In order to impress upon you all the complete depravity and perversity of a statement like that, (yes, Bob has a nack for special nack for taking a situation or idea that’s already depraved in and of itself, and bringing it to new and completely unfathomable depths of indecency), I need to give you a little background. It goes without saying that Bob holds some extremely screwed up views. For instance: Vlind people all have bad childhoods by default; blind people shouldn’t date other blind people because, if they get married and spend the rest of their lives together, they become ultradependent; blind people have an extra license to sin than the rest of society because we’re all frustrated, lonely people who need some sort of opiate; and so on, etcetera. So, when Bob suggested that said woman did the right thing by marrying the octagenarian, neither Ray nor I were surprised, although it does continue to shock me, at least, every time I hear views like that expressed. This stems from Bob’s view that women need to date older men because men their age are going to just screw them over. Well, OK, I can’t say that one’s totally flawed. But, the way it gets borne out is disturbing. I date older men, but there’s a limit: Namely, anyone older than nine or ten years is excluded due to the fact that the number of commonalities starts to dwindle, and at that point, we’re getting a little too close to the generational gap. “Who’s your daddy” is not a line I want to hear, especially when it’s coming from someone who is supposed to be playing a totally different role. Fortunately, thanks to the ending of dinner, the conversation didn’t have any more oportunity to downgrade any further. Ray and I got back here, and promptly tuned in to No Holds barred Radio, and listened to the further torture of Ellis 2.0. Watch this space for more on that. Because I’ve spent the last little while on this entry, and I’m not sure, after reporting last night’s episode, you can really add other, unrelated incidents to the same entry, I’ll go for now. Thanks for reading.


Comments

  • Rant rant rant! It’s what the journal’s for. *grin*..Hm..this here Bob is fascinating. If I were back in NC maybe I’d enjoy conversing with him..hehe…not because I agree with him, but because I have a thing for listening to people discuss their bizarre views.

    What’s this cross burning thing? What all happened?

    I definitely would agree that a person who doesn’t in some way at least attempt to help the situation when witnessing someone being harmed is at heavy fault. I’m not going to suggest everyone become vigilanties and try to stand between a perpetrator and his/their victims, but at least sounding the alert or calling the lawful authorities as promptly as possible should be instilled into peoples heads. Reminds me of the woman in NYC who was brutally raped and stabbed to death with a knife while several dozen people looked on, all motionless and all drawing the conclusion that someone else would solve the problem and they wouldn’t get involved. Also, my wife was assaulted by three bastards last year, several people saw this and nobody did a goddamn thing. One woman even had the nerve to confront her in a store and say that she’d seen what had happened and that she was sorry.

Respond

Leave a Reply

Write a Comment

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *