QUOTE
If you drink Pepsi at work in the Coke factory, will they fire you?
Truth can be stranger than humor. I recall a news item about 20 years ago where an employee of a fast-food chain that was part of Pepsi's parent corporation conglomerate had brought his own lunch to work, including a can of Coke. He was reportedly fired for this infraction. Shortly afterward someone higher up un the corporate structure issued a press release that the firing was done on the authority of the restaurant manager, possibly for some other offense, and that it was not Pepsi Corporation's policy to mandate what employees could bring for their own lunches. So the answer to this question, if you reverse the corporations, is apparantly no. Unless, perhaps, you work for an overzealous fast food manager.
QUOTE
A man who shovelled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.
This story must be a hoax written by a non-Chicagoan. First, because if the man only had to shovel for an hour to clear a spot it couldn't have been much of a blizzard, and second, because the story doesn't mention crappy furniture. Everybody in Chicago knows what you do to secure an on-street parking spot you have just cleared: you stick some crappy furniture in it. Every winter when there's a lot of snow Chicago's side streets are lined with busted tables, chairs, dressers, etc., and you NEVER move someone else's crappy furniture to to make room to park your car. If she had, that man's response would indeed be considered understandable, at least in some neighborhoods. As a rule of thumb, the crappier furniture, the more likely moving it may result in a Darwin Award nomination. In the more genteel neighborhoods, identified by less crappy, even fine furniture lining the streets, they are less likely to shoot a parking space poacher. Instead, the preferred punishment is to hose down the offending car until it is frozen under a solid sheet of ice.
*
And if I may make a small request, may we please avoid mocking Catholicism and other Sacred subjects? In one of the items above, a penitent confesses to his priest that he has commited either fornication or adultery, but does not name the other party out of respect for her reputation. This is correct. A penitent should only confess his own sins, not identify those of others. It is possible that the other woman, upon the conviction of her own conscience, might choose to avail herself of the Sacrament of Pennance from a different priest, in which case for the first priest to pry into her conduct would be a grave violation of her rights under the seal of confesion. Priests understand this, and should never inquire about the identities of third parties during sacramental confessions. It probably does occur that penitents sometimes do diccuss third parties during confessions, but if so, priests are obligated to strict confidentiality. Certainly no priest would ever
suggest names of other persons who might be involved in a penitent's sins! This would be a grave violation of their rights, and if the suggestions were of persons who had previously confessed their sins to that priest, that would be breaking the seal of confession.
Also, no priest would tell a penitent he was forbidden to come to church. In certain serious cases, Canonical discipline might require that certain persons who persist in gravely serious or publicly scandalous conduct must be forbidden from participating in the Eucharist and other sacramental life of the church as long as they unrepentantly insist in persisting in said conduct. But the point is that persons coming to confess their sins and amend their lives must be presumed by the priest to be repentant, unless what they say in the confessional indicates otherwise. Upon absolution and reparation their confessed sins no longer bind them, so a penalty banning such a person from participating in the life of the church is unthinkable. Even an unrepentant person under Canonical excommunication is never barred from coming to church. He needs God's grace even more, not less than those without serious sins, and hopefully by continuing to come and worship, his conscience will urge him to amend his life, avail himself of God's forgiveness, and return to full participation in the life of the Church.
Finally, that last line about 3 months vacation and five good leads is just a low blow. We approach the Sacrament of Pennance with sorrow for the harm our sins cause to ourselves and others, but with assurance that God who loves us enough to give His life for us on the cross is rich in Mercy and will always forgive us when we ask Him. To suggest that penitents do so for deceptive reasons such as picking up good leads for other sins is scandalous. I will grant that the possibility of such an act lies within the realm of possible human action, but to actually do so would be far worse than any incidence of adultery or fornication.
In closing, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to explain this here. I'm not angry with anyone here for posting this item or any other. But I hope you all can understand what a kick in the crotch this kind of joke can be. Techsurvivors has always been a decent site. I have never seen a joke or any other reference here where persons of african descent are referred to by that "N" word or anything similar. I hope Catholics and other persons who honor God and things pertaining to God may be granted that same respect.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Gapstr.
