Hi there, reader!

You do not know much about me, nor I about you.

You do know something about me, having clicked into this webpage of mine (and whoever is free-hosting it) - probably through some hotlink of mine or word-of-mouth referral by someone else...and thus (through my own hotlinked websites and hotlinked bl-gs of others) know even more about what I am thinking (whether you appreciate it or are appalled by it), how I convey that, and my probable response to or against you if I saw and met you personally.

Briefly....very briefly....we all accidently or deliberately view and encounter (sometimes confront) many people during the day from a close distance....most of whom are not identified and thus are anonymous. If they - especially during warm spring, summer, and autumn days - are somewhat IMMODESTLY MISDRESSED with mopheaded loose long hair, and/or exposing naked arms with sleeveslessness, nude legs with shorts or shortened skirts, or parts of bare feet with sockslessness with or without sandals....about the only significant thing we know about them is that they are [ignorantly or purposely] partially-indecent sexual perverts. [Such knowledge is in addition to what we see of their height, weight, hair color, present fashion-colors and style-of-clothing preferences, nationality, skin color, probable native language, behavior, and other distinguishing features].

Now, if we ourselves are in a frame of mind to prefer to be holy and sacred in body and spirit, we react in subtle but sometimes telling yet nobly notable ways against such terroristic sexually-harassing disturbers against the peace, anti-public nuisances, and purveyers of lewd sexual conduct.

For example, we look the other way at benign things we do not find degrading and defiling in grateful contrast to the non-solicited immodest crap which most previously assailed us. It is, of course, usually and hopelessly inconvenient and possibly considered illegally impolite to confront immodest humans about their immodesty in direct, identifiable (therefore, dangerous), face-to-face, verbal or written communication against and not with them.

Sometimes - after the fact and remembering when and where the lurid sight of such vile and typically self-righteous perverts (rife and reeking with a cesspool full of doctrine-of-demon irrationalizations they would arrogantly spew out to self-justify their stupidly-exhibited asinine immodesty) is likely and lamentably to be encountered again - we wisely avoid their paths whenever and wherever we can. Such defensive retreat is useful in other types of potentially-lethal warfare and battle besides the fight of belligerantly-filthy immodest against the meek-and-righteously modest.

One cumulative result of accidently absorbing all this insane and counterproductive immodesty from a majority of the warm-weather public is logical covert and cautious search by hapless victimes for, with acquisition and retention of, more severe types of pornographic-like immodesty even the immodest themselves might or might not consider "pornography." To secretly peruse such mild but more-high-powered porn by the victims suffering because of and persecuted by the immodest warm-weather public is temporarily relieving and satifying erotically, in one sense at least.

I am referring to the pictoral exposure of what is generally not displayed even by the summertime immodest (but understandably leading to and eventually culminating with): bare thighs, breast(s), buttock(s), and crotch-area genitals) [though not what some would term obnoxious porn of homosexual repulsiveness, nor bestiality, rape, toddler molestation, multiple-men-in-woman orgies, and more....but simply rather non-airbrushed sharp and true-color .jpg-type photos of COMPETELY-naked YOUNG women with beautiful faces and slender shapely figures with even bare soles of their feet in plain view].

There ARE three techniques which can be used to counter such immodest "persons, people, or peoples" (whatever semantics is applicable).

One is conveying specifically-detailed criticism (preferably with graphically-applicable Old and New-Testament Bible verses) to them in the forms of bumper signs, back-of-window car signs, through-open-car-window and underneath-windshield-wiper leaflets, public and private-property lawn signs, bulletin-board postings, internet webpages (like this one), voice-mail messages, penname-nonidentifiable e-mails using free hosters (e.g. Fastmail, Yahoo, Lycos, etc.), ink stamps and stickers on mailed envelopes, etc.

Another technique (which incidently can be used along with the previously-mentioned technique) is to convey to them and THEM ONLY (by some of the many ways described above) the more severe porn to shame and shock them because of the semi-porn they themselves are ignorantly or deliberately [but either way] lasciviously IMPOSING against others who do not want to see such licentuousness importuniously FORCED upon them. When the more-porno mirror is then shoved in front of the faces of the less-porno perpetrators, their frequently-hypocritical adverse and hostile reaction is predictable. There is painful discipline involved in improving anything, and to rock the status-quo boat is never pleasant for fools habitually hung up on almost-religiously, dogmatically, and narrowmindedly practicing their sometimes-modest-under-duress but generally incessant and repetitious immodest-attire-for-the-day perversities.

The last technique conceivable is to punish them for their summertime immodesty in either or both of two ways.

It has been publicized that there are islamic-fundamentalist police in various places on the planet who actually arrest, fine, imprison (and when necessary, shoot dead) those who persist in misdressing immodestly in public after being warned a few times.

In a democracy, other types of punishment look much less retributionary, such as offering immodest people the opportunity to acquire (through Verisign and PayPal merchant-account credit-card online transactions) selectively-accumulated choice female-nudes porn on certain pay-per-view internet websites and cable-TV programming....thus indirectly discriminating against them and THEM ALONE - not the innocent moral-minority saints of the Lord - with the traditionally-required subscription-fee "fines" [in effect] along with government taxes and statutory regulations related to their own lustful-sensuality pleasures. Any profits from selling such optical retaliation to the immodest should go to Christian charities and PACs instead of being an income-producer the porn provider becomes dependent upon for monthly bill payments.

A few inconvenient pothole-and-gutter nail-in-the-tire flats, starter/water-pump/alternator breakdowns, contagiously-caught viruses or strokes/cancers/flu/colds/whatever, tobacco addiction and spoiled-food poisoning, identity-theft or property vandalism, indecency-caused VD and premarital pregnancy, flying-rocks-shattered windshields, expensive car accidents, no-win lottery loss, inconvenient hurricane-or-tornado-damaging winds, power outages, waterline breaks, assembly-line-equipment malfunctions, employment layoffs, and MUCH more from the Lord also rightfully beset the immodestly wicked.

On church property, and private property designated Christian property, the Christian Flag (white backround with red cross inside upper-left blue rectangle) or Judeo-Christian Flag (white backround with red cross inside upper-left blue Star of David) should be flown higher than the American Flag when both are flown together.

Genuine Christians designating themselves as part of the Christian Church are considered tax-free entities - not tax-exempt. Participating under 501(c)3 of the IRS is VOLUNTARY, and if one subjects themself to such jurisdiction, one is obligated to be subservient under such jurisdiction and any statutes concocted thereof.

The singular intent of a Marriage Amendment is to prohibit same-gender sexual unions, the non-prohibition of which of necessity would involve same-gender sodomy between two same-gender people....not to criminalize legitimate common-law concubine polygamy of one man having more than one wife at a time, which Old-Testament-patriarchal-like polygamy even Saint Paul allowed (and the Spirit of Christ yet allows) in specific wording as to the qualifications of only 'bishops' and 'deacons' being the husband of ONE wife in the New-Testament books of First Timothy (3:2,12) and Titus (1:5-10).