Oh well.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hardly. Anyone with half a brain (sorry, but you don't cut it) would question how she could get millions in donations yet her patients (victims) were lying on the floor in squalor. She could have built a modern hospital. She even witheld pain medication. Her billionaire friends would fly her on their jets. She also needed to check on her off-shore bank accounts.

A myth doubled down on is still a myth.

Must be true if you said it. I'm convinced now.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And 'Booboo' wasn't timid or stupid. He was the clever one of the duo. Either your father was an idiot or he was paying you an affectionate compliment. I think you just like complaining. Apparently there's a fetish where males (how 'surprising') get off on being humiliated in public.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What exactly did she do that was either kind or compassionate? She keeps being used as a measuring-stick for a 'saint-like' person but why? The rich and famous were clamouring to meet/be seen with her and make generous donations. Did none of them wonder why her 'hospital' was so disgusting?She must have been a PR genius.
She was anti contraception. Anti abortion. Anti pain relief. Wow. Doesn't get more 'saint-like' than that. Hmm. 'Saint' is a catholic concept, so I suppose it stands to reason that a 'saint' would be more likely to resemble a 'demon' to normal people.
And when she was dying herself, she had the best medical care and pain relief. I suppose by that stage she wasn't concerned about being 'closer to jebus'.

[Gary Childress]

A myth doubled down on is still a myth.

I remember Christopher Hitchens doing an "expose" on Mother Teresa. It was pretty harsh. I suppose maybe she didn't deserve it. She was reported to have had only a couple of possessions to her name when she died, a bowl and some clothing I think it was. But Hitchens was particularly harsh over the way she ran her hospital in Calcutta. Apparently, they would reuse needles and other unsterile practices. Though, I don't know all the ins and outs of her work or how true Hitchen's claims were.

Anyone with at least half a brain would know that she received millions in donations. What happened to them? They certainly weren't being spent on her 'patients'. India has modern hospitals.

That's a good question. If she raised that much money and it can't be accounted for with the expenses of running her hospital or whatever in Calcutta, then it would surely have been spent on something that would be traceable. Perhaps she spent it on travel expenses getting to fundraising opportunities, etc? There are charities out there that spend almost all their money on fundraising projects and salaries of staff members and virtually nothing on their beneficiaries.

However, it seems that she didn't disclose or have any accounting system for the money she took in.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 ... eresa.html

[Gary Childress]

Hardly. Anyone with half a brain (sorry, but you don't cut it) would question how she could get millions in donations yet her patients (victims) were lying on the floor in squalor. She could have built a modern hospital. She even witheld pain medication. Her billionaire friends would fly her on their jets. She also needed to check on her off-shore bank accounts.

A myth doubled down on is still a myth.

Must be true if you said it. I'm convinced now.

It appears that there is some dispute over her legacy. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_im ... her_Teresa

Responses to criticism

In The Hindu, Navin B. Chawla states that Mother Teresa never intended to build hospitals, but to provide a place where those who had been refused admittance "could at least die being comforted and with some dignity." He also counters critics of Mother Teresa by stating that her periodic hospitalizations were instigated by staff members against her wishes, and disputes the claim that she conducted surreptitious baptisms. "Those who are quick to criticise Mother Teresa and her mission, are unable or unwilling to do anything to help with their own hands."[67]

Sister Mary Prema Pierick, the former Superior General of the Missionaries of Charity, also stated that Mother Teresa's homes were never intended to be a substitute for hospitals, but rather "homes for those not accepted in the hospital... But if they need hospital care, then we have to take them to the hospital, and we do that." Sister Pierick also contested the claims that Mother Teresa deliberately cultivated suffering, and affirmed her order's goal was to alleviate suffering.[51]

In The Spectator, Melanie McDonagh has noted that Mother Teresa is in large part "criticized for not being what she never set out to be, for not doing things which she never saw as her job. [...] What she wasn't was a head of government. She didn't address the fundamental causes of poverty because she was addressing the symptoms and she did that well," nor were her sisters social workers. McDonagh commented, "She wasn't trying to do anything except treat people at the margins of society as if they were Christ himself."[68]

In New Internationalist, Mari Marcel Thekaekara notes that after the Bangladesh War, a few million refugees poured into Calcutta from the former East Pakistan, and argues that "No one had ever before done anything remotely like Mother Teresa's order, namely picking up destitute and dying people off the pavements and giving them a clean place to die in dignity."[69]

Mark Woods in Christian Today felt that "perhaps just as significant, in terms of her public perception, is the sense among Christians that her critics don't really understand what she was doing. So to criticise her for opposing abortion and contraception, for instance, is to criticise her for not running a secular charity, which she never pretended to do."[3]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I remember Christopher Hitchens doing an "expose" on Mother Teresa. It was pretty harsh. I suppose maybe she didn't deserve it. She was reported to have had only a couple of possessions to her name when she died, a bowl and some clothing I think it was. But Hitchens was particularly harsh over the way she ran her hospital in Calcutta. Apparently, they would reuse needles and other unsterile practices. Though, I don't know all the ins and outs of her work or how true Hitchen's claims were.

Anyone with at least half a brain would know that she received millions in donations. What happened to them? They certainly weren't being spent on her 'patients'. India has modern hospitals.

That's a good question. If she raised that much money and it can't be accounted for with the expenses of running her hospital or whatever in Calcutta, then it would surely have been spent on something that would be traceable. Perhaps she spent it on travel expenses getting to fundraising opportunities, etc? There are charities out there that spend almost all their money on fundraising projects and salaries of staff members and virtually nothing on their beneficiaries.

However, it seems that she didn't disclose or have any accounting system for the money she took in.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 ... eresa.html

She was awful on every level. Weird the way people still can't see it. And the Nobel peace prize is a joke. What did she get THAT for? Hurrying her victims along to their eternal 'peace'? Henry Kissinger? Obama? I mean, why not Hitler and be done with it?
Why not Muhammad Ali, for refusing to participate in America's rape of Vietnam? What about Trump? For treating the Korean guy with the bad haircut like a human being?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A myth doubled down on is still a myth.

Must be true if you said it. I'm convinced now.

It appears that there is some dispute over her legacy. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_im ... her_Teresa

Responses to criticism

In The Hindu, Navin B. Chawla states that Mother Teresa never intended to build hospitals, but to provide a place where those who had been refused admittance "could at least die being comforted and with some dignity." He also counters critics of Mother Teresa by stating that her periodic hospitalizations were instigated by staff members against her wishes, and disputes the claim that she conducted surreptitious baptisms. "Those who are quick to criticise Mother Teresa and her mission, are unable or unwilling to do anything to help with their own hands."[67]

Sister Mary Prema Pierick, the former Superior General of the Missionaries of Charity, also stated that Mother Teresa's homes were never intended to be a substitute for hospitals, but rather "homes for those not accepted in the hospital... But if they need hospital care, then we have to take them to the hospital, and we do that." Sister Pierick also contested the claims that Mother Teresa deliberately cultivated suffering, and affirmed her order's goal was to alleviate suffering.[51]

In The Spectator, Melanie McDonagh has noted that Mother Teresa is in large part "criticized for not being what she never set out to be, for not doing things which she never saw as her job. [...] What she wasn't was a head of government. She didn't address the fundamental causes of poverty because she was addressing the symptoms and she did that well," nor were her sisters social workers. McDonagh commented, "She wasn't trying to do anything except treat people at the margins of society as if they were Christ himself."[68]

In New Internationalist, Mari Marcel Thekaekara notes that after the Bangladesh War, a few million refugees poured into Calcutta from the former East Pakistan, and argues that "No one had ever before done anything remotely like Mother Teresa's order, namely picking up destitute and dying people off the pavements and giving them a clean place to die in dignity."[69]

Mark Woods in Christian Today felt that "perhaps just as significant, in terms of her public perception, is the sense among Christians that her critics don't really understand what she was doing. So to criticise her for opposing abortion and contraception, for instance, is to criticise her for not running a secular charity, which she never pretended to do."[3]

Oh yes, we all know that whatever you look up courtesy of google you are always going to find polar opposite 'facts' to back up whatever stance you want to take. You can google 'smoking is good for you' and find plenty of info to back it up

This is why we have a brain, and why we are supposed to use it.

[Gary Childress]

Must be true if you said it. I'm convinced now.

It appears that there is some dispute over her legacy. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_im ... her_Teresa

Responses to criticism

In The Hindu, Navin B. Chawla states that Mother Teresa never intended to build hospitals, but to provide a place where those who had been refused admittance "could at least die being comforted and with some dignity." He also counters critics of Mother Teresa by stating that her periodic hospitalizations were instigated by staff members against her wishes, and disputes the claim that she conducted surreptitious baptisms. "Those who are quick to criticise Mother Teresa and her mission, are unable or unwilling to do anything to help with their own hands."[67]

Sister Mary Prema Pierick, the former Superior General of the Missionaries of Charity, also stated that Mother Teresa's homes were never intended to be a substitute for hospitals, but rather "homes for those not accepted in the hospital... But if they need hospital care, then we have to take them to the hospital, and we do that." Sister Pierick also contested the claims that Mother Teresa deliberately cultivated suffering, and affirmed her order's goal was to alleviate suffering.[51]

In The Spectator, Melanie McDonagh has noted that Mother Teresa is in large part "criticized for not being what she never set out to be, for not doing things which she never saw as her job. [...] What she wasn't was a head of government. She didn't address the fundamental causes of poverty because she was addressing the symptoms and she did that well," nor were her sisters social workers. McDonagh commented, "She wasn't trying to do anything except treat people at the margins of society as if they were Christ himself."[68]

In New Internationalist, Mari Marcel Thekaekara notes that after the Bangladesh War, a few million refugees poured into Calcutta from the former East Pakistan, and argues that "No one had ever before done anything remotely like Mother Teresa's order, namely picking up destitute and dying people off the pavements and giving them a clean place to die in dignity."[69]

Mark Woods in Christian Today felt that "perhaps just as significant, in terms of her public perception, is the sense among Christians that her critics don't really understand what she was doing. So to criticise her for opposing abortion and contraception, for instance, is to criticise her for not running a secular charity, which she never pretended to do."[3]

Oh yes, we all know that whatever you look up courtesy of google you are always going to find polar opposite 'facts' to back up whatever stance you want to take. You can google 'smoking is good for you' and find plenty of info to back it up

This is why we have a brain, and why we are supposed to use it.

All told, if her mission was only to give the poor a place to "die in dignity", then I suppose she fulfilled it. I'm not sure that amounts to much of anything fantastic, especially to warrant "sainthood." There are certainly people out there who have done much more for much less recognition.

[Gary Childress]

And 'Booboo' wasn't timid or stupid. He was the clever one of the duo. Either your father was an idiot or he was paying you an affectionate compliment. I think you just like complaining. Apparently there's a fetish where males (how 'surprising') get off on being humiliated in public.

Asceticism and self-flagellation give me some peace of mind, not much but with all the suffering out there in the world, I always feel guilty and "privileged" just for having a roof over my head. Thinking of the "starving people in China" was a thing when I was growing up. Waste not, want not, and all that sort of stuff too. I've got all the hillbilly hangups.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It appears that there is some dispute over her legacy. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_im ... her_Teresa

Oh yes, we all know that whatever you look up courtesy of google you are always going to find polar opposite 'facts' to back up whatever stance you want to take. You can google 'smoking is good for you' and find plenty of info to back it up

This is why we have a brain, and why we are supposed to use it.

All told, if her mission was only to give the poor a place to "die in dignity", then I suppose she fulfilled it. I'm not sure that amounts to much of anything fantastic, especially to warrant "sainthood." There are certainly people out there who have done much more for much less recognition.

''Imagine you are ill. You live in a dirty bed with a room of dying people in their dirty beds. You’ve had a burning in your lungs that has become a searing pain. You cough up blood. You can’t take a deep breath. It starts to hurt so bad that inhaling feels like glass and sand and is exhausting. You are given food and water, and you beg for relief. For medicine, you’re not stupid - you know that there are things to take to numb the pain, stop the pain or just dull it. And you are given food and water and prayer and you stop eating. You want to die and you are dying but not fast enough. Not nearly fast enough.

The person who brought you the food and the water and prayed with you and for you instead glorified your pain. Tried to teach you to embrace it, tried to tell you that it would bring you closer to their god. And gasping with dried blood on your lips you beg for relief and she smiles and refuses.

And when her time comes, when her body finally fails and starts to slowly kill her she found a clean room with a clean bed with medical professionals who identified her illness and treated both her disease and the symptoms, the pain the discomfort, and the nausea. She was given comfort and dignity and you died in agony and filth.

Now. How do you really feel about how she decided to deal with her ill health versus how she treated you as you died?

Just a little f**king hypocritical.''

[Age]

What a vile p**** of a father. No wonder you grew up with no self esteem. There is NO such thing as a 'turd child'. ALL children are amazing.
And don't stick up for him. Good riddance.

Have you ever considered that 'the father' could have had a worse upbringing?

[Age]

What a vile p**** of a father. No wonder you grew up with no self esteem. There is NO such thing as a 'turd child'. ALL children are amazing.
And don't stick up for him. Good riddance.

I appreciate the sentiment. I wish it were the case that I shouldn't stick up for him, but he was apparently traumatized as a kid by his older cousins who would dangle and taunt him over a rattlesnake cage when they were out snake hunting. He conveyed that story to us on a few occasions. It's amazing to me that he was able to make it as far as fatherhood. He grew up on a small farm in Idaho. I'm basically one foot out of being trailer trash. He was generally kind to everyone except his family members. In reality, his only mistake was having a child I suppose. He wasn't equipped to raise one but he did his best, I guess.

Thank you so much here "gary childress" for enlightening the rest of society who are so very quick to 'judge' others.

The ones who pretend they are there for children, and who judge and hate adults, always seem to forget that 'those hated adults' could be some of the ones who have had the most horrific childhoods.

What was, and will be, found is that the parents who dislike, hate, and/or mistreat their children the most, are the one who were mostly likely disliked, hated, and/or mistreated, literally, more or less the same.

On just about every occasion where a parent does not like their child, it is because they see "themselves" in 'that child', which they were brought up to not like as well, because they were not liked also.

And, once others fully understand how and why ALL people are the way they are, then they will learn how and why it is so very, very Wrong to judge an adult for what they do, or do not do, and maybe especially so in regards to what they do, or do not do, to children.

For some of the worst abuse an adult can do to a child all of you adults are actually do, and not doing, right 'now', when this is being written.

[Age]

What a vile p**** of a father. No wonder you grew up with no self esteem. There is NO such thing as a 'turd child'. ALL children are amazing.
And don't stick up for him. Good riddance.

I appreciate the sentiment. I wish it were the case that I shouldn't stick up for him, but he was apparently traumatized as a kid by his older cousins who would dangle and taunt him over a rattlesnake cage when they were out snake hunting. He conveyed that story to us on a few occasions. It's amazing to me that he was able to make it as far as fatherhood. He grew up on a small farm in Idaho. I'm basically one foot out of being trailer trash. He was generally kind to everyone except his family members. In reality, his only mistake was having a child I suppose. He wasn't equipped to raise one but he did his best, I guess.

'Did his best'. Hmm. You could say that about anyone. What does it even mean?

"Did their best", is just an excuse used for not doing better, or for not seeking out to do better.

Obviously, one can only do what one can, at any particular moment, with what knowledge that they have obtained and gained hitherto, but also just as obvious is that absolutely every adult human being can do 'better' than what they are 'currently' doing.

His 'best' was lower than a snake's belly. FFS. What kind of genes do you have exactly? 'Dangling over rattlesnakes'? Sounds like you have risen about a mile ABOVE the level of your degenerate father.

Did you not hear "gary childress". "gary childress" does not have children. Just maybe it would be a 'whole other world' if "gary childress" had.

What, exactly, are you comparing a childless "gary childress" in relation to "gary childress's" father? you cannot legitimately say and claim that "gary childress" is a mile above the level of a so-called and so-labelled 'degenerate father' when "gary childress" never has been a 'father', of any kind.

[Age]

Oh yes, we all know that whatever you look up courtesy of google you are always going to find polar opposite 'facts' to back up whatever stance you want to take. You can google 'smoking is good for you' and find plenty of info to back it up

This is why we have a brain, and why we are supposed to use it.

All told, if her mission was only to give the poor a place to "die in dignity", then I suppose she fulfilled it. I'm not sure that amounts to much of anything fantastic, especially to warrant "sainthood." There are certainly people out there who have done much more for much less recognition.

''Imagine you are ill. You live in a dirty bed with a room of dying people in their dirty beds. You’ve had a burning in your lungs that has become a searing pain. You cough up blood. You can’t take a deep breath. It starts to hurt so bad that inhaling feels like glass and sand and is exhausting. You are given food and water, and you beg for relief. For medicine, you’re not stupid - you know that there are things to take to numb the pain, stop the pain or just dull it. And you are given food and water and prayer and you stop eating. You want to die and you are dying but not fast enough. Not nearly fast enough.

The person who brought you the food and the water and prayed with you and for you instead glorified your pain. Tried to teach you to embrace it, tried to tell you that it would bring you closer to their god. And gasping with dried blood on your lips you beg for relief and she smiles and refuses.

And when her time comes, when her body finally fails and starts to slowly kill her she found a clean room with a clean bed with medical professionals who identified her illness and treated both her disease and the symptoms, the pain the discomfort, and the nausea. She was given comfort and dignity and you died in agony and filth.

Now. How do you really feel about how she decided to deal with her ill health versus how she treated you as you died?

Just a little f**king hypocritical.''

Are you here trying to suggest that you will go and 'die' the same way that you are allowing others to do 'now'? Or, will you go out and seek the most comfortable way for you to 'die'?

Are you not a hypocrite here?

you, obviously, are allowing children to 'die', needlessly, and in horrible excruciating pain, when you could be saving them.