No Jebus, no kids. Too bad.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It does, as a matter of fact. Because that was in no way too strange to seem surprising.

Precisely.

[Jasper]

Ooooohhhh.  Sheesh.  This is what I get for not scrutinizing.

What a terrible thing to lay on an already jaded and misanthropic crowd. 

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Here's one that's a little more recent.

Agnostic Dad Loses Custody of Kids

They did address my religion with me on several different occasions during the hearings. However, I never posed a situation for my children or ever forced my beliefs onto the kids. Matter of fact, they continue to go to a christian daycare. When I had joint legal I agreed to take them to Church functions such as the Mother's Day Choir. As well as allow them to go to church with my mother who attends on a regular basis, in addition to Church camp, those kinds of things. We were able to show that in no way, shape, or form do my personal beleifs and decisions reflect onto the children at all.

[Triple Zero]

That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast. 

The problem is, is that it's totally believable that it was a current event.

*cough* AWS *cough* ...

[Requia ☣]

What does AWS stand for?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

As we speak

[MMIX]

As we speak

I still don't get it??

ALSO

This information is from the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy. http://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/article_view/article_id/2435?pg=9

New Jersey Court Case: The Adoption of E
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF "E", A CHILD, BY JOHN P. BURKE AND CYNTHIA D. BURKE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

Supreme Court of New Jersey

59 N.J. 36; 279 A.2d 785
July 1, 1971, Decided

JUDGES:
For reversal -- Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain. For affirmance -- None. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Proctor, J. Weintraub, C.J. (concurring). Weintraub and Jacobs, JJ., concur in result.

"...it is unnecessary for us to consider plaintiffs' further contentions that the trial court's decision denied both them and the child "E" equal protection and due process of law. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Since the sole ground for denying the adoption was the Burkes' beliefs regarding religion and it is clear from the record that they are otherwise fit, we grant the adoption in the exercise of our original jurisdiction. See R. 2:10-5; In re Adoption by B, supra, 63 N.J. Super. at 104.
Judgment is entered in accordance with this opinion. ...

I can think of nothing more unmanageable than an inquiry into a man's religious, spiritual and ethical creed. There is no catalogue of tolerable beliefs. Nor would the nature of man permit one, for man is inherently intolerant as to matters unknowable, and the intensity of his intolerance is twin with the intensity of his views....

No matter how it is phrased or explained, an inquiry into religious, spiritual and ethical views can mean no more than this, that a man or a woman is unfit, or a bit unfit, to be a parent, natural or adoptive, if his or her thoughts exceed the tolerance of the mortal who happens to be the judge in a placement bureau or in the judiciary. I find such an inquiry to be as offensive as it is meddlesome and irrelevant to the true issue."

my emphasis

The full article is considerably longer and well worth a look for the legal background it gives.

[AFK]

Andy Williams Society

[Nephew Twiddleton]

As we speak

I still don't get it??

Ok Trip said:

That's what I get for copypasta'ing too fast. 

The problem is, is that it's totally believable that it was a current event.

*cough* AWS *cough* ...

My comment bolded to give context. This occured right after Zappathruster added this:

Here's one that's a little more recent.

Agnostic Dad Loses Custody of Kids

They did address my religion with me on several different occasions during the hearings. However, I never posed a situation for my children or ever forced my beliefs onto the kids. Matter of fact, they continue to go to a christian daycare. When I had joint legal I agreed to take them to Church functions such as the Mother's Day Choir. As well as allow them to go to church with my mother who attends on a regular basis, in addition to Church camp, those kinds of things. We were able to show that in no way, shape, or form do my personal beleifs and decisions reflect onto the children at all.

So I think Trip was making a commentary that it's still going on. Or AWS is some weird Danish word.

[Cramulus]

It stands for Adam Weishaupt Society

which is an inactive cabal of news media pranksters.  Our primary MO was to release totally fake news and then score points when people treat it as real or pass it on.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It stands for Adam Weishaupt Society

which is an inactive cabal of news media pranksters.  Our primary MO was to release totally fake news and then score points when people treat it as real or pass it on.

Ah. That'll learn me to pay attention to apparent patterns.

Edit- no sarcasm, it seems to be a recent habit of mine.

[Triple Zero]

Adam Weishaupt Society. See O:MF. Since it's so believable to be a current day thing, and even fooled us old skeptics, in a new form it would make some pretty good fake news.

[MMIX]

Adam Weishaupt Society. See O:MF. Since it's so believable to be a current day thing, and even fooled us old skeptics, in a new form it would make some pretty good fake news.

D'oh. . /bangs head on desk/ - some days I am too dumb to breathe, lol. I was actually tempted to go play devil's advocate in the AWS thread but here seems more appropriate now. I just wondered whether creating fake news and having it unwittingly picked up and brought back by a PeeDeer as real news would be a stunning success or a miserable failure; or both.

I once spent over ten years researching around an historical hoax and the one conclusive thing that stuck out for me was that you can never clear the waters once you have muddied them. Hoaxes are like bushfires, you can stamp them out in one place but they will flare up somewhere else when you are not looking. Once material exists it will continue to be cited long, long, after it has been categorically disproved. And spreading hoaxes is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, you know that you can't fool all of the people all of the time but you also know that you can fool some of the people all/some of the time, and that is all it ever takes to disseminate BS.

Relating to the OP I ploughed my way through several hundred virtually identical refs to the original story Roger quoted and the thing that struck me was that many of them were passing on a faulty version which described the older son as 31 instead of 3 when the daughter was 17 months. Very few of them even commented on this huge discrepancy in ages and they obviously hadn't taken the time to check the original. This is, of course, totally predictable.

Bottom line. I have a vested interest in not waking up with a gun in my face some morning to be dragged off to Re-education Camp because some dumb jerk spread a chinese whisper that discordians are a "dangerous cult" and some equally dumb jerks thought that we needed to be rounded up and sorted out.

[LMNO]

I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

[MMIX]

I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

I guess you just had to be there, hunh??