A quick glance at the Parlor

[Kirkland1244]

Shows about a half dozen articles throughout the first pages on its forums that could be considered anti-Catholic.

And then Wols goes over there, and posts ONE article that defends Catholicism against the Rapture and those terrible Left Behind books (in part by showing why you shouldn't trust the two "Christians" who wrote it)... and

What happened with the Envoy post was the natural result of Michie's blind, biased posting of dozens of anti-Catholic, anti-Liberal, anti-Islam, anti-Whatever articles over the past few months.

But of course, when she posts things about Catholic Bishops killing people, no one gets upset, and the leadership over there does nothing. But one little article dares to put the lie to the Fundamentalists' pet doctrine of the Rapture, and all hell breaks loose.

Yet the one by whom the hell broke has not publically been given a strike (despite the fact that he swore in a public forum, and started slinging about the "rapist priests" BS).

Whatever. Just, whatever.

Kirk

 

[Navigator]

There are threads that can be considered

anti-Episcapalian...

anti-Presbyterian...

anti-Protestant...

somewhat supportive of the Coptic Orthodox...

anti-Tarot...

anti-Wiccan...

anti-Jewish...

anti-Scientologist...

Course if you were the right colored glasses all thouse threads go away.. and all you see is RED...

There are THREE threads, started by me, QUOTING with agreement, things that are posted on the Catholic Exchange site...

So get down off your soap box... stop whining...

It really is tiring...

 

[Kirkland1244]

'I'm not a hypocrite. I'm exactly who I claim to be.'

Who Fievel or Kirkland?

I've always been both. The only reason I created "Fievel" was that I'd been given increasingly innaccurate reports on "when" the new rules would be ready and I'd be readmitted. I created Fievel as a back up just in case I was being fed a load of hogwash. I've actually had a very old user name (which I had well before my "original" name... I signed up for the board in July of last year, but forgot the SN and password... so I created a new account when I rejoined the board in October of last year... I remember the SN and password now), but I didn't, in deference to the rules. Fievel only came about when I felt like I was being jerked around.

And even then, I didn't intend to "use" him... and didn't, until everyone started jumping down Wols' throat for doing exactly what Michie had been for months: posting controversial articles.

I tried to be extra careful with Fievel, and not be inflammatory or abrasive. I apologize for the entire situation. I should have been more patient.

'I don't go around starting fights, I don't go around making trouble.'

followed closely by:
'I suggested Wols posted it.'

If Michie can post the stuff she's been posting, why can't Catholics do the same thing in reverse? Why is the Rapture untouchable, when Michie can posts article accusing Catholic bishops of killing millions of AIDS victims?

That's the double standard. No one has lifted a finger to slow her down or stop her. Yet Wols does the same in reverse, and its a major too doo.

Kirk

 

[Kirkland1244]

anti-Episcapalian...

anti-Presbyterian...

anti-Protestant...

anti-Tarot...

anti-Wiccan...

anti-Jewish...

anti-Scientologist...

Yes. So what's the big deal if Wols posts an anti-Rapturite view point? Why is that a scandal, when the much worse articles Michie has posted about Catholics are not?

This entire situation is the natural end result of Michie's actions.

There are THREE threads, started by me, QUOTING with agreement, things that are posted on the Catholic Exchange site...

Yeah. Now. Not that I don't appreciate it. But where were these articles prior to the Envoy blow up?

Kirk

 

[Habakkuk3]

________________________

'I suggested Wols posted it.'
________________________

Well, that has been de-urban-legendized by now, hasn't it?

Such is my understanding.

Actually Kirkland, you could possibly build a defense of re-instatement at Pizza Parlor based on

the NUMBER OF STRIKES being

NOT LITERAL NUMBERS --

but SYMBOLIC !!

Ya know, like

"200 Million is not really 200 MIllion";

"1000 years is not really 1000 years" ; etc.

I was thinking of something along these lines in the wake of any action which may be impending against me; which some may be drooling for...

Like, if Nav or other Pizza staff said:

"Habs, you now have STRIKE TWO" --

I would say --

yes, but how is the "Two" to be INTERPRETED?

In apocalyptic topics, it might mean something

SYMBOLIC;

and not an actual "number" at all;

therefore

"two strikes"

or

"three strikes"

would have merely an "allegorical meaning";

and not "really exist";

and, as they say in Frontier Gibberish:

"ya cain't ban a guy for sumpn what ain't!"

Anyway, Kirkland, it might be worth a shot.

Another angle is "multiplication of strikes" by total usernames --

I have thought of this before; but I can neither remember any other sock puppet passwords anymore; nor even how many extra ones I have besides He_Was_Not;

but in your case, if you know that you are on twice; you could appeal on the basis that you should have had six strikes before being banned --

one of those

"retroactive ecumenical clemency" precedents

that wouldn't even require an Imprimatur.

 

[Kirkland1244]

[I had already edited out the comment here. - Kirk]

 

[KC Catholic]

Thanks Kirk...I appreciate that.

 

[Navigator]

I tried to be extra careful with Fievel, and not be inflammatory or abrasive. I apologize for the entire situation. I should have been more patient.

Thanks for that, Fievel did post in a much better tone than Kirkland2.

Though I regret the time lag, you are not being jerked around. These discussions take time.

If Michie can post the stuff she's been posting, why can't Catholics do the same thing in reverse? Why is the Rapture untouchable, when Michie can posts article accusing Catholic bishops of killing millions of AIDS victims?

That's the double standard. No one has lifted a finger to slow her down or stop her. Yet Wols does the same in reverse, and its a major too doo.

Wols wasn't stopped... the article was posted, the article was responded to. The confusion may have been that right at the time the thread started getting out of hand, was the same time we started instituting a new policy in how we interpret the rules. In that case, mea culpa.

The new policy came about, by the way, from allegations that we do hold a double standard. Any defense that we have made in trying to maintain that we try as hard as we can NOT to be biased, it always returns to 'double standard is in the eye of the beholder'.

So, the new emphasis is that YOU are responsible for YOUR behavior. Not us. You are responsible for your feelings, and if you get hurt to take it to the person that caused any 'felt' harm. That is your responsiblity.

Our responsibility is to at times call a time out, and allow time for people to reflect on their feelings, and seek the proper response.

Now, I should also point out that all the articles that appear in the Salad Bar are there with the full knowledge of the Moderator. We've hardly ever 'censored' content, and only then with VERY serious reflection. Closing a thread, temporarily, doesn't mean that another thread of similar nature can't be opened, or discussed. It just means the RESPONSES to that thread are not in the best light, using the best language.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask them.

I'm sorry for our 'delay', and for the 'perception' of any bias.

(NOTE: I don't have internet access from home (unless I dial in Yeech!, until Decemeber 17th, so any delay is that my only connection is from work, and only with the allowance of time, during work...)

 

[MichieC]

Kirkland,
I do not dislike you nor am I anti-Catholic.

I had no problem whatsoever with the article Wolseley posted & thought it was a great starting point for discussion.

If you read these articles, they can be considered, anti-baptist, anti-pro-life, anti-church, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, etc.

I have not made it my mission to post only negative articles about the Catholic Church.

Most of these articles I get from Christian news sources or the secular media.

These things are happening now, within the world & the Christian Community.

I think it is a great opportunity to be able to discuss these things with other believers.

Can't we be honest?

Are we too fearful to ask a question for fear all hell will break loose?

I don't want to see it come to that.

If someone feels comfortable enough with me to bring up a touchy subject, question my beliefs..whatever, I'm not going to take offense so they will be afraid to ever ask again.

We are supposed to discuss & communicate with eachother.

As far as the anti-rapture article, I agree with you 100%. It should have been discussed not argued. No offense should have been by anyone.

It was a great topic & could have led to a very interesting discussion, too bad it didn't.

Anyway, just so you know where I'm coming from.

 

[Kirkland1244]

The problem is that you post articles with apparently no thought as to the source or the potential bias of the writer. You posted articles about Islam from Baptist news sources. I'm sorry, but that's like going to the Democratic National Committee web page to find out the truth about George W. Bush.

This entire situation is the end result of your endless spree of meaningless "news" postings. You drown out all conversation on the board with a flood of biased, stupid articles -- quite a few of them virulently anti-Catholic, which just increases the apparent stigma against Catholicism that permeates the Parlor.

Please, for the love of God, stop it. It's pointless. It's tacky. And instead of fostering conversation it just reinforces everything thats bad about that place.

Kirk

 

[MichieC]

So no articles?

You want no articles posted at all?

Hey, if that is what the vote is, I'm more than happy to comply.

I just thought if there is an article out there that is spreading misinformation, what better place to nip it in the bud & clear up any misconceptions.

 

[Navigator]

IMNSHO, the whole situation results of several violations of rule number one (a modification of the golden rule).

Not because articles were posted. If that were the case we should turn off the news, and burn all the magazines, since every media point has some bias...

But because of people's reaction to those articles.

It is the respondant's choice to post calmly and reasonably, rebutting any mis-information. The respondant can also choose to advise whomever the posted the article of any bias from the source, and what axes a particular source is grinding...

If the person is offended by the use of one source (Chick tracts, the Onion, Landover Baptists, Jesus-is-Lord, Betty Bowers... etc), it is incumbent on the respondant to tell the poster that such material offends them, and seek some agreement between those two parties...

If the respondant only replies with vile, they shouldn't be surprised if they recieved vile in return. But, the first rule should still respond IAW rule number one, and seek to take the interchange higher, instead of lower.

It is incumbent on the moderator to 'reign-in' such downward spirals, by closing the thread, and asking the participants to take it offline.. hopefully by seeking a common ground instead of just fighting in the mud.

If fighting is all that is wanted by the respondant, then that will become apparent to the others as well as the staff. Then appropriate measures can be made...

If someone that is involved in a fight and they apologize either publically or privately to their adversary, then there is no reason to take the matter any further.

Summary: it should be our goal to increase the peace... regardless of what was posted prior to our post.

Sometimes we all fail at that, but that should be our intention.

Strive for the truth, and do it in love.

Peace.

 

[Wolseley]

It is the respondant's choice to post calmly and reasonably, rebutting any mis-information. The respondant can also choose to advise whomever the posted the article of any bias from the source, and what axes a particular source is grinding...

If the person is offended by the use of one source (Chick tracts, the Onion, Landover Baptists, Jesus-is-Lord, Betty Bowers... etc), it is incumbent on the respondant to tell the poster that such material offends them, and seek some agreement between those two parties...

Normally what I try to do is go through the article and point out where the inaccuracies lie; granted, I stick pretty much to Catholic or historical issues, but that's where my knowledge is. I don't give out opinions in areas like Islamic law or scientific evolution or nuclear physics, because I don't know very much about those subjects.

If the article makes some points that are inaccurate, I try to provide quotes from reliable sources; say, if the article says "Catholics believe X,Y, and Z", when what we actually believe is E,F, and G, I will try to provide a quote or a link to a Catholic site or the Catechism or the relevant Catholic documents which clearly state that what Catholics believe is E,F, and G. If the source the person is referring to is biased, bigoted, inaccurate, or misinterpreted, I say so, and show where and how it is so.

I also have to agree that simply saying "Your opinion is vile, ignorant, stupid, typical Fundamentalist hogwash" doesn't do much to enlighten the addressee of your comments or the other people reading the thread, and it does make you look small, petty, and not terribly Christlike. In apologetics, one of the foremost principles is that you very likely are not going to convince your opponent at the outset. It can take years. What you're doing is planting a seed, and having someone tell you, "Your opinions are vile and you're an idiot" is not going to bear terribly good fruit when it blossoms. You're also not going to convince him if he doesn't want to be open-minded. Sometimes it's simply best to agree to disagree and let it go at that.

IMHO, Michie ought to keep posting her articles over at the Parlor; if someone disagrees with them, then spell out why they disagree and drive on. If they aren't interested in them, then don't read them and drive on. It ain't complicated.

And, as always, no one is required to agree with me.

Blessings and peace,
---Wols.