Dear David O. and Kevin,

It is apparent that you are too steeped in Protestant propaganda to be able to recognize genuine Christian teaching when you hear it. We have welcomed you into our home, and you have abused our hospitality by relentlessly attacking our family, the family of God. As a result I have no alternative but to ban you from this forum. Any future posts to the forum by either of you will be summarily deleted.

I will continue to pray for you, that your hearts and minds may be touched by the Holy Spirit, and that you may turn away from practicing bigotry in God's name, and eventually come to an appreciation of true Christianity.

To all members of the forum in good standing: Please do not respond to any future posts you see by David or Kevin, as responses to their posts will be deleted along with their messages.

Sincerely, In Christ, Moderator

-- Paul (Moderator) (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 06, 2003

Answers

Dear Paul, I'm not a fan of lengthy debates and tangent arguing, but:

Most of the people who visit the forum, read and observe before they ever post. Many have questions. In debating David and others, many who are just reading may learn.

Banning someone just doesn't feel right.

How can we convert if we close the dialogue?

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 07, 2003.

Dear John,

I have no problem whatsoever with lengthy debates or with tangent arguing. Neither do I have any problem with the posting of ideas contrary to Catholic teaching, and the rational discussion of those ideas.

However, I do have a problem with people whose only intent is to use a Catholic forum for the purpose of venting their bigotry and hatred for the Catholic Church and its divinely appointed leadership. Neither do I quickly assign any individual to this category. But a month or more of viscious daily attacks, categorizing the Catholic Church as a tool of Satan, the Pope as the Antichrist, the Mass as voodoo, and the teachings of Christ as pagan heresy is quite enough. You probably haven't even seen the worst messages posted by these individuals, since I have deleted them as soon as I have seen them, and I check the forum quite often. If this were merely my personal reaction to the situation, I would still be reluctant to take direct action. But several other folks have let me know, either through this forum or via email, that they likewise have had quite enough of this harrassment. Therefore, I have finally taken this action because, as stated above, I see no possible alternative.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 07, 2003.

Unfortunately, some people do not come to a Catholic forum to dialogue, but to attack.

No matter how many Truths may be presented; how many Biblical, historic, or even scientific proofs are offered, such persons refuse to listen and just keep attacking. That isn't dialogue.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), July 07, 2003.

John,

It does get irritating to post the same thing to someone over and over and then have them repeat their same argument at the end of the page, not having listened to a word. If this particular TYPE of poster is allowed to continue what they write next is "see, you can't answer me, the Catholic church is wrong" when the reality is that after awhile everyone has just gotten tired of answering the same thing over and over without the poster listening.

It's a way of keeping the forum centered on the Catholic church, and not having it be overrun by one or two people who don't mind filling up the whole place with the same senseless things. Another way of looking at it is that this is like our house. We are willing to put up with a rude houseguest for a period of time, but after you ask them repeatedly to be respectful enough to quit laying around in their underwear in front of the kids and burning holes in the carpet, enough is enough and you don't invite them back.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 07, 2003.

Paul,

Good work, btw. No matter what you decide here at least *someone* is going to complain that you're either deleting too much or not enough. Do what you think is best, and that is more than good enough for me! Listen to complaints, have a thick skin, and keep going.

I also got to the point of deleting the LeFebvrist Schismatics for the same reason, but it took a *long* time to get there. In general when these posters start having their posts deleted they either shape up or move on, so it doesn't go on forever, just until a new one shows up to take their place ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 07, 2003.

I agree with Frank. There are some threads that have been started, and some tangental topics in other threads, where it is apparent that there is some "Catholic baiting" going on. They ask to justify our existence with Scripture, and we have done so, and they do not listen. Their hearts are hardened like the Pharisees of old. The same issues and leading questions seem to be popping up in several threads simultaneously.

There are some, however, whom I feel are being called by God to the Catholic faith, and that is why He led them here. May God grant us the ability to provide the wisdom they need to embrace the Catholic faith.

Pax et Bonum.

Thomas

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), July 07, 2003.

Hi.

You know, these trouble makers will return to this forum, but I'm hoping that they will return with a new spirit. When this happens, then the time will come for their enlightenment and conversion. It can't be done while they are in an evil way. So, as Paul and St. Paul have done, banning these trouble makers is the best thing for this forum and for the trouble makers.

I do not like being censored, but I do not like being brain washed by evil doers more.

rod. . . . . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 07, 2003.

Paul,
I'm glad you saw the problem and acted. I'm not one who retaliated by asking for the deletions of anti- Catholics. John Gecik will testify to that. Previously I traded retorts with David, Kevin and the bigotted Jay Gentile. Not so pretty to watch, I know; yet I expected them to soften their stances for the sake of dialogue. Instead they've escalated the abuse to the level of open hatred. Keep in mind that D.O. said clearly he would not be deleted; that he knew ways of getting around that.

Let's not allow them. I for one will alert our Catholics so that when they return we'll ignore them long enough for you to delete their posts.

They've challenged our Moderator, abused his lenient position, and caused their own demise. Let's also thank every good Catholic who repudiated them every day. May God be merciful to David & Kevin.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 07, 2003.

Keep up the great work, Paul.

Thanks for keeping everyone in line, correcting our typos, and posting all those great answers to the most difficult questions.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 07, 2003.

Since I'm relatively new to this forum, I've only had experiences with David and ALEX. Is Alex the same as Kevin or Jay? Alex is a real piece of work, too.

Of course we all know that these people can just respawn with new id's and email addresses, due to hotmail, etc. I'm afraid we can't really do anything at all, except to ignore them???

I'm glad that we can once again discuss Catholic topics with each other, instead of spending all of our time and energy speaking to the "deaf".

Paul...you've always done a terrific job, not only with moderating, but also your well-thought-out posts. You've made this forum a real learning experience for me...a newbie. Thanks!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 07, 2003.

It's a tough and thankless job, Paul; but you are the right man for it; and you are to be congratulated on the way in which you conduct yourself -- with great Dignity, as we would expect from "a man of the cloth".

Well done, Sir! Well done!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 08, 2003.

Well said Ian and Victoria. Keep up the great work Paul and thankyou!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 09, 2003.

I used to post more frequently in the past. I was glad to answer some genuine questions about the Catholic Faith. If as of late you see few posts from me it is because I got tired of trying to defend, defend , defend.... useless attacks. I say useless attacks because I know these people haven't convinced anyone.

Paul; THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), July 09, 2003.

Amen!

Many thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 09, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Enrique.
Your past (more ample) contributions were excellent. I and many other people have missed them. I too have cut back on reading and posting here, so disgusted have I been by the anti-Catholicism in three major areas -- (a) protestant fundamentalism, (b) attacks on the Church's tribunals, and (c) dissent that claims that error exists in Vatican II, the Catechism, and the pope's teachings. Area (c) is the most pernicious of all, because its devious practitioners pretend to be Catholic, and their grave errors may seem plausible to (Catholic or unchurched) lurkers. Immediate banning is needed even more in area (c) than it was in area (a), because even poorly educated lurkers can usually see how far off-base the "fundies" are.

I hope that conditions will change here now, Enrique, so that you and I can be more active again. This new departure of two bigots is a good start, but I say that there are at least six other recent contributors [in areas (b) and (c)] who must be firmly "disinvited" -- "immediately (if not sooner)."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 09, 2003.

yeh may I chime in? I too appreciate you being 'quick on the draw' Paul. There was a time when a spicy conversation was appropriate between fellow Catholics, hey that's how we learned to debate and express our faith, and train in evangelizing,it was fun. It's different when people argue from an anti-Catholic attitude.

Does anyone remember that movie "To Sir with Love"? Remember the scene at the end when Sydney Portier decided to stay on teaching one more year and tore up his acceptance note from the other job, and those new students came in, tearing up the place, and he just tossed up the pieces of paper, like, "here we go again"?

That's how I feel when one more person comes on here asking the same questions... but isn't it our place at times to go ahead and re-state the truth over and over. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (RodnTee4Jesus@aol.com), July 09, 2003.

Paul,

First off, thank you for the job you perform here. I think you are in a lose-lose situation when it comes to banning. If you ban people, the "bannees" lose because they will no longer be able to read the truths when they are corrected. But if you do not ban, then this forum loses becuase it is inundated with useless and false posts.

I for one am in agreement with this latest ban due to these two posters are obviously not trying to understand and learn. Rather, they are here simply to bash the Catholic Church.

God Bless!

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), July 10, 2003.

Paul:

Please clarify: Am I welcome to post here?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 10, 2003.

Dear Theresa,

You ask: "... but isn't it our place at times to go ahead and re-state the truth over and over."

A: Yes! Most certainly! And I surely think we met that responsibility many times over with these particular fellows. If you serve a banquet to the same people day after day, and they just throw it on the floor and trample it underfoot day after day, eventually you come face to face with the reality that there is simply no point "casting your pearls before swine" (to use Matthew's analogy). Matthew further instructs ... "If your brother sins, show him his fault; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he still refuses to listen, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, have nothing more to do with him." (Matthew 18:15-17) Of course, it is ignorance we are dealing with here, not necessarily overt sin, but I think the point still stands - there has to be a limit to how much time and effort you invest trying to help someone who has decided not to be helped, even when that effort makes life more difficult for others.

Dear Glenn,

You state: If you ban people, the "bannees" lose because they will no longer be able to read the truths when they are corrected."

A: Yes, and it is that very consideration which caused me to drag my feet for so long before finally taking decisive action, much to the consternation of some forum members. I won't ban anyone unless they PROVE to me, consistently and repeatedly, that they are absolutely closed to even considering the possibility that what they hear here may be worthwhile. If I can see the slightest glimmer of hope that they might actually benefit from being here, then I am willing to put up with ongoing abuse for their sake. Unfortunately, in my capacity as moderator, making such a decision for myself means that a lot of other people have to put up with abuse also, which really isn't fair to the forum as a whole. In any case, once it is clear that a given individual is absolutely resistant to Catholic truth, and openly hostile toward it, not because of its content, but simply because it is Catholic, then no reason remains to subject either myself or others to such ongoing abuse. The "bannees" really lose nothing as a result of such action, because they have already decided to accept nothing, whether they are here or not.

Dear Jake,

You ask: "Am I welcome to post here? "

A: Obviously I cannot speak for every individual, so some may consider you welcome here and some may not. I'm sure my own presence here is likewise welcomed more by some people than by others. But you are asking, I assume, for a more "official" response. Even that is difficult, for I too am an individual, and I naturally look on some individuals as more "welcome" than others. Some I look forward to reading. Some I have no particular strong feelings about. Some I tolerate. And occasionally there may be some who cannot be tolerated any longer. So, without categorizing you personally, all I can say is that so far your posts, in my opinion, are generally within acceptable guidelines. I hope that is an adequate response.

To others who have responsed: Thanks for the words of support and encouragement

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 10, 2003.

Jmj

Paul, I consider this one of the most important messages I have ever posted at this forum. It is "do or die" time.

Paul, you wrote: "I won't ban anyone unless they PROVE to me, consistently and repeatedly, that they are absolutely closed to even considering the possibility that what they hear here may be worthwhile. If I can see the slightest glimmer of hope that they might actually benefit from being here, then I am willing to put up with ongoing abuse for their sake. ... [O]nce it is clear that a given individual is absolutely resistant to Catholic truth, and openly hostile toward it, not because of its content, but simply because it is Catholic, then no reason remains to subject either myself or others to such ongoing abuse."

Except for one mistake, those words of yours are very good indeed. Unfortunately, after writing them, you then responded, as follows, to the pro-SSPX, schismatic (or heretic), "Jake1 Pngusa" -- one of the two most obnoxious, venom-squirting, devious, and nefarious individuals who has ever posted at this forum:

"... without categorizing you personally, all I can say is that so far your posts, in my opinion, are generally within acceptable guidelines."

What can I say, Paul? I am trying to understand how in the name of heaven you could have replied to the guy in that fashion! Your reply to him is a total non sequitur on the heels of the previous words I quoted from you. Never were there people who better fit your description of "ban-ables" than Jake Pngusa and his sidekicks.
The only possibilities that I can think of to explain your reply to him are these:
EITHER (1) In your nine (?) months here, you have not really read much, so you don't know enough about Jake Pngusa's erroneous beliefs and damaging actions ...
OR (2) You have read lots of Jake Pngusa's errors and abuses, but you have a memory problem, forgetting what you read almost immediately ...
OR (3) You have read Jake's junk and realize how terrible he is, but you are too weak in spirit to apply the ultimate sanction on this guy and his very dangerous sidekicks because they claim to be Catholics ...
OR (4) You have read Jake's junk, but somehow you lack the perception that you need in order to discern how obnoxious and dangerous he is ... and, ergo, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to help you to realize that you are wrong about Jake.

Which is it, Paul?

If it's number (1), then please try to read a whole lot more, both in current threads and especially the archives, so that you will know that you need to withdraw what you just told Jake Pngusa ("so far your posts ... are generally within acceptable guidelines").

If it's number (2), Paul, then please let us send you a collection of the dung Jake Pngusa has left here, including his reference to the newer rite of the Mass as an "abomination" -- the major reason for which he was banned once before.

If it's number (3), Paul, then what would it take to ban Jake Pngusa and his schismatic sidekicks (especially "Emerald," who is even more dangerous than Jake)? Would you require that orthodox Catholics publicly condemn their presence here? Or would you want instead that the same orthodox Catholics should privately contact you by e-mail to call for their banning? Are you strong enough to stand up to the fundies -- banning them -- but not strong enough to stand up to a couple of blowhards that pretend to be Catholics? Or, as all indications seem to be, were you not even strong enough to stand up to the fundies until you got multiple e-mails from Catholics? Do you need our moral support before you can take action again?

If it's number (4), then I would feel terribly sorry for you and the forum. It would mean that you don't realize how much damage these guys have done, and continue to do, drawing orthodox Catholics (like Robert P, several months ago) into schism. If it's number (4), then I would know that my years of enjoyment at this forum have unexpectedly come to an end, and I would have to end my reading and replying here. I left here for seven weeks, beginning in January after seeing myself and others abused by the previous moderators. I was willing to come back only because they had left. (I believe that the same is true of another regular who left and returned.) If you decide to permit Jake Pngusa and Emerald to remain here (to keep putting down the pope/Catechism/Vatican-II, and to keep harassing me and other Catholics), I will have to consider that to be another form of "moderator misconduct," and I will phase myself out of here.

Paul, I ask you to reflect on the following, your OWN words to Jake Pngusa -- and to see in them the mandate that you need for banning him and Emerald (and their fellow schismatics who have lately been staying away voluntarily):
"Unfortunately, in my capacity as moderator, making such a decision for myself means that a lot of other people have to put up with abuse also, which really isn't fair to the forum as a whole."

RIGHT!!! The "abuse" brought here for nearly 18 months by the five schismatics/heretics "really isn't fair" to me and the other Catholic "regulars." That is reason enough for them to be forced to "hit the road" until they undergo a radical conversion, renounce their schism, return to the Church, apologize publicly here for their abuse, and beg permission to return to the forum.

Let's take another look at my first quotation of your words, above.

----- "I won't ban anyone unless they PROVE to me, consistently and repeatedly, that they are absolutely closed to even considering the possibility that what they hear here may be worthwhile."

I swear to you, Paul, that Jake Pngusa, Emerald, and their pals [Ed Richards, Isabel, and Regina (Jake's wife)] have "consistently and repeatedly" "prove[d]" "that they are absolutely closed to even considering the possibility that what they hear here may be worthwhile."
And I call upon other good Catholics to corroborate my sworn testimony to you.

----- "If I can see the slightest glimmer of hope that they might actually benefit from being here, then I am willing to put up with ongoing abuse for their sake."

I swear to you, Paul, that Jake Pngusa, Emerald, and pals have never demonstrated "the slightest glimmer of hope that they might actually benefit from being here." I reiterate the fact that, as moderator, you MUST take into consideration not only the possibility of belligerent people "benefit[ing] from being here" but also the possibility that their presence is gravely harming others. In this case the latter is not a "possibility," but a certainty, since they have drawn at least one person into schism.
And I call upon other good Catholics to corroborate my sworn testimony to you.

----- "... [O]nce it is clear that a given individual is absolutely resistant to Catholic truth, and openly hostile toward it, not because of its content, but simply because it is Catholic, then no reason remains to subject either myself or others to such ongoing abuse."

I swear to you, Paul, that Jake Pngusa, Emerald, and pals are "absolutely resistant to Catholic truth and openly hostile toward it." They reject "its content" -- basically saying that the pope and bishops are teaching "non-Catholicism." Your mistake in the quoted passage is to say that you will ban someone only who is hostile to what we believe "simply because it is Catholic." You need to ban also those who are not "classic anti-Catholics," but also these "pseudo-Catholics" who say, in effect, that the Catholic Church is no longer "the Catholic Church."
And I call upon other good Catholics to corroborate my sworn testimony to you.

If you decide to ban me instead, Paul, so be it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 10, 2003.

Paul (and Jake--)
I agree with most of John's remarks. I don't care for ''venom-spitting'', --''collection of dung'', or ''dangerous'' as adjectives and names. --Pharisee is a better word for Jake, IMHO. It is this kind of invective that defeats John over and over.

I also would rather not meet with Jake & Ed and their friends here. They do what they're good at: DIVIDE. If you ban them, I'll be happy. If Emerald were as insidious as the others, I'd also be glad to see him banned. As of now, I think he's just working things out. He can still benefit by our conversations, I feel. But Jake & Ed are the type that, if I see them coming I'll cross the street. Nothing good can come of hubris like theirs.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 10, 2003.

PLEASE, PLEASE, have a look at this -->>>>> http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00B0kj

"Christian Soldier"?!?!?!

why are we quarreling about our fellow Catholics, when people like CS are attempting to infest this site with their malignant filth.

priorities, surely, are of the utmost importance. personalities are irrelevant.

in society as a whole, we Catholics under-represent ourselves as a group. on this website, please, maybe we can represent the true united front of Catholicism.

step 1:- Ban "Christian Soldier" --- before we look at banning fellow Catholics such as ?????????.

step 2:- let's try to see the difference between schism and the kind of differences that have always existed between Catholics. Luther went his own way. the pro- and con- bishops of V2 stayed with Mother Church.

Blessed Mary, guide all those faithful Catholics who seek to set an example to the world at large; and also those Catholics, by whose mistakes (my own included), that example is most certainly needed.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 10, 2003.

PS

Paul

you are doing a terribly difficult job; and you are doing it so very well.

Your deserve to be in all our prayers.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 10, 2003.

Imho, while amusing, this targeting of certain forum participates, as being schismatic has gone overboard.

If there is anyone who is in obstinate denial of the truth, it's those who keep firing serious allegations time after time after the allegations themselves are shown to be spurious. At some point, it becomes just flat out lying.

Rome has spoken. It can be found in the Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003:

"Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Since none of the participants in this forum can judge the so-called schismatic's motives, none have the right to label him a schismatic and still walk away with a clean conscience.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 10, 2003.

Emmy;
Leave others to their own consciences. Make peace for yourself with God. He will judge whether or not inciting division among the faithful was good or evil. No one ever entered your house admonishing you for being there. No Catholic of our forum disparaged you as a worshipper of God. I myself haven't branded anybody schismatic or sinful.

My hope is to counteract the bad influence of prideful elites. There's no place in Christ's house for Pharisees. There's no excuse in your camp for belittling and denigrating any pontiff. We are faithful to Christ's holy Vicar on earth. If you wish to leave the fold, you'll be truly schismatic; no matter how you rationalise. Not us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 10, 2003.

The pharisee thing doesn't work so well either.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 10, 2003.

In Christian Soldier's defence, he says of his family, "None of them read the Bible or go to church but they are proud to be catholics." (emphasis mine). Inspite of this nominally Catholic background, he seems to know nothing about Catholic Christianity except for what he has picked up from the sects he joined, all of which he has rejected. I think it might be a good idea to let him stick around. That way he gets to meet people who are proud to be Catholic and also go to Church and read the Bible. Good for his soul, and good for us too, it gives us a chance to practice patience and charity.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 11, 2003.

OK, Stephen,
You handle him/her for the next two weeks as he inundates you in scripture; each verse with his magnificent private interpretation. He hardly bothers to read your post.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Dear Emerald,
If we go to the gospel narratives and read: every Pharisee except Gamaliel confronts Jesus Christ with a complaint, a jibe, or a trick question. Even when Jesus performs great signs the Pharisees attribute the works to a devil.

There are remarkable similarities in Jake's posts on this forum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Day-go, Day-ay-ay-go Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Nay, me say nay, me say nay, me say nay Me say nay, me say nay-ay-ay-o Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

We work all night postin’ modernist fun Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Stack o’ rebuttals when the mornin' come Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

Go, Mister greenie-glass, you won’t be correct-ed Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Go, Mister jakie-snake, you are disconnect-ed Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

It's a big, fat, venomous, schismatic BUNCH! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Let them stay and we’ll all be LUNCH! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

Day, me say day-ay-ay-go Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Day, me say day, me say day, me say day-ay-ay-GO! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

A beautiful forum a' ripe Nuvo-Catholics Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Ban the deadly trad schismatics!!! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

It's an undeniable, reductio CRUNCH! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Before we know it we’ve been had for LUNCH!! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

Day, me say day-ay-ay-go Day-don’t go and me post no mo’ Day, me say day, me say day, me say day-ay-ay-GO! Day-don’t go and me post no mo’

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 11, 2003.

Harry Bannafonte, yes?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 11, 2003.

While I think Christian Soldier has been horribly misled, he has never come across like a hatemongering bigot as have others. Let him stay. Plus, he sticks to the subject, not running around like a loose cannon every time he gets backed against the wall.

I don't think CS has crossed the line -- at least not with me as did Kevin and David. Healthy challenge is good, but when the atmosphere becomes bitter and rancorous, that is when we MUST part company!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 11, 2003.

Jmj

Unless you are a closet schismatic yourself, Paul, you'll learn a bitter lesson eventually. I'm just sorry that it seems (for the moment) that you want to have to learn the hard way. The heretics' comments on this very thread are enough to convince a decent person (one who has wisdom, guts, and a desire for justice) that these sick individuals are here to do only the bidding if their infernal father, Beelzebub.

Do you really lack that "wisdom, guts, and a desire for justice" -- as is hinted by the fact that you seem to have posted a joke in response to one of them? Can you not see how sick they are? Do you reject what Eugene said too?

Last time, I asked you which (if any) of the four possibilities that occurred to me was true -- as an explanation for why you have not yet banned them. You didn't answer me -- but did you see how, at the prompting of the devil, the two heretics replied for you? In effect, they insulted you by implying that the reason is #4 -- i.e., that "you lack the perception that you need in order to discern how obnoxious and dangerous" they are. That was the only reason that I linked with my leaving the forum, the eventuality that they are now maniacally exulting in.

If you let them stay here, there will literally be "hell to pay." The "father of lies" will be as ecstatic as a damned spirit can be, knowing that his "boys" will have a permanent foothold in what used to be "enemy territory."

Gene, you wrote: "I don't care for 'venom-spitting', -- 'collection of dung', or 'dangerous' as adjectives and names. Pharisee is a better word for Jake, IMHO. It is this kind of invective that defeats John over and over."

That last sentence, "mal-expressed" as if it were some kind of documented fact, is merely your opinion. And I don't care if your opinion is that I use language that is too frank, too colorful, or even exaggerated when I speak of these evildoers. Why not? Because two things are true, regardless of your opinion: (1) My message contained 100% truth, upon which Paul is duty-bound to act, and ... (2) What you call my "invective" cannot be shown ever to have "defeated" me -- much less "over and over."

The only "defeat" looming is the "defeat" that would be suffered by the forum, if Paul were to ignore what we have told him about Jake Pngusa and Ed Richards (and what I have told him about "Emerald," who must be thrilled to know that he has beguiled you with smooth-talk, since he is far more dangerous to the "great undecided" than the relative nitwits named Jake Pngusa and Ed Richards).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 11, 2003.

I agree with you, Gail, about "Christian Soldier" (Paolo). That's why, when I asked the Moderator (via e-mail) for the banning of "fundies," I named others, but not Paolo.

It has been a past practice of moderators, though, not to let folks like "CS" continue pounding away with the same errors indefinitely, without ever showing any openness to the truth to a correction of their errors. We have to pray that "CS" does not prove to be that kind of guy, who would need to be asked to leave.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 11, 2003.

Ok John G.

You have hammered away at Paul long enough. Now, it is your turn.

Be a man and give us the names of those whom you wish to ban. I am not into secret societies or black lists. I need to know how I stand in this forum. Walking on eggshells is not my thing.

rod. ... .. . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 11, 2003.

Drumroll, please...........

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 11, 2003.

Funny, how when John states his opinion, and then someone disagrees with him, then he states something like this....

(1) My message contained 100% truth, upon which Paul is duty- bound to act, and ...

as if we should all jump in line behind him, because he possesses all the truth. (Just ask him....in his opinion, he is always right.)

But then when someone else posts their opinion, he posts something like this.....

That last sentence, "mal-expressed" as if it were some kind of documented fact, is merely your opinion.

So, I'm thinking then, that according to John, his opinion is fact, while everyone else's opinion is.......well, wrong. He holds no respect, as he has shown time and time again, for anything that anyone else says that differs from what he says.

Jake, if he ever shows up at our place, I will ask you to mount up on your horse like St. George, and cast out the evildoer. Was that how it went?

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 11, 2003.

I must say that sitting on the sidelines for once this is enjoyable. Guess I need to get to confession for it, as it's not very charitable of me. Oh well, was going in this Sat. anywho.

Also, you guys might want to give Paul a break, if he gives up the job I might start up again, and my patience with this stuff has worn quite thin already.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2003.

Paul's an excellent Moderator. He does what has to be done and nothing more. He shouldn't have to defend his actions against John Gecik; even if John considers this ''one of the most important messages I have ever posted at this forum. It is "do or die" time.'' PONDEROSA BELLICOSA NERVOSA!

John simply isn't the Moderator. He can give his opinions of Jake, etc., with which I basically concur. (Not schism, necessary. But intolerance and plain error, YES, Jake has it coming.) He can even request that some persons be deleted & banned.

But having a cow about things he can't control-- that's very regrettable. Vituperation isn't healthy discourse, even when the one guilty of it is correct in what he asserts. John is correct. He's mean-spirited but correct. He's abusive but he's correct. Jake & Ed are in serious error for Catholics. They've even resorted to blasphemous remarks. They've corrupted Emerald and he's very cheerful about it. But we shouldn't hate him. Or Jake or Ed. These three should just be asked to stay out of the forum if they won't amend their ways. Frankly, we will never miss them. They are a mildly offensive blight on the proceedings, with their elitist and pharisaical prejudice. --Bunch of schnorrers, as my friend Sol would say. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

wow, I didn't realized things were so hot. I say we go with the current authority, pray for him and let the Holy Spirit have His way with this forum, we don't want it exploding do we?

Question: Is Christian Soldier the same person as C.S? Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), July 11, 2003.

John's heretical enemies are the culpables, not Paul. Yes, John defends the Church and so does Paul, there are others. But, John would you take it easy on Paul? You are not like those heretics. Or at least, take your fight to the private emails. You are out in the open, here.

rod. .... ..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 11, 2003.

Dear Rod,
Who are John's heretical enemies?

We have no enemies, heretical, anticatholic, or any other kind here. It isn't necessary to hate anybody. You're speaking of people who are in ERROR.

We may dispute with Jake, or the others. But why is he an enemy? He needs to reflect on this subject. To think over how badly he's performed. Not to become a punching bag. That's what I wish John would understand. Instead of saying, take out Jake's posts, John says, ''the schismatical, heretical, disgusting horrendous EVIL posts''.

I've said it before and nobody paid attention. This is a forum, an arena for thinking people. It isn't a holy sanctuary, an altar, or the breast of the Holy Virgin Mary. We don't have to bar whoever disagrees with us as Catholics. Give them the truth. Offer them a choice. Have Christian charity as long as it's possible!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Well, they are not my enemies either, but the way John handles them it seems like they are John's enemies. We can correct or ignore or even ban others without the colorful adjectives. If those aren't fighting words, I don't know what else they could be. It is very simple in my view. Just ban them or tolerate them. Stop pittling around with nasty characterizations.

How about this? "David, stop your trouble making. Last chance then you are out of here." We know who is "trolling" and who is not.

rod.. ... .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 11, 2003.

Certainly, Rod. Or, as the Jewish waitress said, when we asked her for the window seats. ''Soy tin -lee!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Alright, I challenge all of you to a duel.

Starting Monday night, July 14th, I will match each hour or part of an hour or multiple hours that anyone pledges in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, for this intention:

For the unity of the members of the Holy Catholic Church.

Respond by email or in the forum. The only rule is that you must be a forum regular, or have been, or at least "known" through this forum.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 11, 2003.

Eugene.

¡Milagro! Estamos agradable en la misma pågina. ¿Eres tu, Eugene?

No mas aquî "sonziando".

rod. . .... . ..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 11, 2003.

Emerald,

Put me down for one hour on Tuesday 7/22.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 11, 2003.

Done.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 11, 2003.

What is a person who refers to the Mass as an "abomination"? Not what I would call Catholic or Christian, and probably in very grave sin.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 11, 2003.

A anti-catholic bigot?

-- (blank@none.com), July 11, 2003.

Oh, brother.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 12, 2003.

Calm down fellows.

Frank please give up your keys to the Moderators' screen.

Arn't you the Chris Butler "hand picked" Moderator that banned Chavez before for complaining a few months ago? Can you come and go as you please, as Moderator?

Wasn't Paul picked as a Moderator by Chris Butler too? Isn't Chris Butler the guy that has said he has the "stigmatta"? And has hundreds of "private revalations"from Jesus? Isn't Chris Butler the guy that has posted before in forum about his past PCP abuse and paying to have children murdered?

-- (David@excite.com), July 12, 2003.

David, I need your help, bud. Give me an hour match?

Time to go in for the kill and expose the real roots of division.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 12, 2003.

How many moderators are there?

-- (blank@none.com), July 12, 2003.

The "schismatic" gives the "heretic" one hour.

We're off to a fantastic start. People, I'm serious about this; this isn't some sort of game.

Anybody? Let's not make next week an easy week.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 12, 2003.

Emerald,

You say you want a prayer contest and then say it's not a game? Why not pray yourself so that only your Father in Heaven sees you then you'll have your reward in Heaven. Doing this sort of public display will give you your reward HERE, and not later when you'll want it more.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 12, 2003.

Hello Emerald,

We have perpetual Eucharistic adoration in my parish, and I have two regular time slots, Tuesday and Friday evenings, midnight to 1:00. This week I will pray in a special way that the unity of teaching, worship, and authority which already exists in the Holy Catholic Church will be universally reflected among all Catholics, in their united and unanimous aceptance of and submission to that authority. I do not however see this as any sort of "duel" or 'challenge", just the normal spiritual responsibility of every member of the Body of Christ.

Peace!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 12, 2003.

"Doing this sort of public display will give you your reward HERE, and not later when you'll want it more."

I'm well aware that, Frank. That's not the intention behind it.

"I do not however see this as any sort of "duel" or "challenge", just the normal spiritual responsibility of every member of the Body of Christ."

I completely agree; I don't see it as a duel, either really, Paul. I know that's not the way things work, but I'll match your two.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 12, 2003.

Jmj

Good day, folks.
Yesterday, I laid all the substantive stuff on the table -- and I got all the (righteous, justifiable) anger off my chest. Today, I'll just drop a several (relatively unemotional!) quick notes in reply to posts that were left after my last one.

Ok John G. ... Be a man and give us the names of those whom you wish to ban. I am not into secret societies or black lists. I need to know how I stand in this forum. Walking on eggshells is not my thing. rod

Relax, Rod! I'll tell you (now for at least the second time) that you are no target of mine. I previously told you that, even though you may not believe everything that I do, I like you because you play by the rules of the forum. Remember how I told you that the repeated, flagrant breaking of the rules is my criterion for banning? [I can't see any point in my listing names on this thread, because they are the same people whom I have publicly named in the past, on various threads.]
But, Rod, assume for a moment that I asked Paul to ban you [which I didn't do]. Haven't you noticed that my influence with him is rather woeful?! The people I most want gone aren't gone yet. You're safe, pal -- as snug as a bug in a rug!

Isabel, your argument is fatally flawed. When I opine, I use language that shows that I am expressing an opinion. When I relate facts, that too is clear. I just expect others to do the same, not pretending that their opinions are facts. [By the way, did you notice how much respect I got from Gene after reminding him of that? His subsequent posts contain a bunch more assertions, all couched as facts, when some of them are just opinions. Apparently, he has an ingrained bad habit that I can't break and he chooses not to break. [Brace yourself for an excuse from "motor-boca"! (;-p)]

Also, you guys might want to give Paul a break, if he gives up the job I might start up again, and my patience with this stuff has worn quite thin already. [posted by a former co-moderator]

Paul, I see that there is one thing that is far more urgent than for you to ban the schismatics/heretics -- and that is to do whatever it takes to get the "moderator's password" changed -- so that only you (and the successor whom you choose) will have it -- NOT the former co-moderators, who are incompetent to take your place (not to mention, unworthy of the privilege). Despite the mistakes you have made, you are the only good moderator this forum has ever had. "David-excite" was so right to say to the former co-moderator, "[P]lease [permanently] give up your keys to the moderator's screen."

John would you take it easy on Paul? You are not like those heretics. Or at least, take your fight to the private emails. You are out in the open, here. rod

Yes, Rod, I will do so from this point forward. Please consider these facts, though ... Because I like Paul and have had a generally high opinion of his moderating, I had no intention at all of giving him a tough time in public. However, on the 10th (on this thread, above), he gave Jake Pngusa a "clean bill of health," and I felt that I just could not let such a terrible public mistake stand unchallenged in public. [Rod, I think that you are too new here to realize just how much pain Jake and his sidekicks have inflicted, and how much damage they have done, in the last 1.5 years.]

We have no enemies, heretical, anticatholic, or any other kind here. It isn't necessary to hate anybody.

This is correct. As I just told an anti-Catholic (Grant) on another thread two days ago, "I don't hate anyone -- whether Catholic or non-Catholic. I only hate the bad things that people do -- whether Catholic or non-Catholic." Thus, I don't hate Jake Pngusa and his cronies -- but I DETEST their theological errors and, even more, the bad things that they do here. I feel most sorry for those orthodox Catholics, moderator or otherwise, who don't realize how dangerous these ex-Catholics are. [That reminds me that I forgot to respond to Ian yesterday, when he wrote, "Why are we quarreling about our fellow Catholics?" Ian, my belief is that the people whose banning I have sought are no longer Catholics, having excommunicated themselves via schism or heresy or both.]

We don't have to bar whoever disagrees with us as Catholics. Give them the truth. Offer them a choice. Have Christian charity as long as it's possible!

We do give them truth, offer them a choice, and afford them charity as long as it's possible. One of the forum's two biggest problems has always been that some people have required OVER-tolerance and other people have granted it.

Well, they are not my enemies either, but the way John handles them it seems like they are John's enemies.

Just as I mentioned that I don't "hate" them, so now I will say that I don't consider them my "enemies" either. Instead I pray for them -- in obedience to Jesus, who said, "Pray for your persecutors." I hate the bad things that they say and do. Their words and actions are the "enemies" of orthodox Catholicism. The devil is my only personal enemy.

How many moderators are there? [asked by "blank@none.com"]

There is only one moderator -- "Big" Paul, a permanent deacon. One of the former co-moderators has completely left. The other one lost his position when he became seriously ill. But now (much to my chagrin) he has returned, and (to my great shock) seems to be trying to regain his old slot. Heaven forbid!
As the owner of this server and all of its forums (Philip Greenspun) told me via e-mail: "Most moderators get intoxicated by their power. They think that anything they do is justifiable, since they are not getting paid for their sacrifice of time." Oh, how right Philip was! In January, the former co-moderators nearly destroyed the forum completely, yet they have still never apologized for their grave offenses, which caused Eugene, me, and others to leave the forum until we found out that they were gone.

Can anyone imagine a moderator suspending Eugene for a week? Can anyone imagine a moderator deleting all ten (or more) posts left by an orthodox Catholic on a given day -- simply because that moderator found fault with a single sentence in a single one of those posts? How about doing that same kind of "blanket deletion" to the same person on three days within one week? Even though such crimes are almost unimaginable, they are exactly the kinds of crimes that the former co-moderators of this forum perpetrated against me and other individuals. That's why we left.

Paul, please take note of the following words of Isabel:
"Jake, if he [John Gecik] ever shows up at our place, I will ask you to mount up on your horse like St. George, and cast out the evildoer."
Here she is confirming a fact that I mentioned to you via e-mail, a fact that one of her schismatic cronies let slip a few weeks ago. I am speaking of the fact that, during their recent (and welcome) absence of a couple of months, they established their own schismo-heretical forum somewhere. But, as we all can see now, they were not satisfied. Perhaps because they can't get enough "action" over there (?), they have come back here to work their terrible mischief. Here, Isabel speaks about what should be done if I "ever show up at [their] place." How sad! She doesn't realize that, in my nine years on the Internet, I have (intentionally) never visited a non-Catholic discussion forum, and, if I ever would go to one, it wouldn't be to harass people. Contrast that to the fact that Isabel and her fellow ex-Catholics think nothing of coming here to harass orthodox Catholics and to lure ill-educated people into their schism.
And so, Paul, I ask you once more, most earnestly, to send them back to their non-Catholic forum, banning them from the Catholic forum. Thanks.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 12, 2003.

Personally, I do not call Jake, Isabel, even blasphemous Eddie the horse -- schismatics or excommunicates. They're just elitists and judgmental Catholics who are sour on everything coming from Vatican II. They lack FAITH!

I've been bothered by their recalcitrent intrusions, which usually take the form of bashing the New Missal, or the bishops and our Holy Father. If they're in formal schism as John understands that, I'm not qualified to judge. They are sinners, in my view; who incite dissent and disobedience. They presume to judge us as false Catholics, which is Pharisaical.

May God be merciful to them all. May He give them FAITH; faith in all the promises of Christ to his Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 12, 2003.

Thank you John.

Your words are those of an honest man and I will have to make a greater effort to learn more from the "Big Three". Yes, I'm new here and still green. I have learned much. I will pay close attention.

rod.. ... ..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 12, 2003.

JFG,

One of the former co-moderators has completely left. The other one lost his position when he became seriously ill. But now (much to my chagrin) he has returned, and (to my great shock) seems to be trying to regain his old slot. Heaven forbid! As the owner of this server and all of its forums (Philip Greenspun) told me via e-mail: "Most moderators get intoxicated by their power. They think that anything they do is justifiable, since they are not getting paid for their sacrifice of time." Oh, how right Philip was!

What *I* think the funny part is is that you were e-mailing Mr. Greenspun with your complaints! Wouldn't prayer suffice? I personally think it's very sad that a couple of people here were able to drive Chris off, he posted a great deal of good information over the years but just couldn't take it when everything he revealed about himself to try and help someone was repeatedly thrown back in his face by people who disliked him. The people responsible for that are quite malicious.

If anyone wants to see why various people were given vacations from this place, they can look in the old threads in the "moderator" section for themselves, rather than take partisans' words for it. For myself, I try and be fair, and would not like to be accused of playing favorites -- banning David Sullivan (@excite.com) and Jake et. al. but not doing anything about you and Eugene who were committing the same behaviors. That's not fair John, no matter how much you dislike being censored yourself (you don't have to agree with me btw). Like I said, the best way for someone to make up their own mind should be to read the old threads on the subject.

Also, if I WAS trying to "regain my old slot", I would have had it when I recovered enough to go back to work. I still thank God each day for the gift of another day of life, it's a rather eye-opening event, I can assure you! I told Chris I'd rather let Paul continue and deal with the characters here than do it myself as it can be quite draining. Paul seems like a good guy to me, I don't know why you want to keep badgering him until he gets sick of spending too much time here to no end too. The result will probably be worse for you. It is also true that when people who spend most of their time arguing are not posting, we get more people posting (especially from women) who lurk normally and don't like the bitter atmosphere that develops here. Is that better or worse than letting a few people go on arguing forever? That's for the moderator to decide, not me, and not you. You should have some respect for legitimate authority John, and not call someone deficient for disagreeing with your side of things.

One final thing: I actually enjoy NOT being the moderator more, to tell the truth. I feel free to express my real feelings for some of the things that go on here without having to censure my thoughts in the name of trying to be fair to everyone (see the above for an example :-) . Like I said though, be nice to Paul, try and put yourself in his place for once and think what it's like to have people e-mailing you all the time with complaints that you are either doing too much or not enough both by people who are sure THEY are right.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 12, 2003.

I have to agree with Frank, even if he and I are not, shall we say, kindred souls. I also think that Paul has shown an incredible amount of patience and seems to be doing well in a job that shouldn't have to be done at all.

That's not to recant my position that I think you both all are what I call right wing liberals, because I do. =)

But that's what I'm getting at upthread, and I'm serious about it, and I stand by it even if it sounds looney-toon: if you want unity, and want your fellow asylum inmates to advance in holiness and truth, you've got to pray and do penance for it, there is no other way.

About that, I'm totally right, and everybody knows it deep down inside. So my offer stands, and I believe it will work.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 12, 2003.

Jmj

To the former co-moderator:
Because of the improper things you did in January (already mentioned) and your continued failure to apologize (even after having been given another chance on this thread), I really have no interest in reading your comments directed to me on this or any other thread -- or in responding to them.
In a sense, I consider you to be "banned." (You certainly deserve at least to be "suspended," as Gene Chavez was unjustifiably suspended by you.)

As I said, I choose not to hear from, and not to respond to you, but I must rebut one line you just wrote, because of its especially egregious outrageousness:
"Like I said, the best way for someone to make up their own mind should be to read the old threads on the subject."

What a lie (or dead memory) on your part!
You (and/or your co-moderator) so butchered the threads of that period that no one can now get a clear picture of what happened. Worst of all, you guys systematically censored/purged the most valuable comments from the thread that you had started for the purpose of getting people's reaction to your draconian new policy. What hypocrisy you showed! Probably because of your guilty conscience, you couldn't deal with what people were saying to you, so you gutlessly deleted their words.

Sir, you have significant public repentance to do now, in order to be "rehabilitated" and taken off "suspension." Until then, kindly stifle the self-righteous comments.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 12, 2003.

Part of real Catholicism, John, is when someone does you an injustice, or slanders you, or makes you look small, or falsely accuses you, you sock it in. Secondly, you can't force virtue on somebody.

The objective, actually, is even more of a torturous thought... you have to actually seek to desire marginalization. You get up everyday and say "I'm a worm", and then try to do the right thing.

Easier said than done. I have not accomplished any of this, but I hold it to be the truth.

Why don't you forgive Frank for anything real or perceived, and forgive Chris B. in the same vein, and anybody else.

None of us has the answers to everything, and if we did, it would be a dangerous position to be in.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 12, 2003.

My wife just happened to be reading St. Francis De Sales tonight, and it seems to relate. She doesn't hardly ever lurk this forum, so it seems especially opportune.

Saint Francis De Sales:

"BUT, my daughter, I am going a step further, and I bid you everywhere and in everything to rejoice in your own abjection. Perhaps you will ask in reply what I mean by that. In Latin abjection means humility, and humility means abjection, so that when Our Lady says in the Magnificat that all generations shall call her blessed, because God hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden, she means that He has accepted her abjection and lowliness in order to fill her with graces and favours. Nevertheless, there is a difference between humility and abjection; for abjection is the poverty, vileness and littleness which exist in us, without our taking heed to them; but humility implies a real knowledge and voluntary recognition of that abjection. And the highest point of humility consists in not merely acknowledging one's abjection, but in taking pleasure therein, not from any want of breadth or courage, but to give the more glory to God's Divine Majesty, and to esteem one's neighbour more highly than one's self."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 13, 2003.

Hi, Emerald

I don't understand what you mean about a "hour match"? What does a hour have to do with posting in forum? Please forgive me if I am slow to catch on to jokes.(Rember I am the guy that Chris Butler copied a article which insuated I could be retarded with my low I.Q./

Hi, Frank

You said to another poster,"...Also, if I was trying to regain my old slot......"

But, Frank, you did post two days ago,".. If he (speaking of Paul) gives up his job(as Moderator) I might start up again."

You can't deny that you were hinting of coming back as Moderator can you? So realy there is no "ALSO" about it. Don't you agree?

-- - (David@excite.com), July 13, 2003.

David,

Don't try so hard to corner people, you usually get things wrong. Why not talk about your family instead?

How's your daughter doing?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 13, 2003.

Frank,

I've been continually amazed by the depths that you people on this forum have sunk to in the past. You know as well as I do that there's a long laundry list of tactics employed; bullying, intimidation, slander, fraud, deceit. You name it, this forum has been there, done that.

Being deliberately cruel to another person, though, is a stench- filled abyss that I'd not seen anyone slither into around here. Until tonight.

You owe David a bigtime apology.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 13, 2003.

Take a hike Jake.

David's not a bad guy, he truly loves his family, but he refuses to let go of things that he would be better off dropping. I really think he should switch topics and return to his better self. He could probably find a similar topic for me rather than trying to bash me. (I didn't respond to his post yesterday that I believe Paul deleted, but am getting tired of it just as Chris did after months and months of it).

You on the other hand know exactly what you are doing. You're a guy who recently posted a picture of an Episcopalian priest at some beach mass as an attempt to defame the Catholic church. When it was discovered the priest wasn't even a Catholic you wouldn't apologize for it. Having you tell ME to apologize to someone has to be the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen! You should really get some sleep.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 13, 2003.

Take a hike Jake.

No.

You're a guy who recently posted a picture of an Episcopalian priest at some beach mass as an attempt to defame the Catholic church. When it was discovered the priest wasn't even a Catholic you wouldn't apologize for it. Having you tell ME to apologize to someone has to be the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen!

I went back & checked. It was indeed an Episcopal service. Being unable to distinguish it from a Novus Ordo service, I confused one for the other.

You should really get some sleep.

I can't. I'd get fired.

You should really get some sleep.

Frank

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 13, 2003.

I went back & checked. It was indeed an Episcopal service. Being unable to distinguish it from a Novus Ordo service, I confused one for the other.

Is this Christ Himself talking? Oh no, it's just you Jake. Your posts are so spiritual it's hard to tell the difference. Or not.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 13, 2003.

I've been trying to stay a lurker, but I can't resist commenting. :- )

Frank writes:

"You [Jake] should really get some sleep."

To which Jake responds:

"I can't. I'd get fired."

Jake, unless posting on Greenspun.com is your job, you aren't doing your job. If reading and posting is taking away from your ability to perform your job, you are stealing from your boss. Stealing, calumny...you've got some interesting habits for a devoted traditionalist.

Jake writes:

"I went back & checked. It was indeed an Episcopal service. Being unable to distinguish it from a Novus Ordo service, I confused one for the other."

Jake still tap-dances around actually taking ownership of his actions and actually apologizing.

And the irony hits its zenith here with Jake's comment:

"I've been continually amazed by the depths that you people on this forum have sunk to in the past. You know as well as I do that there's a long laundry list of tactics employed; bullying, intimidation, slander, fraud, deceit. You name it, this forum has been there, done that."

Oh dear, Jake, you know what they say: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks."

Is this the same conciliatory Jake who was praying for unity? Where did he go? I tell you what, Jake. I'll call your bluff: would you care to substantiate your laundry list with real proof? Hmmm? Didn't think so. The tradition of calumny continues...

In light of his most recent posts, Jake's public commitments of prayer don't look like anything more than grandstanding anyway. Jake, I wanted to believe you could abandon your divisive tone.

Emerald, I'm in agreement with Frank and Paul's comments. If the "prayer for unity" stuff is not a game, let's all "pray in secret" and not announce to the world how much each of us are praying. I'm all for supporting the effort to have all of us pray for unity, I just don't think we should foster an atmosphere of one- upmanship in quantity of prayer.

Matthew 6:5,6 -- "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you."

To be honest, I think most of the personality conflicts (which encompasses most of the forum's disunity) could be resolved over a gentlemanly game of billiards...but that's just me. :-)

This forum has the potential to spread the Gospel. But to spread the Gospel, we must live the Gospel, embrace virtue, and abandon vice. We are poor sinners; but in God, all things are possible.

God bless you all,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 14, 2003.

Nope. I stand by my offer. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2003.

See, the intent is not really a contest as much as making a point.

Truth of the matter is, I have always had an intense hatred for good- works-wasted-on-visual-display. I hate them with a passion.

In the end, it would actually end up being done off the forum and in secret anyways, if you could prove that it was done at all. Nobody can do a holy hour on line...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2003.

Maybe you could pray over the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 6 during your prayers... ;-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 14, 2003.

I can do that; no problem.

I'm putting you down for one hour. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2003.

"See, the intent is not really a contest as much as making a point."

I hope you didn't just mean to say you are praying to "make a point." Yikes! :-0 Pray because prayer is efficacious, because God hears us, because God loves us, because God answers our prayers.

"In the end, it would actually end up being done off the forum and in secret anyways, if you could prove that it was done at all."

I suppose a literalist interpretation could be used to justify this reasoning; but I don't think that a prayer is "secret" if I've told everyone about it. That's just me, though...

"I'm putting you down for one hour. =)"

Hey, no fair! ;-)

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 14, 2003.

"I hope you didn't just mean to say you are praying to "make a point."

Nah, not at all. In fact, when I posted that, I thought twice about it, and after I posted, I thought twice about it.

Perhaps it has turned out to be a target of opportunity. That's ok, I can hang with that. My fear is that nobody really believes that prayer and penance are at the root all good Catholic things that happen. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Why? Nobody ever talks about it, that's all.

Obviously, if one were to lean on the horn about these things, the value is instantly null and void in the eyes of God; that's basic stuff.

"I suppose a literalist interpretation could be used to justify this reasoning; but I don't think that a prayer is "secret" if I've told everyone about it. That's just me, though..."

True. Current Net Loss: three hours. No wait! Four. Four hours.

I understand your point, and let you have it.

(warning: last sentence is ambiguous...)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2003.

Hi, Frank

My daughter is "grand".

How is your wife doing the past few months?

-- - (David@excite.com), July 15, 2003.

David,

Pretty good, although a bit nervous still since my heart episode. The kids have been great, are playing baseball like usual, going to the pool, etc. All in all things are good here. Actually, I'm looking forward to the coming school year as my son will be making his First Communion, a once in a lifetime event!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 15, 2003.