Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), March 12, 2004.
RULES OF THE FORUM 7/03greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Friends,The purpose of this forum is to provide Catholics with an opportunity for discussions that will contribute to the deepening of our knowledge and the strengthening our faith; and secondarily, to provide non-Catholics an opportunity to ask sincere questions about the beliefs and practices of Catholicism, in a courteous Christian atmosphere. Kindly keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum, and as such is not a place for venting of anti-Catholic sentiments or ad hominem attacks. Such posts will be promptly deleted.
Spam is not acceptable, and will be deleted. Please don't respond to spammers' threads, as responding posts will be deleted with the original offensive material.
Posting anonymously is allowed, as is posting under more than one "handle". Posting under another person's "handle" in order to make it appear that they posted something when in fact they did not, is not allowed. Posting under two or more names in the same thread, to simulate a discussion or to make it appear that several people agree with your point of view is deceitful and therefore unacceptable.
Pornography, vulgarity, and profanity have no place on this forum. Posts which include such content will be deleted.
Images embedded in the text of posted messages greatly increase the download time of those threads, especially for people who do not have fast internet connections. This practice is therefore not allowed. If you wish to offer an image for viewing by interested parties, please either post a link to the image, or post the URL.
Please feel free to e-mail me directly if you believe that some posted material exceeds the limits of acceptability for the forum, and the moderators do not appear to have seen it; or if you have other concerns regarding the forum. I will do my best to respond to your email, either by return email and/or by action on the forum, as appropriate. Anything that is sent to me and stated to be confidential will be treated as such.
Please act responsibly and appropriately on this forum. I truly believe that free debate is beneficial to the Faith, while censorship inhibits people's desire to post their thoughts, and may actually detract from growth in the Faith. However, I also believe it would be unacceptable to subject the majority of sincere participants to the ongoing inappropriate posts of any individual who is either incapable of or unwilling to participate according to the rules.
This thread will periodically be bumped to the top of the "Recent Answers" list, so that new participants may have access to it.
In Christ,
Moderators - Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net) and Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca)
Moderators email account - Catholic_Moderator@yahoo.com
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 14, 2003
There have been a few minor changes to the rules which can also always be found on the main page in the "about" section. I bumped this thread up so that everyone might be mindful of these changes when posting in the future.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 30, 2004.
Could you please address the issues of name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc, by both Catholics and non Catholics? I am particularly concerned by the following statements made by a regular of this forum on a recent thread:", but when the other person does something improper, I have the right to disapprove of that sin and castigate him -- just as people from St. Paul through St. Padre Pio did so many times. " and ""ad hominem" attacks of which I approved are the very kind engaged in by Jesus, St. John the Baptist, St. Jerome, and many other great Catholic men and women throughout history"
I have been hesitant to post on this forum because statements like this have been used to justify all kinds of behavior that I find to be very un-Christian including name calling (bordering on vulgar at times), use of personal information about a person, bringing up past incidents which have nothing to do with the issue being discussed, and this behavior has happened at times where it seems the only person's sins are to disagree with a regular poster.
In my opinion, this kind of behavior does not contribute to a "courteous Christian atmosphere" cited in the forum rules listed. In the rules above, it is unclear if the only ad hominem attacks that are not permitted are by non-Catholics while Catholic forum regulars have free reign to resort to such tactics.
Thank you for addressing this.
-- ** (**@**.com), January 30, 2004.
If I see an ad hominem attack, I will remove it. There are many who are becoming quite skilled at weaving insult into relevant posts containing legitimate comments. I find sarcasm the hardest form of insult to control on the forum. There is a fine line between being agressive to being discourteous and insulting.If anyone takes offense to a particular post I invite them to make it known to Paul or myself and we can ascertain if it violates the rules of the forum and if so, remove it.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 30, 2004.
Ed,It will be interesting to watch this process of stopping ad hominems unfold, I can assure you. Good luck.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 30, 2004.
I know what you mean Frank. In the past two weeks I've sat on the fence a dozen times trying to determine whether a post should be removed or not. I guess the mark of a good moderator is somewhat like that of a good referee - not to get noticed very much and to let the participants "play the game".
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 30, 2004.
Moderators,
Please perform the deletions (requested by J. F. Gecik) of harassing posts from "The Straight Skinny" on these two threads:
msg_id=007rxn
msg_id=007v2hPlease keep an eye on each future "saints-of-the-day" thread, because it appears that a schismatic (i.e., non-Catholic) person is trying to force the use of an obsolete liturgical calendar on the Catholic forum.
Thank you.
-- (Liturgical@Calendar.com), January 30, 2004.
If the moderator(s) determine that, in a thread about saints, asking for the intercession of a saint or saints is "harrassment," I will cease & desist at once.
-- The Straight Skinny (saint@the.day), January 30, 2004.
In my opinion, two posts that seem to have nothing to do with the topic at hand, made to random threads, do not constitute harassment. However, should these posts continue with no apparent motive other than to disrupt the forum, they will be removed. Please post comments about specific saints to threads that involve them.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 30, 2004.
Is calling someone a schismatic against the forum rules? If so, the message from Liturgical@Calendar should be removed.
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.
Use of the word “schismatic” to describe someone does not violate forum rules, provided the intent is to reflect the true meaning of the word and not intended to be used in a derogatory way.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 30, 2004.
Could the person who posts to 'Saints of the Day' not simply post to one of the older saints thread, rather than on the thread which is supposedly only for the saints of the current day?I can't see the POINT of posting a saint to a day other than the liturgically correct feast day of that particular saint. Perhaps it's being done to deliberately irritate certain people, in such a way that the poster can't be criticsed because 'I'm only asking for intercessionary prayers to a saint'.
To me it seems to be a sneaky way of causing annoyance, while trying to appear innocent!
-- A. Nonnymous (anon@anon.com), January 30, 2004.
A. You are quite correct and as I've said above, should this continue, the relative posts will be deleted.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 30, 2004.
Use of the word “schismatic” to describe someone does not violate forum rules, provided the intent is to reflect the true meaning of the word and not intended to be used in a derogatory way.Couldn't it be said, though, that "schismatic" (and "heretic") are used in a "derogatory way" when the person using the word(s) refuses to explain what it is about someone's position(s)/opinion(s)/statement (s)? If a person is called a "schismatic" a "heretic" or is accused of "evil doing", and that person asks for an explanation as to what makes him such and is refused, (and the name-calling continues) could that possibly an example of using terms in a derogatory way, and therefore, grounds for deletion of the post with the derogatory accusations?
Would you be willing to consider this as a rule - If someone accuses someone of something, refuses to back it up after being asked to, then the post with the accusation gets deleted?
Thanks!
-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 30, 2004.
JmjGood day, Ed.
It appears that someone has impersonated you on one of the saints' threads. What was said there is not in keeping with the wisdom you have shown above, in responding to me (Liturgical@Calendar.com) and to the person who brilliantly and revealingly supported me (A. Nonnymous). That person saw that the posts about irrelevant saints have been posted for only two reasons -- to irritate me and to promote the old, obsolete (now schismatic) Church calendar. The person is posting about saints whose feasts used to be on the days in question -- but are no longer on those days since Pope Paul VI modified the calendar in the late 1960s.
Here is what I found on the other thread just now -- above your name:
While I have deleted a similar post under February 1, I now feel I may have done so in error. While this may not be St. Francis’ Feast Day I don’t believe it is my responsibility to patrol the “saints of the day” threads to ensure only posts dealing with saints whose feast day it is on a particular day are made to that respective thread. If someone wants to post something about a saint on a day that is not that saint’s feast day is it my job to remove it even though it hasn’t violated any rules of the forum (ie. discourteous, ad hominem etc.)? Additionally, I don’t think it is within my mandate to move a post from one thread to another (ie. moving “St. Francis” post to January 24) simply because it would make more sense being there.As you can see, the above-quoted passage is contrary to what you have stated above and contrary to common sense. That is why I said that it must have been an impersonation, because I feel sure that you could not have unwisely altered course 180 degrees. But in the unlikely event that you had a weak moment -- maybe out of fear of getting stuck doing too much work -- and you really did make the mistake of posting the above message (much to the glee of the schismatics, you can be sure), I need to try to persuade you to return to the sensible course you were previously steering. Don't worry. Doing the right thing, as you were doing before, will not overburden you. My arguments for this:
1. As stated above by me and "A. Nonnymous," this posting of improper messages is being done purely to harass me and to promote the calendar of schismatics. It is "ad hominem" without appearing to be so. You have a duty to stop both of those things.
2. The threads are clearly labeled "today's saints." Therefore, unless for a special reason, it wouldn't even be proper for an orthodox Catholic to leave messages about saints from other days than the calendar day of the thread. So much the less is it acceptable for a schismatic to be allowed to post about saints from his/her breakaway church's calendar.
3. Ed, you stated: "I don’t believe it is my responsibility to patrol the 'saints of the day' threads to ensure only posts dealing with saints whose feast day it is on a particular day are made to that respective thread." But, Ed, no one had asked you to do this. I will be the one checking to see if an improper post has been added by an apparent schismatic person, and I will let you know about it. I only ask that you do the deletions, not the "patrolling."Moreover, Ed, neither one of us really needs to do any patrolling. The offender has posted above, in this very thread, and you need only respond well to him, forbidding the posting of any more of these harassing posts. This sly individual tries to manipulate your actions by writing: "If the moderator(s) determine that, in a thread about saints, asking for the intercession of a saint or saints is 'harrassment,' I will cease & desist at once." Notice that he wants to make you feel guilty for forbidding him to seek "the intercession of a saint." Please do not let him get away with playing of mind games. The person's purposes are to harass me and promote the schismatic calendar -- under the guise of piety (to get away with it).
I have no objection to anyone posting intercesory prayers or links to encyclopedia articles -- when they are posted on the proper threads, in keeping with the current Catholic Church calendars (of the Western or Eastern ritual churches).
4. Ed, I now agree with your statement that you should not be required to move these improper messages to the dates on which they would have appropriately been posted. Instead of their being moved, they should simply be deleted. Deletion will eventually cause the perpetrator to stop acting badly, though, as I said, you can prevent that right here and now by forbidding "Straight Skinny" and all his fellow schismatics to post messages of this kind. [When I suggested, on one or two threads, that you move the messages, it was in the hope that the person who left them was a newcomer acting in good faith, though wrongly. I see now that it really was a schismatic acting in bad faith.]
Ed, apparently the schismatics have noticed that I am no longer engaging them in forum threads -- indeed I have hardly posted anything in the last two weeks -- so they have come to the only place wherein they know that can try to destroy my peace of mind, the saints-of-the-day threads. This was done once before (several months ago), and the perpetrator (probably the same person as now) posted a big (and, I thought at the time, honest) apology. The devil has gotten back into him or into someone else. Please check with Paul M to learn the truthfulness of what I am telling you.
Ed, please do not allow these people to manipulate the forum in this way. They are trying to play games with you, whom they see as a "greenhorn," whom they can get to do their will. We even see more of this in some of the posts just above this one, where they are trying to get you to change rules so that they can "get away with murder" and without being called on it. They know that you, being absent most of the time, have not witnessed many of the terrible things they have done at this forum over the past two years, and are trying to fool you by coming across as sincere, kind individuals who only want what is best for the forum. If you doubt my word on this, please consult with Paul M. I am confident that he will tell you that I am right.
Thanks.
God bless you.
John
PS: Here is another thread that has a final post that needs to be deleted, since it has a link to an article about a saint whose feast is not on the day in question (except on the schismatics' calendar).
-- (Liturgical@Calendar.com), January 31, 2004.
John, I am not as naive as you might think. In not removing these few initial posts, I was attempting to give the poster the benefit of the doubt. When posting about a saint, he (as well as everyone else) has now been warned to post under the proper thread for that respective saint. As I wrote earlier future similar posts will be deleted. Feel free to contact me in the future should this occur again and I will take appropriate action. I will not delete the January 26 post as it was made prior to my warning.Regina, many posts including statements, opinions and accusations are made to this forum without proper substantiation everyday. Without further clarification, one cannot automatically assume these unsubstantiated posts have been made with malicious intent. While I appreciate your suggestion for yet another rule, I feel we have enough rules at present. Thanks.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 31, 2004.
"Ed, apparently the schismatics have noticed that I am no longer engaging them in forum threads -- indeed I have hardly posted anything in the last two weeks -- so they have come to the only place wherein they know that can try to destroy my peace of mind, the saints-of-the-day threads."Well you can rest assured it's not me, John. I have not been posting under any psuedo names and have not done any such things to your saints-of-the-day thread.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 31, 2004.
Without further clarification, one cannot automatically assume these unsubstantiated posts have been made with malicious intent. While I appreciate your suggestion for yet another rule, I feel we have enough rules at present. Thanks.Thanks for your reply, Ed. I'm honestly not trying to make your already difficult responsibilities as moderator more difficult by the suggestion I offered above. I just happen to be of the opinion that if a person accuses another of schism/heresy/apostasy and does not demonstrate how he has arrived at such a judgement or opinion of the target of his remarks when asked respectfully and continues the unfounded labeling, I fail to see how it can be regarded as anything but "malicious." IMO, it is no different than me calling someone on this forum a pedophile without substantial backup, or *any* sort of back up, for my accusation. An example can be found above. John has stated that someone's motivation for posting about a saint whose feast day is celebrated on the Traditional Calendar, is to cause annoyance to him. John has no idea why people do the things they do and has no right to assert publicly that someone's motivation for doing or saying something is malevolent. And, by the way, this same thing happend awhile back and John remarked at the time that he didn't mind people posting saints using the Traditional Calendar so as long as they made it clear that that's what they were referencing the feast days from. I have no idea what old thread where those comments can be found - I'm relying on my memory only.
As I'm sure you know, many discussions/debates/all-out brawls have taken place over the past two years with regard to "Traditional Catholics." Many of these threads have fizzled out and can only be found in the archives, and others have been deleted because the subject(s) have already been hashed, re-hashed, and burnt to a crisp several times over. IMO, this subject/debate keeps coming back because of the very concern I have raised with you: Someone referes to one or all of us, without basis of course, as a "schismatic" or "out of the Church" or what have you, and thus the old debate(s) starts all over again.
I believe for a debate to be good and helpful, one should be able to back up what he says and give clear answers as to how he has arrived at his opinion. If someone refuses to do that, but insists on attaching inappropriate labels on someone without the benefit of an explanation, it can only be considered slanderous. I don't think these actions are Catholic and therefore not something we want non- Catholics especially to believe that's what we're about.
I respect any decision you may make regarding this.
-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 31, 2004.
I have to agree with Regina here. Unavoidably from time to time, questions about whether someone is in schism, holding heresy or anything not in keeping with Holy Mother Church is going to come up.Obviously for my part, I'm going to pull for what's generally known as traditional Catholicism, and jake, Regina and some of the others of like mind are going to be continuing in the same vein. On the other hand, I can agree that the ill-placement of these same discussions, or constant repetition across all threads, can have a negative effect on the forum. My apologies for any errors of mine in this regard. But when it seems they are inevitably going to pop up in the course of discussion, then I think all parties involved should do their best to assume the genuine good intent of the other.
Not one of the posters in question, those deemed schismatic, has ever brought up and clung to an idea that is diametrically opposed to Catholic doctrine. For instance, none have promoted the idea that Jesus was not both God and man, or that Christ was not present in the Blessed Sacrament, or anything of that nature. Disagreements result usually in the arena of our understanding of these doctrines.
But it is certainly difficult to participate when one calls your motivations into question. While I have a bizarre way of thinking and writing on such topics, I can unequivocably state that it is my desire to know Catholicism and to adopt it in it's full integrity, and to understand it as best I can, and live it as best I can.
I do wish we could get rid of trying to figure out which regular is behind various psuedo names that keep popping up here and there and seem to be placed in such a way as to re-enforce a stance or a conclusion on something. I'm not a party to it and don't want to be; I would rather just deal with issues head on, point by point under the same name. If I get a dished out a lump on the head, I'll take the lump on the head straight on; the truth is more important than anyone's reputation.
There is no doubt in my mind as to the genuine interest in Catholic truth of Regina, jake, Isabel and any of the others who pull for traditional Catholicism. I may even disagree with them on a detail here and there, but it is a charitable thing that happens when it is understood that the other party is of genuine intent and seeks the good and truth just as you do.
It rends Catholic unity to continually allude that another person or group of people has ill intent. It is also anti-ecumenical. For those who hold that there is a mysterious relationship that binds those outside the Church to the Catholic Church herself, it is untenable to force those away from you who intend to know and love God with all their hearts, minds and souls under the presumption that they are cut off from the Mystical Body of Christ.
On the other side of the equation, I think that the known, self- admitted nonCatholics should be treated with respect as well. Their errors against Catholic doctrine and morality should be met point by point without compromise, but their motivations should be left out of the equation. This is the only effective way to drive home the truth to them. If they leave defeated, they should also leave well-treated by Catholics; this is the charitable responsibility of each and every person leading a Catholic life.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 31, 2004.
Sorry Regina, but my decision stands. Any poster making an unsubstantiated claim is quite within the rules in doing so. Accountability for statements made is not a requirement posters must comply with. Provided any post is in compliance with existing rules then it must be allowed to stand. It is not within the moderator’s mandate to hold posters accountable for statements they make when posting. I regret my response could not have been more favourable.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 31, 2004.
That's ok, Ed. Thank you for taking time to read my post. I respect your decision and will do my best to keep to the rules that you and Paul have added/emphasized.
-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), January 31, 2004.
Ed, yesterday I left a post explaining the importance of removing improper posts from saints-of-the-day threads. I neglected to mention that I would not be coming back to this thread to read any replies, to enter into further debate with anyone, etc.. That's what I intend to do from now on, whenever I remember -- make a request and get out, rather than belabor things -- because I've noticed that if moderators don't do what is right the first time I ask, they don't do it the second or third time either.So, I just now opened the thread and "shift/end-ed" to the bottom to leave this note. (I don't even know if anyone replied to me yesterday.) I will know what you decided to do simply by observing whether or not people will be permitted to damage saints-of-the-day threads or not. This in turn will let me know whether the forum is on the road to revival or to oblivion. I hope that my prayers for you have not been in vain.
-- (Liturgical@Calendar.com), February 01, 2004.
Hi all, I have deleted a few posts of late. In the future if you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me, or use this thread to question my actions rather than post your concerns in the relative thread. Posts showing inhospitable comments, rudeness or sarcasm will be deleted. Please do not include such comments when posting well-prepared, time-consumming posts as the entire post will be removed.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 06, 2004.
Hi Ed, Thanks for letting me know. I'm sorry if something I posted was offensive, as I did not intend it to be. I guess it was since you deleted my post? I will try to be more careful in the future and let you know of any problems using this thread.Thanks and God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 06, 2004.
Emily, in all fairness to you and to anyone else who has had a post deleted recently, I deleted a few posts that, although were not offensive in and of themselves, depended solely on posts that were, to make any sense. In addition they contributed nothing to the topic at hand. Your post may have been one of these. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Please do not let any of my recent actions dissuade you from posting in the future.To everyone else, if you feel your deleted post had merit and still wish to have it appear, I have no problem with it being re-posted provided the problem in the original post has been addressed. Again, I invite anyone who is not sure why their post was deleted to contact me by email for clarification. Please include a copy of your post when you write as I have saved very few to date due to time constraints and the limited space available on my hard drive.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 07, 2004.
John, I will address your concerns made in the thread “Christian site exposed Bush hypocrisy” as follows:“You didn't just remove from it the words that you found offensive?”
I do not feel comfortable amending someone else’s post. Thoughts are personal and subjective. I do not want to risk destroying the integrity of the posters thought or message. I feel it is much better for the poster to re-post without the offending words - better him to edit his thoughts than me.
“You deleted it, without informing Paul H of the deletion...”
John, why don’t you try informing paul h, of my reply here in this thread in case he doesn’t read it? His email address is: don’tSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com. Maybe then you will realize why I haven’t been successful. Furthermore, I do not intend to explain why I delete every post I do, especially in a public thread. It’s too time-consuming and obtrusive. The rules of the forum are clearly listed above. If after a poster has discovered his post has been deleted/altered in anyway and doesn’t understand why after reading the above rules, he/she can contact me at my email address: catholic4444@yahoo.ca and supply me with a copy of the original post. If this is done, I will explain why the post was removed. Additionally, I am not comfortable in discussing this in a topic thread for three reasons: 1. We are undermining the topic. 2. I prefer to discuss the problem in private to avoid any embarrassment that might be caused to the poster. 3. Some will use the thread to “grandstand” or “showboat” for everyone to see. If their true intent is to gain a better understanding about why their post was deleted, they will have no problem in contacting me privately.
“if he had not come back to this thread, he would not have even known of the deletion?”
Maybe, but when you post to a thread you usually have a vested interest in it and the odds are you will return to see if your post has solicited any new comment. A topic thread is not the place to discuss the reasons a post was removed. If people want to use fictitious email addresses they must deal with the consequences of that decision - no one is able to contact them. Should the creator of the thread be dragged into this by airing our (offending poster, moderator) laundry in his public thread? Of course not. That just isn't fair.
“ None of us knows why you have deleted something unless a deletion is noticed and you are asked about it.”
I disagree. I suspect all who have had posts deleted by me are aware of it. Most have decided not to ask about why the post was deleted. I suspect this is because they are already aware of what exactly in the post, prompted me to act.
“how can anyone know what he/she has to do to meet your standard of perfection?”
My “standard” is clear. It is written above. Any post that “I”, as moderator, find to be in conflict with the rules outlined above, will be deleted. I can tell you that most of my deletions to date have had to deal with sarcasm, rudeness, impoliteness, lack of courtesy and an overall noticeable lack of Christian charity toward others. If anyone wants to meet my “standards” they should avoid personal attacks on others.
To elaborate, words such as “shyster”, “evil”, “moron”, “idiot”, “half wit”, etc. used in posts, when describing others (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) who frequent this forum, will trigger the entire deletion of those posts. These are only a few of the objectionable words I have encountered in posts in recent weeks.
Also, I’ve noticed lately that we’ve taken our posts to a new “personal” level. Personal references regarding others (ie. addresses, names, hints about personal true identities, etc.) with seemingly no other purpose than to embarrass, intimidate and/or instill fear upon the target participant, are being mentioned in posts. Owing to privacy and security considerations, I will delete any posts that include personal information about other posters. John, I believe the post I deleted on you fell into this category. If you require further clarification of this PLEASE EMAIL ME PRIVATELY.
“ that it is obviously incredibly different from that of Paul M -- and the discrepancy makes the situation incredibly unfair to us.”
Your point is well taken. However, please remember, I am new at this and it will take a few weeks and months for everyone to become familiar with what I find to be objectionable. I will also need time to find my comfort level with posters. I am not claiming all my decisions to delete have been good ones, but only that, I made these decisions to the best of my ability with the paramount interest of fairness as my primary consideration. I can assure you it’s not because I “hate Americans”, am a “bush basher” or have a grudge to bear. If anyone wants to discuss the reasons a post has been deleted please feel free to ask me.
“ I'm beginning to get the impression that you are far too strict.”
John, I understand your feelings, however, you have had a post deleted. What say those who have not had posts deleted? If you don’t mind my saying so, you might be considered biased in this matter to some. I would invite everyone (particularly those who have had no posts deleted) to please email me and let me know whether you feel I have been too strict, or whether you feel as I do, that the malaise which has afflicted this forum for so long now, needs to be addressed. I am willing to re-examine my techniques based on the feedback I receive.
“Ed, how can anyone live up to what you expect unless you explain it -- giving examples of the kinds of statements you will delete.”
I won’t give you a laundry list of what I find objectionable other than to mention what I have above. I hope it helps. If anyone feels they have been dealt with unfairly, PLEASE CONTACT ME IN PRIVATE.
“There must be objective standards”
Yes there are John, and they are listed above in the rules.
“if a person posts a good message that happens to have an element or two to which you object, you cannot just take that person's hard work and flush it down the toilet.”
I have already explained that I have no difficulty with the post being re-posted minus the offending/objectionable material. Nothing gets “flushed down the toilet” unless the poster wants it that way. If in doubt about what was objectionable in the original post, PLEASE CONTACT ME PRIVATELY and I will be happy to explain. However, don’t do as some have and carefully submit only part of the post in public, the part which they feel I found objectionable. Submit the entire original post to me for discussion IN PRIVATE EMAIL form. If it makes matters any better, for the next short while, I will save all posts I delete from the forum and retain them for a period of time. If after that time the poster has not contacted me regarding the deletion I will erase them from my hard drive. But, is this fair? It’s the posters responsibility to comply with the rules, not mine. My responsibility is to see that posters are living up to their responsibility. We are to all cooperate with the rules in order to make this forum better.
“You have to either (1) leave the post intact and ignore the imperfection, or (2) "clean it up" by removing what is genuinely objectionable, or (3) tell the poster to revise and re-post the message, so that you can delete the original.”
Thanks for suggesting what alternatives I have at my disposal John. However, I, as moderator, will be the one to decide, not you, how best to handle objectionable material.
“When you think that a post... must be deleted -- you need to inform the poster, so that he can decide to (1) argue his case against you, or (2) learn to avoid posting similarly in the future, or (3) decide to leave the forum”
John, this isn’t my vocation. I have a life away from this forum. I don’t have hours available every day to “argue my case” against offenders. Moderating in a private forum isn’t about debating what was offensive. I am the moderator and I will decide to the best of my ability what is objectionable and what is not. I will try to resolve each and every problem the best way I can and the quickest way I can. Again, the rules are clear. They are listed above. To date, very few individuals have contacted me regarding why I deleted their post. Please, just ask! I will be happy to tell you. I can assure you however, I will not be dragged into an endless discussion about what is objectionable and what is not. That is my call to make based my interpretation of the rules outlined above.
“ a moderator needs to exercise common sense and justice”
I agree. As I have said to date, the only reaction I have received are from those who have had posts deleted. I would appreciate others contacting me in this regard. Have I used common sense in the performance of my duties? Have I been fair?
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 07, 2004.
Ed,Believe it or not, you next step might be deleting all of an offending poster's posts for the day if you continue down this road, the reason is, these guys are smart enough, they will very soon remember to post their real post in one post
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 07, 2004.
and call you a moron in the next. Learn from the voice of experience.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 07, 2004.
Ed,I rember a while back that you, yourself started a thread complaining to a past Moderator about deletions.[I would "top" it to show it to you, but it was deleted by the "mad deleter" :-(]
Now you get offended when fellow formites complain? You didn't do as you are posting now! And you tell paul that you will delete his posts for the day?
Treat people the way you wanted to be "treated" when you were just a "poster". And don't complain about the job because you asked for it. Not enough people knew you to suggest you, even though you are a good man. You have been absent from forum to long to be "voted" in.
Like you told Frank last week, " a good Moderator is like a good referee....."
-- - (David@excite.com), February 07, 2004.
Frank, I understand what you’re saying. But just as “Skinny” will have all posts originating from his ISP address deleted if he continues to underme John’s “Saints of the Day” threads, so too, will anyone else who demonstrates an on-going lack of charity toward others. I would prefer not to go down this road for reasons you are only to painfully aware of; it creates additional work for the Moderator, something I do not relish.By the way Frank, for what it’s worth, I think you did an outstanding job when you were moderator under very trying and difficult times. All those who enjoy the forum owe you a debt of gratitude for your efforts in the past. If I can do half the job as moderator that you have, I will consider myself moderately successful. (No pun intended)
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
But just as “Skinny” will have all posts originating from his ISP address deleted if he continues to underme John’s “Saints of the Day” threadsIt's IP address.
so too, will anyone else who demonstrates an on-going lack of charity toward others.
You're going to be a busy man.
-- The Straight Skinny (saint@the.day), February 08, 2004.
David, your use of the term “mad deleter” exemplifies exactly, the type of uncharitable comment that I, as moderator, am trying to discourage. In the future, should you, or anyone else use this term, the entire post will be deleted. This comment is designed to do nothing more than insult, hurt and ridicule. Used in this instance, the word “mad” serves no constructive purpose. Have you no compassion for others? I don’t know the reasons why our former moderator did what he did. I don’t know what pressures were brought to bear, nor do I care, other than to hope and pray he is okay and healthy. I can tell you this, he taught me more than a few things about my faith and for that, I will always be grateful. It’s not for what he taught us all here, at the forum, however, that I feel he, or anyone else, should be given respect; it’s because he is a human being, a member of God’s holy family, that respect should be accorded him. God has told us that human beings command respect, love and charity because they are made in His image and likeness.I am not denying I have had issues with this forum and its moderators in the past. I have never objected to the fact that any inappropriate posts were deleted, including my own. What I have objected to are the reasons and/or the manner in which particular posts were removed or altered. I again invite anyone who disagrees with any one of my decisions or methods, who feels I may have treated them unfairly, to email me and I will do my best to explain my reasons for doing what I did. People who know me will attest to my sense of fairness. I have been known to reverse my decision/position when proven wrong with a rational, sensible argument. I think CK Sunshine can attest to that.
David, I am not “offended” because forumites are complaining. My skin is much thicker than that. I won’t delete paul’s posts or anyone else’s posts for that matter for a day, simply because I have been offended by them. Their posts will be deleted solely due to their commission of infractions against forum rules. This will only be done as a last resort however, as I believe it to be very time-consuming and accomplishes little in the end.
David, I hope my comments have not come across to you as complaints. I can assure you I am not complaining about the job. I won’t comment about your remark concerning my appointment other than to say you are mistaken. I did not ask for this job. While I readily admit I was not the first choice of those who offered names to stand as candidates for moderator, there were a few of you who suggested me. I will take that as a compliment and testament to the fact that I am considered fair and reasonable (at least most of the time). I accepted the job because I enjoy the forum when it is informative and funny and devoid of verbal abuse and I could see Paul needed some help at controlling objectionable and offensive posts. I was concerned Paul might quit out of desperation for lack of help. He is much too valuable for us to lose. As for my purported “absence” from this forum, I can honestly tell you that I have never left it for the past five years. I have ceased to research, prepare and post comments from time-to-time owing to time constraints, but I have never stopped reading it.
My comment about being a good “referee” stands. I hope to be more inconspicuous as time marches on and allows all forum participants (readers and posters alike) to familiarize themselves with my style and standard. I am offering explanation about my actions presently as I feel in fairness to everyone, until they get to know me better, I owe it to them. Again, for those who take exception to my conduct as moderator please contact me privately. I could be saying all of this in private email and not be so noticeable. I would prefer to handle complaints in this way.
To everyone, I invite you to submit your comments to me. It is only with two-way communication that everyone in the forum will feel fairly treated. However, please respect my wishes about how I desire to handle problems in the future and contact me privately.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
Skinny, thanks for the correction. I am not much of a "techy". I always thought I.S.P. stood for "Internet Service Provider". I hope my job isn't going to be as busy as you think. Obviously you can help and your anticipated cooperation will be most appreciated.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
I always thought I.S.P. stood for "Internet Service Provider".It does. Your ISP is the service by which you connect to the internet; e.g., AOL, MSN, etc. Your IP address is an identifier unique to your computer.
I hope my job isn't going to be as busy as you think.
Yay for optimism.
Obviously you can help and your anticipated cooperation will be most appreciated.
Agreed. I will cease and desist from posting in the saint o' the day threads. Look, I even changed my "email address."
-- The Straight Skinny (The Way@It.Is), February 08, 2004.
"It does. Your ISP is the service by which you connect to the internet; e.g., AOL, MSN, etc. Your IP address is an identifier unique to your computer."There you go derailing another thread Skinny!!! If you keep this up I will have no alternative but to delete all of your future posts! (Just kidding! LOL)
Thanks for your cooperation.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
Ed as someone who has always appreciated YOUR help I say thankyou SIr and how delighted I was when you were named moderator. ILL be keeping you and Paul in my prayers, dont worry about John you could have the Pope himself moderating and he still wouldnt be a happy camper. Bless him, but clearly he has too much idle time on his hands.If what Ed is doing(and that is all I can see) is removing only the "nasty" factor then I think most would agree ABOUT TIME. If that means a few of my posts occasionaly are deemed to be over the line, then so be it, ..." freedom for the pike is death for the minnow"!
However Id hate to see the restrictions go too far.The refreshing thing about this forum is the level of freedom that posters have especially in comparison to an overbearing stifling "namby pamby kid glove" approach in other online Catholic forums. Moderators must retain a sense of perspective and most importantly a sense of humour if what makes this place worthwhile is to be retained.
Just my two cents but I dont think we could stike a better balance than you two gents as moderators, keep up the good work!
God Bless you both
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.
Kiwi, I appreciate your support. Your comment about restrictions going too far is well-received. I will try to pay particularly close attention to this important point in the future. If you or anyone else feels I have crossed a line in this regard, please let me know.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
Ed,Again, good luck. My best advice would be that no matter WHAT you delete, from nothing to enforcing civility, there will always be someone unhappy with it, and more often than not, vocal about it. Try and keep it all in perspective and do what you think is right for the forum.
I agree about the former mod. btw, I thought him a very good source of Christian thought, and still hope he decides to come back some day.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 08, 2004.
Ed,I think Paul will suprise you. He doesn't have "quit" in him. He might retire but he won't quit.
I rember that thread that Ck an attest to. Didn't it involve Alex and birds....? :-)
God bless you, Ed
-- - (David@excite.com), February 08, 2004.
Ed has deleted a number of posts by Jay Gentile which were nothing more than ignorant diatribes against God's Church, and I have deleted several more of his posts today. Since he obviously has no interest in Catholic truth, in learning anything, or even in respectful discussion, I am considering him banned from the forum as of now.One other note - I'm addressing this to Ed, but am posting it here so that others may agree or disagree with my opinion. Ed, while I do believe that moderators should be answerable to members of the forum, I don't think it is necessary to post a justification for every message deleted. If you see something objectionable, just delete it and let it go at that. Otherwise the thread will just become cluttered up with short explanations of the moderator's actions. If someone has a problem with the deletion of a particular message, we can address that directly.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 08, 2004.
Will do Paul. Thanks
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
I must agree with kiwi in the area of restrictions going too far...I mean, you cut out one place where i merely quoted someone else and clarified the difference between a biased on non biased question. Thats not ad hominem, thats a clear distinction anyone learns in basic sociology.
second, you deleted a post of mine in another thread because it made a call to the referenced web page in the original post that pointed out some of the lies used there. I can demonstrate exactly how these were lies, if you'd like, to prove that i was merely stating truth. if you cut out whereever we tell someone they are incorrect, how is anyone supposed to debate? that IS the point... that someone is wrong and the other at least is closer to right than the first.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 08, 2004.
paul h, have you not read a single word I’ve written above? I have repeatedly requested that all disillusioned posters, who have had posts deleted, contact me in private email. The thrust of my message was specifically directed at you. Since you seem hellbent on airing this out in public, so be it.I have no idea what you’re referring to in the post above. I cannot recall the content of the posts in question and quite frankly I don’t care. THAT IS NOT THE REASON THEY WERE DELETED. Your posts were deleted because you showed an objectionable lack of charity toward fellow posters that I found extremely offensive. I am sorry I didn’t keep copies of your posts for discussion with you, however, I will in the future. In one particular post, it seems to me you referred to someone whom you were debating with as a “child” or some such other patronizing remark. As moderator, I will not allow this sort of behaviour. All posters are to treat others with respect. Your deleted posts showed anything but respect for your fellow forumites. Your posts were insulting, condescending, abusive, disrespectful, discourteous and rude. Need I say more?
If you have a copy of these posts PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO ME IN THEIR ENTIRETY, and I will be happy to elaborate further in private.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 08, 2004.
Ed,Cool out with that "Canadian temper" a bit! I think paul gets the "hint" to e-mail you know. :-) I'm sure once upon a time "four Jacks" was a wild young man in college that had to have the last word.
Have more patience Ed. We are all brothers in Christ.
-- - (David@excite.com), February 09, 2004.
Ed, I think that you (and Paul too!) are doing a great job as moderator. While I don't remember the specific incident/thread you are referring to (sorry, I don't have the memory that David does!) I do know that you are one of the people on this forum who always responded to a rational sensible discussion of the issues and was willing to consider such discussions and reverse your position if warranted instead of getting all defensive and responding with attacks, etc. Believe me, that is something that I notice and don't take lightly, so while I don't remember the specifics, I remember your character! Paul chose wisely!Though I haven't posted much for quite a while, I do continue to check in here, and now that the atmosphere is improving, I look forward to posting again as time/family/work allows.
ie Ed you are doing a great job! Thank you!
cksunshine
-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.
I think Ed and Paul are doing a terrific job of moderating. This must be time-consuming for them, and I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciate their efforts.It's good to be able to read a forum where rudeness and downright bad manners are not tolerated. It is, after all, a Christian forum and anything we say to one another in the forum should be something we wouldn't be ashamed to say to Jesus himself.
I may well have said things in an un-Christian manner myself, and if I offended anyone in doing so I apologise profusely and unreservedly.
Keep up the good work moderators!
God bless
Sara
-- Sara (sara__catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), February 09, 2004.
Thanks Ladies, I appreciate your kind words. By the way, it's so good to "read" you again CK.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 09, 2004.
David, angry - no, frustrated - yes. :)
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 09, 2004.
Re: Trads Only In Heaven?Sorry Eugene, but Hugh is right, you made your opening post personal, so I've had to delete it. I have also found out that when you delete the opening post, you mess up the thread. I apologize that because of my deletion, the remainder of the thread is now not available.
Hugh, it's not that I didn't want to take action earlier, I couldn't, I wasn't available, I was working. I am sorry the thread greatly progressed since the opening post.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 10, 2004.
Moderators,Thanks for the great job you do. This thread (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BpbO) titled "Lent" and posted by Zarove is not working for some reason. Over at the Ask Jesus forum, they apparently had trouble with someone posting a huge message on a bunch of their threads so that none of them seem to be working (according to a post from the moderator). This thread here in the Catholic forum called "Lent" also has the same error message appearing.
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 26, 2004.
Yes. We've been hit hard with some heavy stuff at the "Ask Jesus" forum. We are currently working on restoring all of the threads that were bombed. Let's hope that this forum remains free from the vandal. Hey, the Scriptures will never get zapped........................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 26, 2004.
Friends, I have a question for you all. Recently I deleted a new thread entitled “The Myth of Satan” which, by the way, seemed nothing more than an unsubstantiated “Catholic/Christian Bashing” thread (It began with the words, “The Satanic Dogma which the Christian Church...”). Anyhow, more alarmingly to me, was the format in which the opening post was presented. It was in the form of one long extended paragraph and all in capital letters with very little punctuation. It was extremely difficult to read as evidenced by the first respondent to the opening post who made a comment in this regard. Of late, there have also been a few posters who do not even have the courtesy, or the pride, to “spellcheck” their posts before presenting them for us to read.Now, lest I be accused of something, I am not knocking anyone who has a problem with the perception of words/letters/or thoughts. That is an entirely different matter and I sympathize with anyone who suffers from any of these afflictions. I am not talking about someone who is writing in a language that is not in their mother tongue. I applaud anyone who has mastered a second language to a point where they are able to communicate in written form.
What I am talking about is addressing those individuals who don’t even bother to run their post through a spellcheck before submitting it, or take the time to edit it out into “readable” format (paragraphs, etc.), or bother to take the time to use standard upper/lower case letters. I am talking about presenting your post in an easily readable, standard style for others to enjoy. It seems to me that if you have sufficient means at your disposal to have access to a computer and wish to communicate with others via this method then you should at least be held accountable in how you present your posts. They should be measured against some kind of acceptable standard. Surely all posts must be “reasonably” readable? If not, and if too many of these posts are received by the form, then doesn’t it erode the quality of the forum thus discouraging new readers from participating?
In my opinion, these sorts of posts are detrimental to the forum. I feel there should be a minimum (albeit loose) standard permitted in posting that allows for readers to understand what the poster is saying without too much difficulty. My question is this: Should we add the words “readable” and “coherent” to the criteria for the rules of the forum when placing posts? What are your thoughts on this matter?
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 28, 2004.
By the way Emily, the "Lent" thread had to be deleted as it was no longer operable.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 28, 2004.
Jake (j@k.e), who is also known to us under several other aliases and, who has used numerous I.P. addresses, has been banned from the forum for recently impersonating John Gecik in a post/thread which is in direct violation of our rules.All aliases/I.P. addresses linked to jake will be monitored in the future to ensure that no further posts are permitted by him/her.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 28, 2004.
Anti-Bush has been banned from the forum for monopolizing threads with his own personal agenda and being un-Christian-like in his demeanor.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 28, 2004.
Emily, I have deleted the post from Jas you found offensive in the “Struggle with Marian Doctrines” thread. I agree with you that it went over the top and needed to be addressed. I apologise for not spotting this post when it was first placed and dealing with it then. I do admit to spotting it recently and thought best to leave it rather than stir up further turmoil and confusion on the thread. Now, in hindsight, I guess I should have acted quicker for it seems we have left David, a visitor, with a very unflattering opinion of ourselves, the very thing we were trying to prevent.David, if you’re still reading our forum, I am sorry you were offended. There have been problems with our formum lately and I can assure you they are being addressed and we are working at ways to improve the way in which the forum is projected to anyone new who happens to visit. Our format allows for a robust, free-wheeling type of dialogue to encourage debate and sometimes posters can get carried away. I invite you to stick around for a few weeks and then judge our actions if you must. One post seems hardly adequate time to label an entire group. I do bear responsibility for the opinion you formed however, since I am the one responsible for controlling such offensive material and again, I am sorry if you were offended.
I will admit to all to a double standard when examining posts for offensive material. Everyone will have noticed I am more tolerant of some than of others. But it’s not what you all might think. My decisions have nothing to do with who is Catholic and who is not. My decisions are primarily based on how long the poster has been contributing to the forum. I take into account the length of tenure the poster has had with the forum along with my perception of the degree of seriousness of the offense. I can tell you that long-time posters such as John, Eugene, David, etc. will no doubt be given more leeway in posting than someone who is new to the forum would. Lest anyone get the wrong impression, it’s not because they are Catholic that they enjoy this privilege. David Bowerman is a non-Catholic. He enjoys the same privileges as the others I’ve mentioned do, owing to his tenure here in the forum as well. Because they have contributed to the forum over a long period of time they are accorded a higher level of tolerance. You may have noticed this when some have criticized me for my efforts as Moderator. Maybe this isn’t fair, but I am being honest in telling you I have been pushed in this direction when monitoring posts. Perhaps I can work on being a bit more objective when offensive posts are placed by a long-time posters. In all cases, no matter who you might be, no one is permitted to insult others.
I can also tell you that the offensive post in question would have been removed earlier had someone complained to me about it, like they have today. It was allowed to stand 22 days because no one notified me. Paul and I aren't the only moderators here. We all are. We all can help the official moderators by pointing out material we find objectionable.
At times I am reluctant to act on a post I find offensive, feeling that I may be over-reacting to it and that others might not find it as offensive as I do. I can’t quite agree with Jim Furst that Catholics should be excused for their behaviour to a point, owing to their emotionalism. While I understand what Jim is getting at, Catholics in this forum are held to a higher standard by all who visit and thus, more is expected of them. Many visitors come here to find fault with Catholics and in turn, with our Faith and our Church. We have to be ever-mindful of not offending visitors who come, lest they be given a bad impression of us and/or our Faith like David was.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 03, 2004.
EdOn your post of the 28th you said:
'I feel there should be a minimum (albeit loose) standard permitted in posting that allows for readers to understand what the poster is saying without too much difficulty.'
I think you have a very valid point there. At times it can become almost impossible and extremely frustrating to read contributors posts. I realise that some people may have difficulty with English, perhaps it may be a 'second language' or they might be dyslexic or have a similar problem, but I think common courtesy dictates that all of us should perhaps run a spell-check over our post before posting. This would ensure at least an acceptable level of writing appears on the forum.
Some people, who may not be as 'computer-literate' as others, might be unaware that they can type out their response in a word document and then 'copy/paste' it into the response form here on the forum. In this way they can run a spell-check over it before posting. For anyone who's unsure how to do this, just type your post, spell- check it, press ctrl a, then ctrl c, go to the response form here on the forum and press ctrl v.
I'm not trying to be critical or offend anyone here, I'm just trying to be helpful and I hope my post's taken in the way I meant it!
God bless
Sara
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), March 04, 2004.
Ed,I think its getting petty worring about someones spelling. There is only one persons' post who is hard to read sometimes, and he has a problem that he was born with. Just read it and offer it up for Lent if its frustrating to you.
I read some of the same people ask the same question[s] months later. What next? Only peope with good memories can post?
-- - (David@excite.com), March 04, 2004.
David, your post inidicates you've misread, misunderstood or overlooked what has been written in the foregoing. Please re-read to gain a better understanding of what is being discussed here.This issue is not about one person as you have suggested. It's about using spell check. It's about using paragraphs. It's about not using bold letters and or capital letters exclusively so that others might read a post more easily. It's about using certain minimum standards when placing a post on the forum. It's about common courtesy and consideration for others when communicating with them.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 04, 2004.
Ed,Offer it up for Lent if it bothers you that much. What are you going to do, delete someone because they don't dot there "i" or cross there "t"'s?(or use spell check)
Everyone knows your the new sheriff in town! Keep those guns to your side and don't push your weight around. :-)
Just be a good referee Ed. Don't over do it. Rember what you said about a good referee and a good Moderator?
-- =-= (David@excite.com), March 04, 2004.
David, again, you’re taking what I am proposing to extremes. This isn't about dotting "i"'s and crossing "t"'s. It’s a pity you won’t take my advice and re-read this thread. In addition, your condescending remarks do nothing to advance this discussion.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 04, 2004.
".Its a pity you won't take my advice.."Ok Ed. I will take it. Your right like always.:-) Thanks for the advice.
I must of been a dope to think different?
Can you give me a few examples as to posts that might have bothered you to make this proposal? I would like to understand what are your "boundries" as to this rule?
Thanks in advance for your explanation.
-- =-= (David@excite.com), March 05, 2004.
David, let's drop this. This is going nowhere. Thanks for your input.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 05, 2004.
I've deleted the thread "Catholic" Conversion, as the originator has been previously banned from the forum.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 05, 2004.
Ed,Remember, no matter WHAT you do as moderator someone is going to be unhappy, someone else will be overjoyed. The overjoyed ones usually don't say anything, the irritated ones almost always do. Keep it up,
Frank
P.s. (to a tune) Memories... like the something of my something..
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 05, 2004.
Hi, EdHow are you? This post is only for you to think about. Please don't get mad. I have feelings too. :-) I want to be your buddy and have serious dialogue with you.
But concerning your new proposal that you suggested with spell- checker might not work, because some people at forum are not computer- literate enough to use spell-checker. Other people, due to a very limited computer memory, cannot open a "word processor"(text editor) for spell-checking at the same time they have internet open for forum Ed. It causes the phone connection to break or can cause their computer to lock up. Other people have word processors that do not have spell-checking. So you see its realy not as simple as one can make it sound.
Just some "food for thought".
God bless you, Ed
-- - (David@excite.com), March 05, 2004.
Frank,Ed made a new "proposal" and he asked for some input. I'm sure he didn't think everyone was going to agree with his "proposal". And I don't think he was aware that all word processors do not have spell- checking and that some people in forum arn't computer-literate enough to use one.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 05, 2004.
Sorry Bethy, I have not deleted your posts because I’m childish or because I can’t handle your criticism. I’ve deleted your posts because you're banned for having had an “I giggle” post on Jan. 26. I guess this proves your point Frank. Thanks for the words of encouragement.David, you've convinced me. I am dropping my request to examine the possibility of instituting a rule concerning posts and how they are presented. If anyone finds a post too difficult to read they can always let the moderator know. Again, thanks for your input.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 05, 2004.
Ed,Thanks for having an open mind and giving me a chance to voice my opinion about this when we didn't agree.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 06, 2004.
Bill, you may want to clean out your e-mailbox. It's full. Anyone replying to any of the threads you have created (and you've created a few)is now getting a reply that the copy of their post is undeliverable to you due to your mailbox being full. Thanks.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 06, 2004.
In the thread “Why Does Our Lady Appear To Catholics Only?”, someone has posted using MaryLu’s “handle”. This is against forum rules (see above). Should this individual post again using someone’s else’s nick, they could face permanent restriction from posting in the future.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 12, 2004.
Thanks, Ed, I have been getting a lot of virus spam and they fill up the junk folder quickly. I will try to keep a better eye out.bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.
Sorry to go a bit off-topic:Thanks, Ed, I have been getting a lot of virus spam and they fill up the junk folder quickly. I will try to keep a better eye out.
bill
That's why I don't put my e-mail on forums like these-one , the same I also do on another forums , no mail allowed , only PM !! __ Why not is there an option/possiblity to hide your e-mail for visitors , only moderators can always see your e-mail ?? (Just a wild idea of me)
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), March 12, 2004.
".Why not is there an option/possibility to hide your e-mail for visitors, only Moderators can see your e-mail?(Just a wild idea from me")Mr. Lug you know there is a posibility for this because you "hid" your e-mail whewn you posted this question. IS "@" your e-mail?
Bingo Cat ! :-)
-- - (David@excite.com), March 12, 2004.
David , you got meSalut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), March 12, 2004.
I decided to use -nospam in my address and see if that helps at all. Hopefully it will do the trick.thanks, bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.
I have deleted the new thread entitled "Mason In The Church". The site reommended for reading began with the statement that "Satan has infiltrated the Church". It didn't present the Church, it's officicials or Vatican II in a very good light. In addition, it threw in some "End Times" controversy for good measure. If the poster was sincere, perhaps he could present his question in another way, a way that might be less insulting to Catholics who read it. Thank you.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.
It seems to me an old thread existed that explained how to do all this HTML stuff (like creating links with underlines, adding/removing bold/italicized print, setting new paragraphs, etc.). I can’t seem to find it now. It’s probably lost under some other thread of a different title. I thought it would be great to re- read some of the comments. It could help posters like myself who are not up on these sorts of things. Can anyone find it for me? How about it David, you have a memory like an elephant. Do you recall where it might be found?
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.
Ed,I think you are talking about a thread titled "Learn me something" started by Emerald almost two years ago. In this thread Mateo explains everything you are asking about now.
Its possible that this thread could have been deleted by "mad deleter" but, I'm not sure about this.
This might be a situation where the " thread restorer" could be very helpful. :-)
-- - (David@excite.com), March 14, 2004.
Ed,The thread is in the uncathegorized section. There wasn't a place where I could post to top it for you. Its almost like its a "damaged" thread.
The thread is right underneath a thread titled " Need help in Discernment"
-- - (David@excite.com), March 14, 2004.
From the "Learn me something" thread -----Replace '[' with '<' and replace ']' with '>' in each of the following, to get the desired effect -----
[I]Italics[/I]
[B]Bold[/B]
[U]Underline[/U]
TO MAKE A LINK -----
[A HREF="http://www.netscape.com/"]Netscape[/A]
Put the target URL between the quotation marks. Put the text of the link (to click on) where the word "Netscape" appears in the example.[img SRC="http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/papaeast-s.jpg"]
-- (helping@hand.com), March 14, 2004.
Ouch! Forgot to delete the last one, which is for doing something that is now prohibited (embedding a picture).
-- (helping@hand.com), March 14, 2004.
Thanks everyone. It's good to bring this forward every six months or so.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.
AKOBADAGETH has previously been banned from the forum. Please don't respond to any of his posts as yours will in all probability be deleted as well. Whenever his posts appear, I will eventually get around to deleting them.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.
Jeff's posts are being deleted becasue he is "Anti-Bush" who has been banned from the forum.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.
"Judas" thread has been deleted. Original poster and respondent were the same individual under two separate identities which contravenes forum rules.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 14, 2004.
Ed,Your burning the "midnight oil". :-)
-- - (David@excite.com), March 14, 2004.
Emerald, I am sorry, but you've removed yourself from this forum permanently. As far as I was concerned, you volunteered to leave. Had you not, however, make no mistake, I would have expelled you based on your defiance of forum authority in your last post in the "Will the Passion Bring Some Evangelicals to Better Respect Mary" thread. You are permanently barred from participating in this forum.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
I thought I recognized Pauline's abusive style. She/he has been banned fom the forum earlier and is known to us by another name. In any event, I think Pauline has done and said enough today to warrant a fresh expulsion. All posts by Pauline will be removed.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
Obviously, PhilipR. did not heed my earlier warnings. He is now asked to leave the forum on a permanent basis.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
moderators,please dont think im questioning your authority, but i think it takes time for a non catholic to come to understand that this is not a place for them to bash our church and to come around to scholarly discourse.
That being said, there have been alot of bannings lately. I think that perhaps to facilitate the spread of knowledge of the rules to the newcomers, that posts which are deleted could instead be replaced with the rule that was violated along with who posted there, so that the offending poster could be made easily aware of exactly how they violated the rules.
Just a thought for the two of you to consider... a few more warnings before final banning couldnt hurt
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 15, 2004.
paul h., I appreciate your input, I really do. You have a point about providing proper warnings to those individuals who come here in the interest of honest debate. The problem is, they don't usually require any discipline. They usually observe the rules. The kind of people I have been harsh and short with don’t come to the forum in a courteous, open, Christian way. Now take PhilipR. for example, immediately after your post above, he posted a reference to a "bash- Mary" site on the net in one of our threads. How many more warnings do you think I might have to give poor Philip before his hardened heart is changed and he stops bashing our Faith?Your post though paul, has caused me to examine my efforts here the past several weeks and it is obvious, as Frank has said that a Moderator is not going to be able to please everyone. I have been spending an inordinate amount of time lately moderating the forum. It is far more time than I had ever imagined I would have to spend. Some will say, I have created work for myself by addressing the problems as I encountered them. Others will criticize that I haven't been fair in my dealings, or at least consistent with everyone. Well, they may have a point.
In any event, I find I just don’t have the proper amount of time to devote to my job as Moderator and as such, it would not be fair to continue in this capacity. I think it’s time for me to step aside and let someone else have a go at trying to maintain order. The very open nature of the forum will certainly challenge them to the fullest.
God bless,
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
By the way paul, your demeanor in the forum has changed noticeably in the past few weeks. You have been one of the few who have taken my criticism to heart and changed for the better. It takes a good man to admit when he is wrong and for that, you have my undying respect. :)
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
Ed,Maybe paul was afraid you would "clip" him if didn't. :-)
Maybe you could just help Paul out Ed? I'm sure you would be a big help if you just help him "police" the forum (delete profanity, porno, banned people etc...)
Just a thought and thats all. Pray about it before you make a decesion one way or the other.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 15, 2004.
I came to this forum to learn from the opinions of fellow Christians...not sure why I'm being banned...but it's your forum, you do what you will with it.The Lord be with you,
Jeff.
-- Jeff Dombrow (cobeed76@aol.com), March 15, 2004.
Jeff, you've had the unpleasant circumstance to have been assigned the identical IP address as someone who has been banned from the forum - Anti-Bush. This is amazing, it's like two people in the world having the same fingerprints. Who'd have thunk it? If you've been centered out unfairly because of this then I apologize, however, until software is invented that will allow me to differentiate between you, a good Christian, and Anit-Bush, who monopolized threads with his own political agenda, at the same IP address, then I am afraid in the interest of protecting the forum from further monopolization, I have no alternatvie but to assume you and Anti-Bush are one and the same. I trust this explanation proves satisfactory.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know much about computers, so I can't provide any kind of technical proof on my behalf. But why would anti- bush post a bunch of conservative comments?
-- Jeff Dombrow (cobeed76@aol.com), March 15, 2004.
Jeff, unfortunately I don’t know much about computers either. I have only been told that posts made with identical IP numbers indicate the posts have originated from the same computer. Perhaps someone has been using your computer without your knowing it. As for Anti- Bush posting a bunch of “conservative comments”, I never said this was the case. I said he has monopolized threads with his own political agenda. What possibly could have ever possessed him to do such a thing is beyond my ability to comprehend.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
Well, I am posting from a public library, so many people have used this computer...it's possible "anti-bush" could live in my town! Wouldn't that be ironic? It's a small world.The Lord be with you,
Jeff
-- Jeff Dombrow (cobeed76@aol.com), March 15, 2004.
Its him Ed. He just used that "conservative" comment to try and throw you off.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 15, 2004.
Ed,Have you heard of proxy servers? or networking? These might be the reasons you see the same IP adresses.
-- jr (none@none.com), March 15, 2004.
ISP providers use a Proxy Address to protect the users real IP address, and users in the same area have the same 'fake' proxy ip address.
-- jr (none@none.com), March 15, 2004.
Ed,If you are so ignorant of computers, you might want to stop accusing people so certain things. You accused me of the same things, and yet could not would not prove it.
-- jr (none@none.com), March 15, 2004.
Ed,Would you please stop deleting my messages. You have not banned me, so I see no reason for you to do so.
-- jr (none@none.com), March 15, 2004.
WHOA, lay off a bit JR...Your posts are a bit flagrant in manner, even i can see that. So ed doesnt know about proxy servers? thats not his JOB. His job is to defend this forum from the onslaught of posters with contrary agendas who are unwilling to have civil discourse about the catholic faith, not to distinguish IPs.
It is quite possible, however, that the two are using the same IP address through a proxy server. Is there some way to block an email or user name instead of blocking an IP, so that this situation can be resolved?
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 15, 2004.
paul h,You might want to ask Philip Greenspun about that. LUSNET seems to be outdated, and needs more features like that. Or maybe registering users.
-- jr (none@none.com), March 15, 2004.
Jeff, Oh, so you're posting from a public library? Ahhhh, so that explains everything. Well then, I suggest you look for another nickname and another computer with another IP address. Perhaps another library might suit your purposes better. If you change your nick and your IP address, you can make a fresh start and I will be none the wiser.David, I know what's going on. I wasn't born yesterday. I was merely trying to show everyone that there's no end to monitoring this forum if you have to explain every single move you make.
jr you are quite incorrect. You have been banned or at least your IP address, your network, your proxy server and/or your fake proxy address have all been banned. By the way, don’t you find it peculiar that since I have banned you, not one “I giggle” post has materialized? Do you think that might be due to the fact that were an “I giggle” post to surface now, it might show the same IP address the others have? That yours has? Surprise! Surprise! (Now some kook will prove me wrong and post “I giggle” just to screw things up!)
I am the first to admit that I am very ignorant about how computers, networks and the Internet work, however, there are a few things I have been able to learn. An IP address is made up of four sets of 3- digit numbers (numbered 1 to 255) sometimes referred to as octets. These sets of numbers or octets consist of two parts. The numbers mean something, at least to “techies” anyway. The first part of an IP address (up to the first three octets) identifies the larger network the IP address is originating from, for example the Internet Service Provider or large corporate network. An IP address might originate for example from an office at IBM, AT&T or American Express or from your local internet service provider.
The second part of remaining numbers or octets refers to the smaller local network and/or the actual computer the IP address is originating from. It may interest all of you to know that several posters have many IP addresses. I’ve counted a few posters with in excess of 50 different IP addresses, however, the first three octets have always been identical. (To keep me on my toes, some posters post from work and from home, or from libraries etc, adding to the confusion.) In a poster’s IP address, it’s always been the last octet that sometimes changes indicating the number of the computer from where the post is originating. When the last octet number changes, this usually is accounted for by it being assigned a proxy number each time it enters the Internet. In any event, posters cannot hide the IP address and the first three octets always match, for a given poster, thus disclosing the IP identity of that poster. The first three octets show enough of the IP address to indicate the originating source of the post, an isolated computer or small network group of computers.
jr, in your case, the first three octets have been consistent in all your posts.
paul h. have you noticed how more open to your suggestion I have been this evening, about supplying more information about why certain individuals have been banned? It hasn't seemed to gotten me very much except serveral hours of constructing posts.:)
By the way, I think LUSENET is doing a great job! It's the dishonest people that use it that create the problems.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.
Pauline, who is rather active this morning in posting, is actually Jay Gentile who has been banned by Paul M. Accordingly, her/his recent posts will be removed. Please do not respond to any of her/his posts.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 16, 2004.
i understand your frustration ed, this job you do for us is no easy task.If you need help, I have always been one to point out innappropriate posts. I dont know if there is a way to search the recent threads, but I always start posts about forum violations with the word "moderator" which would allow you to quickly jump to any rule infractions that I had found.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.
Thanks Paul, your support is appreciated.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 16, 2004.
It's the nature of this beast. Since posts can only be deleted after being posted here, when there are a few determined disruptive posters, it takes a great deal of time to keep the place clean. There are really two options:1. let everyone post everything. This is "free", except the end result is the normal posters leave, and only the folks who love acrimony remain. The forum becomes a very unpleasant place.
2. Try and enforce some degree of civility. This would take care of the problem with good folks leaving, but gets the dander up of everyone one who feels they wuz robbed. Plus, some of the disruptive posters see this as a challenge, and double their posting for a time, until they get bored. The downside is that it's moderator time and stress intensive, and no one is happy with you. The forum, however, is a nicer place. There's no perfect solution, someone's always unhappy.
Remember folks, this isn't a PAID job, but a VOLUNTEER one! Ed and Paul are VOLUNTEERING their time to try and make this a nice place. Try and understand their position before saying how you could be doing their job better.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2004.
Well said, from someone who's been there! Thanks again Frank.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 16, 2004.
Paul, I realize the difficulty new posters face, however, new posters, aren’t usually the problem, unless of course their intentions are not honourable in which case, reading the rules of the forum isn’t really going to change much. I can’t think of a way to make our mission known to new posters who happen upon a thread randomly. Usually the offending thread is not the first from a poster anyway. It is only when they become comfortable with how the forum is run and only when they discover the latitude accorded them here that problems arise.As I have mentioned more than once, I just don’t personally feel comfortable in editing someone else’s post and probably never will. It is much too easy to destroy the integrity of the post, or at least to be accused of so doing. Another problem in amending a post, is not being able to know for certain exactly what the poster meant or intended. How can we? We’d have to get inside the head of a poster to know for sure. Furthermore, it is not the Moderator’s job to edit out derogatory comments, that responsibility should fall directly on the shoulders of the poster. He will bear the consequences if his post is not decent and presentable. After all, we’re not asking for something above the norm found anywhere else. All we’re asking for is for posters to exhibit common decency and respect when posting.
I appreciate your input Paul.
-- Ed (catholic4444@y;ahoo.ca), March 16, 2004.
I agree with Ed. I don't mind having a post *deleted* that much (once I get passed the moral indignation of my masterpiece being unfairly criticized, LOL), but if someone EDITed my post, I'd be quite upset. That would or could be slandering you, making you appear to have said something you did not. I agree with leaving a post whole, or deleting it.Another thing that bothers me is s can't say more about it than that.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2004.
i think i may have been misunderstood when i mentioned editing posts.what i meant was, the entire body of their post would be deleted and replaced with a canned message like "post deleted due to violation of forum rules" and have a link to the rules there. you wouldnt be changing what the person said, just deleting it and giving them a link to the rules.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.
Oh, I see what you mean now Paul. That might work, will have to give it some thought.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 16, 2004.
Almost all of us, even moderators, have some hot-under-the-collar moments, in which we may blurt out a word or phrase (or more) that we later regret (or ought to regret). When this happens, and when the message otherwise contains good info, a persuasive rebuttal of a doctrinal error, etc., it would be egregiously heavy-handed -- sometimes even an act of grave injustice -- for the entire post to be deleted. That's why a moderator should either let those unpleasant words/phrases "slide" or edit them out. It is not so difficult to do such a thing (remove a word/epithet/phrase/sentence), if only a moderator has the fortitude and willingness to apply his God-given intelligence to the task. (I think that I could do it in my sleep.)I believe that the deletion of a mostly-good post is the lazy man's way out. Anyone who complains about a moderator editing clearly bad stuff out of his/her message should be told, "Next time, would you prefer that I delete your whole message instead? Or would you prefer to be banned?" That would help the offender to realize that he has not been treated too harshly.
However, if what I have just written is going to be rejected (as most good ideas are -- here and elsewhere in life!), and if whole posts really are going to be deleted, then I recommend that two things be done -----
First, the moderator should keep a copy of the post, in case the writer asks to have it sent to him/her by e-mail for emendation and re-posting.
Second, the suggestion just made by paul h should be followed, with two modifications. The forum's rules should be numbered. Then the "canned" message would read, "Your message has been deleted due to violation of forum rule #____. The text of the message is available for correction and re-posting by e-mailing a request to ______________."
-- (My@Opinion.com), March 17, 2004.
My, while we’ve all had hot-under-the-collar moments, including yours truly, it still doesn’t give us the right to dump on others. If we do, then we should be prepared to pay the consequences. Usually those who commit infractions do so after having made several posts and becoming familiar with forum rules. They know what they are doing, even if they are hot-under-the- collar. No one should tolerate insult in the interest of getting to “good info” or a “persuasive rebuttal of doctrinal error, etc.” I don’t feel it is the Moderator’s place to play editor with posts and babysit posters who are prone to tantrums and abusive behaviour. There is no grave injustice done if a post is deleted. All that is needed, is for the poster to clean up his post and re- post it. Why should the Moderator be saddled with extra work to clean up a post from someone who lacks courtesy, discipline and self-control in writing?Deletion of a post is not the “lazy way out”. Anyone who has read my posts knows I am not lazy to the point my posts can be excessively long. Laziness has nothing to do with it. Responsibility of actions and willingness to face consequences has everything to do with it. As a volunteer Moderator I am not prepared to endure hours cataloguing deleted posts from posters who lack self-control on my personal computer, filling up my hard drive with this garbage, a hard drive by the way, that I have worked and sweated to pay for, out of my own personal funds. I, nor anyone else, owes that to anyone who is selfish or inconsiderate enough to place an offending post.
I have already used paul h.’s suggestion for a post I recently deleted. I don’t have any problem in trying this for awhile to see if it helps matters. To go further at this time and number our rules, then provide numbered explanations about why posts were deleted and then engage in subsequent private explanatory email will only add to the bureaucracy of the job. We have enough rules and regulations now without adding further protocol and detail to clutter things up. This really isn’t rocket science. Basically, we have one rule here - BE NICE! It’s that simple. If you aren’t respectful and courteous your post gets lifted. There’s no big mystery in this that requires detailed workloads for explanation. The onus to perform satisfactorily should not be placed on the Moderator, the onus to perform satisfactorily should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the poster.
My, I am sorry but unfortunately, I’ve had to remove your last post as it contained unkind words that are not in keeping with the Christian image this forum is attempting to portray.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 17, 2004.
Zarove, I've just deleted your thread entitled "10 Reasons to Vote Kerry". By your own admission is was offensive and I totally agree - too offensive to allow it to stand. The thread was in poor taste and mostly political in nature.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 20, 2004.
Ed and Paul,I just want to tell you that you guys are doing a great job as moderators! I totally agree with your most recent post, Ed, that it should not be the moderator's responsibility to save a post that you have deleted. People need to be responsible for their own stuff. If they put so much work into a post that they would regret having it deleted, the answer for the poster is simple: either don't put offensive stuff (wait until you are calmed down if you are hot under the collar!) or save the post yourself on your own hard drive! Some people seem to think that they should be allowed to do whatever they want and it's someone else's responsibility to clean up the mess and the poster never has to be responsible for his/her own actions (words). That's so sad.
It's simple. You are right, it's BE NICE. Break the rule, and suffer the consequence. Little children in kindergarten understand this concept; it's amazing to me how many grownups don't get it. And lest anyone think that I'm trying to be a goody-goody, I've broken the rules here, and I've suffered the consequence.
Also, I want to affirm the idea of doing what paul suggested. I've seen this used on other message boards, and it has the advantage of not disrupting the continuity of the thread while at the same time, not allowing the post to stand. In other words, someone who is reading the thread understands that a post was deleted, and doesn't end up scratching their head saying "Huh?" because the thread doesn't make a lot of sense unless you already knew that there had been a post there that had been subsequently deleted.
Anyway, keep up the good work. Don't let people like "My" get you down or subtly manipulate you into feeling guilty. You are doing a good job! Thank you for all you do!
cksunshine
-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 20, 2004.
Hi, CKHope all is well this Lenten season! How is Adoration going with your parish?
"..And lest anyone think that I'm trying to be a goody-goody, I ve broken the rules, and I've suffered the consequence."
I don't ever rember reading you breaking the forum rules. I don't think you are being a "goody-goody" either. I think you are being kind giving a compliment. I don't think you ever broke the rules and thats why I commented.
May God bless Glenn K.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 20, 2004.
Hi ck! Thanks for your words of encouragement. I just had to respond when I read that you've "broken the rules"??? I don't believe that for a minute. (hehehehe)
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 21, 2004.
Hi Glenn and Ed,Thank you both for YOUR kind words! Well, yes, I'm human too. In short, one night I got really mad at someone for things that person said (and the way they were said). I let loose, and said exactly what I was thinking, inappropriately so. I did offer an apology later on, but I doubt the person ever read it because that person said that they wouldn't bother reading anything else that I had written, since it was probably "rubbish" too. Anyway, the whole thing, my post, that person's post, and the whole thread I think, was deleted, appropriately so.
Soo...I have my moments too! Keeps me humble!
Glenn, things are going pretty well at the church. Sometimes I think it's my second home as much as I'm there with the school, and I am working part time there now also. Adoration is going well, but we continue to pray for new adorers, particularly for the overnight hours. I LOVE my hour there; it always seems to go so fast! I hope things are going well with you too! It's so good to see you here!
Well we are off to Mass. Just wanted to say though, that I'm glad for the atmosphere here at the forum these days. The level of attacks is significantly reduced and I feel this is a place that I can visit again. Thanks so much!
cksunshine
-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.
Hi Everyone,I have received a few questions about the email account listed at the top and bottom of the forum pages. In the past we haven't been using them, however, as of today we have changed the email address and they are now functional and ready to receive any comments from participants in the forum. The old email address remains at the bottom of the "New Answers" page. Please ignore it until I can figure out a way to have it removed. You may still reach Paul or myself at our regular email addresses.
The new forum email address is: Catholic_Moderator@yahoo.com
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 22, 2004.
Hi, CarolynI'm sorry I didn't sign my name, but I was the one posting to you. It wasn't Glenn K. I have just been using David@excite at the end of my posts. Sorry for the confusion.
I said, "May God bless Glenn K". I haven't seen the man from Ohio post lately. I hope God blesses Glenn K and keeps his two children healthy.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 22, 2004.
Overnight someone named Hernan posted four very short new threads listing several references to scripture. This sort of posting is considered spamming.Hernan, if you are reading this, please refer above to our forum rules listed at the beginning of this thread. The rules in part read as follows: "to provide non-Catholics an opportunity to ask sincere questions about the beliefs and practices of Catholicism, in a courteous Christian atmosphere."
Your posts were deleted, as in my opinion, your "questions" were not questions but rather a form of proselytizing which is not permitted here. If you have legitimate questions about our Faith then I invite you to ask them.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 29, 2004.
Anti-Bush has been re-instated and is now permitted to place posts in the forum. Of late, he has demonstrated a genuine desire to learn more about the faith and it has never been my intention to deprive someone of this opportunity for further knowledge. Recently, I inadvertently removed a post of his in the "saints" thread and for this I apologize.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 16, 2004.
moderator,problem with an advertisement on the ST PATRICKS DAY thread.
-- (note@to.moderator), April 16, 2004.
moderator,problem on the "Another Catholic Movie" thread
-- (note@to.moderator), April 16, 2004.
Hello, EdWhat made you change your mind about anti-Bush and still keep Emerald banned from this forum just out of "wondering"?
I am not trying to prove you wrong as I understand you are the Moderator.
But just so in my own mixed up mind I want to understand what you are doing? Doesn't Emeralds good he has done far out weigh his faults?
Did you run off John G with your deletions? What happened to the saints of the day threads since you are captain of the ship?
-- - (David@excite.com), April 16, 2004.
Thanks you, Ed. I will try to be more respectfull.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.
moderator,there is a "debug" message that comes up when loading the "Observancia del Sabado" thread.
-- (thanks@foryour.help), April 17, 2004.
Jmj
Hi, David "excite."Someone let me know that my name was mentioned on this thread and on another thread in recent weeks. I decided to check and see if it would be necessary or useful for me to respond.
You asked the new moderator, "Did you run off John G with your deletions? What happened to the saints of the day threads since you are captain of the ship?"
Since, for some reason, you did not get an answer, I will answer you.
I have been away from the forum for a month. I believe that my last message was probably posted on March 20, since I just glanced at an e-mail message that I sent to the new moderator on March 21. In that message, I informed him of my intention to remain away from the forum -- except for updating "saints-of-the-day" threads when new canonizations/beatifications occur -- until two things change here. (I have not posted anything on a "saints" thread since February 28, I believe.)
You asked if the moderator's "deletions" ran me off. Although there was an additional, significant motivating factor (which I will go into on the other thread), it is true that the unjustifiable deletion of various messages, posted by me and by at least three other orthodox Catholics, was the key factor in making me decide to become inactive.
The deletions were based on a very fallible man's subjective opinion of the messages. Specifically, the deletions were based on a mere man's subjective dislike of the manner in which comments and truths were expressed -- that is, a manner that was allegedly not sufficiently friendly/kind/respectful. The sad truth is that the deletions were a kind of tyrannical act that said, "You must write in the manner that I demand, or your words will be 'deep-sixed.' I care as much about how you say things as what you say. I will let rejecters of Catholic doctrine post here indefinitely, as long as they do it kindly. But your messages, even though they contain only the truth, will get the heave-ho if you aren't friendly enough to satisfy my subjective judgment."
This kind of treatment -- the kind of thing one sees in depictions of stereotypical schoolmarms -- is unworthy of adults posting at a forum. This kind of treament also ignores the examples of "tough love" (stern language, etc.) set for us by Jesus and many of the saints -- and is therefore totally unacceptable within Catholicism. This kind of treatment should be unacceptable to every orthodox Catholic who uses the gifts and limited time that God has given them to think through a matter, to do some research, and then to formulate an informative and/or persuasive message. People who make contributions -- not in order to gain a monetary reward, but simply to help someone in need (and to inform lurkers) -- do not deserve to be "rewarded" by having their contributions annihilated.
We all know about the three theological virtues -- faith, hope, and love. Of next highest importance are the cardinal virtues -- prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Part of "prudence" is choosing to make a wise use of one's time. Part of "justice" is not unjustifiably destroying another's gifts. And so ...
(1) It is a sin against the virtue of prudence for a dedicated, orthodox Catholic strenuously to use his/her abilities, free time, etc., to prepare and post messages here -- only to see them subjected to deletion according to subjective standards. Also ...
(2) It is a sin against the virtue of justice for a moderator to delete messages according to his subjective standards.There you have it in a nutshell, David: I decided not to commit any sins of imprudence by continuing to put my heart and soul into work that would then be subject to being obliterated by a person who had previously committed sins of injustice against me and others on various occasions. I can only hope that this person acted without sufficient deliberation and without realizing any of the things I have just enumerated, so that God will not penalize him too harshly. And let no one think that this has anything to do with "hurt feelings" or a prideful belief that my messages are wonderful gems, great gifts to mankind. By no means! Instead, I am arguing only about the principle of the thing -- that we do not have the right to delete each other's messages according to subjective standards that vary from person to person.
If you want me to become active at the forum again, David, then the solution to the first of the forum's two self-destructive shortcomings is obvious. All deletion of messages according to subjective standards must cease. What must be restored is the deletion of messages only according to the objective standards that were in use at this forum for almost 100% of its first six years (1998 through 2003). Except for a period of gross anomaly in January to March of 2003 (which I don't wish to discuss again), the following wise, objective deletion standards were in effect, and under them none of my messages was ever deleted (not even by a moderator who disliked me intensely):
(1) deletion of foul language, racist comments, and anti-Jewish comments, ...
(2) deletion of blasphemy (gross disrespect for God / Mary/ the Mass), ...
(3) deletion of messages left by people who posted after having being banned, ...
(4) deletion of messages left by impersonators, ...
(5) deletion of new threads that are not relevant to Catholicism.David, if the time ever comes that this necessary "course correction" takes place -- i.e., the restoration of the objective deletion standards and the abandoning of deletions done subjectively -- please let me know by e-mail. Then I will come back to the forum to see if its other major problem has also been corrected.
St. James, patron saint of the forum, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
PS: If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, feel free to send me an e-mail message.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.
[Topping, in case David/excite missed my reply to his question.]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
John,I posted to you in the other thread you have linked.
God bless you
-- - (David@excite.com), April 25, 2004.
Hello John ,I really don't understand you !!
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 26, 2004.
I have deleted the new "Candles" thread as the original poster used profanity in signing his name.Moderator
-- Ed (Catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 30, 2004.
Bump! I agree with Thomas that perhaps it's a good time to bump the Rules of the Forum to the top of the New Answers page, to refresh everyone's mind about the purpose of this forum.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 04, 2004.
CK,I just rember the thread you were refering to above when you said you broke the rules.
You didn't break the rules! Your alias was guessed by the person to whom you were giving a hard time. This wasn't against forum rules. But, you were probably embarrased by the fact the person knew who you were.
-- - (David@excite.com), May 04, 2004.
No, David, I wasn't embarrassed. I used an alias, because that person had a history of using personal information against people, as he did to me. I explained that in the post in question. I wanted him to "hear" to what I was saying because the message was what was important, not who was delivering it. Since you remember the thread in which all this happened, you might remember that when he guessed who I was, he ignored what I was saying and focused on who I was, and used distorted personal information to discredit what I was saying. Howevever, all of this was deleted (appropriately); and although I apologized for my unkindness and the unChristian like attitude, I doubt that the person ever saw it because he said he would not read what I had written, because he considered it "rubbish".No one is immune to sin, and to its consequences, and I humbly admit that I did screw up in a moment of anger and break the rules. But I accepted my consequence without protest, because I knew that it was appropriate. That's all I was trying to say when I mentioned that I broke the rules. No one is immune. It is humbling, but healing to admit when you screw up.
Sorry I didn't read more carefully and confused you with Glenn. It was confusing the way you brought him up, but I hope that he is doing well. And I hope that you are doing well too.
I must go and try to get a little sleep. It is hard to work nights, even if it is only a couple of nights a week.
God's blessings to all.
Carolyn
-- cksunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.
Jas, you may have noticed I have deleted two of your posts today. You might want to try being a bit more charitable toward others. You will find that talking down or insulting others here in the forum, won't get you very much other than a lot of attention from this moderator.Please read the rules of our forum outlined at the top of this page.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 05, 2004.
Moderator,There is something wrong with the thread "quienes son los adventistas"
-- (note@to.moderator), May 07, 2004.
moderator,several threads have a black, flashing problem. you can't read anything there.
-- (note@to.moderator), May 07, 2004.
Is not a problem, a troll aded soem code to caue it, and disrpute the forum.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 07, 2004.
Just delete the 'script' codes added to the HTML. So far, it can be repaired. I thought "Tom" promised to leave these forums alone............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 07, 2004.
you can actually still rad the threads if you cut-and-paste he text into a wordad, or notebook. Juxt tight click on the mouse and hit "select all".Then copy, then paste.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 07, 2004.
Hi, EdJust wondering. Did you delete a post of mine a few days ago? And if you did would you mind telling me why?
Thanks in advance.
-- - (David@excite.com), May 14, 2004.
I don't believe I have David. What was it concerning?Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 15, 2004.
Rodrigo, I've had to delete your post in the "Rosa Mystica Apparition" thread owing to the personal insult you made. You may re- post your comments minus the offensive remark if you wish. If you are in doubt as to what I found offensive in your post please email me in private and I will let you know.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 15, 2004.
Ed, I think I mucked up the thread "Politics, Piety and the Catholic Vote (Clear Catholic Conscience, 2004-05-15)"sorry, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.
Bill, I've removed the corrupted post. Now if you wish, re-post your comment.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 15, 2004.
Thanks! If I can remember what I said ;)-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Ed,It wasn't that important.
PS; What Country is your granddaughter from? I know you have posted about her but I don't rember reading the Country. If you feel this is to personal of a question then please just ignore it and I apologise for asking.
-- - (David@excite.com), May 16, 2004.
Anonymous, I have deleted your entire thread entitled “Gross, Intentional and Illegal Actions at U.S. Diocesan Marriage Tribunals”. Your thread was highly personalized and this forum is not the proper vehicle for righting the miscarriage of justice you feel you’ve been subjected to.Anonymous and Karl, I have deleted all of your recent posts concerning annulments. Obviously your disappointment with the way your annulment process went has left you both bitter. This is not the place to vent anger toward the Catholic Church. If you feel you’ve been treated unfairly by the Church please follow protocol in attempting to obtain justice through the appeal process. I would suggest you both read the rules for this forum, listed at the top of this thread and conduct yourselves accordingly in the future. If further criticism of the Church is levelled in this forum in the future you will be asked to leave the forum permanently.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 19, 2004.
Hi Dave, I apologize for not having responded to you before now. I prefer not to divulge any information on my family for personal reasons. Additionally, divulging personal information here in the forum is not permitted. I do however, appreciate your genuine interest about my granddaughter.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 19, 2004.
Ed,I don't blame you. I know adoption is beautiful and appreciate it more than the "average Joe".
May our Lord bless all His children and all the hungry children in His world and have mercy on your deceased childhood buddys soul.
God is great! Lets keep praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
Blessed be God a million, million, million times. God knows we can't see Him or feel him but He gives us Himself in the Blessed Sacrament because He loves us.
May Mother Seton pray for us sinners to be better Catholics.
-- - (David@excite.com), May 19, 2004.
Just a friendly reminder to everyone that the rules of the forum clearly state:"Posting under two or more names in the same thread, to simulate a discussion or to make it appear that several people agree with your point of view is deceitful and therefore unacceptable."
I caution everyone to be careful about this. I have noticed a small number of posts showing the same IP address, showing different "handles" for the same contributor and appearing in the same thread. This practice is clearly not permitted and eventually will have to be addressed should it continue.
Please respect the rules. Thank you.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 20, 2004.
Pat, I appreciate the info and plan to read it this weekend. If I mis-characterized Anonymous’ or his intentions, then I apologize to him, but his posts and ones like them, create a problem for this forum. The annulment process isn’t corrupt, the Church isn’t corrupt - it is people who are corrupt.I have two problems with these types of posts:
1. Out of frustration, for various reasons, whether legitimate or not, they invariably end up bashing the Church and her Curia for unfavorable decisions she has rendered against the posters.
2. Those who have a beef with the annulment process seem to feel this forum is the ideal place to correct all of the problems regarding the annulment process in the Church.
Again, unfair criticism of the Church (the Church is not present to defend herself) in this forum will not be permitted. If a wrong has been done, this forum is not the venue to correct that wrong. If there is a perceived giant miscarriage of justice in most annulment cases in the United States and the problem is systemic, this forum is not the proper medium to solve the problem. This forum has been created to answer legitimate questions about the faith and not to bash the Church or change her procedures.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 20, 2004.
In the "Pope is taking Bush to the woodshed" thread I've deleted 8 messages. One message by John Doe was deleted since it was simply a "pope-bashing" comment that was posted and no real evidence or examples were given to support the statement.Seven messages posted by Eugene, Joker and David were deleted as they had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and were personal insults/attacks on other individuals.
Personalized posts and/or name-calling will not be tolerated. I will be getting a bit tougher in this area for the next few weeks until the climate around here gets back to normal and we start being nice to each other again. Please cooperate.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.
Paddy, I've deleted your recent post in the "Abortion vs. Capital Punishment" thread. Your comment insulted others. Please read the rules of the forum listed above.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.
Zarove, your recent post was deleted owing to a personal slur you used. Please be careful in the future.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.
I've deleted 5 related messages (Abu Ghraib thread) from Eugene and someone who has been banned from participating in this forum.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.
Great work Ed. The forum doesn't need personal insults flying in all directions. I'm glad to see that you have taken this matter very seriously. Once the dirt is cleared away, it makes it easier to have reasonable (and Christian-like) discussion.Thanks.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 21, 2004.
Rodrigo, Bill Macken, Natasha, James Peech, Paddy, and Anotella are banned from participating in this forum in the future. These people are all one and the same and the individual has been posting under various names in the same thread to promote his/her arguments.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.
Ed, if my post was removed, why was RL's post left standing. her post was by and larg emor eoffensive than mine.A few samples.
.(BE CAREFUL!THE ALL-OMNIPOTENT,ALL-KNOWING ZORAVE MAY TRY TO ACTUALLY TELL YOU THAT THIS CONDITION DOCUMENTED,STUDIED AND UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDEGED FOR THE PAST 140 YEARS IS "CRACKPOT" SCIENCE)
I shudder to think at the "appropriate" sexuality preference self- righteous people like Zorave would assign them.(based entirely on religious whim of which God (with a capitol "G") is at the center of. Zorave's "proof" of his existence is "PHILOSOPHICALLY" proven)
.(In England the country Zorave is apparently from,I am not recgonized in the female gender in anything other than passports)(Oh well,Zorave is also from a country where they also have a Queen who reigns,so I i'm not terribly distressed by Britain's backwardness).
.Don't believe,Non-believer in some of the rabid denigrations,people like Zorave preach.
Is it OK for me to be called a Degenerate? OK for her ot mock my entire nationality? OK for her to mock me for religiosu vewiws? OK for her to misrepresent me?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 21, 2004.
Zarove, I agree with you, R.L.'s post got a bit too personal and too much of it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I have removed it as well. The reason I deleted your post originally is because I was responding to a complaint made in the thread about your remark. At this point, I would like to let everyone know that I DON’T READ EVERY SINGLE POST! If anyone is insulted or offended by anything anyone has written in the forum, about anyone, than please advise me by email and I will look into it.Zarove, in addition, I have removed your most recent post, as again, you committed the same infraction to the rules as you did in your earlier post that was deleted. I won't be warning you very much in the future about not personalizing your posts. Please be careful and keep your writing to the topic at hand.
R.L. I also provide you with the same caution I have just given Zarove. Personalized posts/insults will be deleted. If this sort of conduct continues, the poster will be asked to leave the forum.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.
Zarove my friend, I believe Ed is slowly weeding through the bad posts. It's not an easy job. Give him a bit of support. For what it's worth, I don't think you deserved the treatment you got, you seem to be quite the gentleman.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 21, 2004.
Ed,You are doing a great job. Thanks.
-- Anon (Anon@anon.net), May 21, 2004.
You are doing a great job. Thanks.I agree. You also have my thanks for doing this thank-less job!
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2004.
"Rodrigo, Bill Macken, Natasha, James Peech, Paddy, and Anotella are banned from participating..."Ok, I'm posting in order to find out if I've been banned. My name has been mentioned and there aren't too many "Rodrigo(s)" in this forum.
I do impersonate as a Christian in real life, though.
..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2004.
wait, IS rod banned?i never heard about it... and why? rod is a good catholic, isnt he? even if we don't see him around this neck of the woods anymore...
-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 22, 2004.
Thanks, paul h.I've been in the other side of the woods clearing brush, planting trees, and traversing unfamiliar paths. Gosh! me a "good" Catholic? I'm at least a "Catholic"; that I can say.
......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2004.
Hold on everyone! Let’s not panic and jump to conclusions! The Rodrigo that is banned is Rodrigo Sanchez, not Rod (elreyod@yahoo.com). Rodrigo Sanchez uses two I.P. addresses that are different from Rod’s.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 22, 2004.
Yes, I vaguely recall stumbling across his name a long time back. Rumors of my banning have been greatly exaggerated.
rod "twain" rodriguez..........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2004.
"Anonymous and Karl, I have deleted all of your recent posts concerning annulments. Obviously your disappointment with the way your annulment process went has left you both bitter."Ed,
Your declaration quoted above regarding the emotional disposition of the posters in question is but judgment; hence, judgmental of both motive and intent...
Stick with the facts, I can understand and accept valid reasons for deletions of posts but would hope that armchair psychology with no basis in objective evidence does not become the 'deletion loophole' here as it has become in Tribunals...
Daniel////
P.S. If anyone has a copy of the offensive post -please email it to me.
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 22, 2004.
Daniel, granted my comment regarding their emotional disposition was a mix of both personal opinion and conjecture on my part, however lest you get the wrong idea, my comment had nothing to do with why I removed their posts. My personal comment was mere speculation about why they posted what they did. Perhaps I shouldn't have made it. I will try to keep my personal opinions to myself in the future.As I have indicated above in an earlier post, their posts were removed for two reasons: 1.) Bashing the Church will not be tolerated. 2.) This forum is not the vehicle for correcting what they perceive to be are problems with the annulment process in the American Church.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 22, 2004.
Paul/EdI think we need a rule against "bashing" other religions. I don't mean just pointing out where other religions are wrong. Of course we should do that. I mean ignorant and offensive posts such as "Muhammad = Hatred" and "fanatics belong in a mosque". We rightly criticize some fundamentalist sites for "bashing" the Catholic faith. We should show that we are more Christian than they are.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 25, 2004.
Steve, one should not set out to try and prove that they are more Christian than someone else.2 Corinthians 4:7 says that we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not out of us.
Anything good within our being is Christ Himself. Apart from Him we are all nothing.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 25, 2004.
Ed,Please remove 00C3YY's email, he's activated a flash action script. Is it possible for you to disable scripts from the server ?
Thanks. Oliver.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 25, 2004.
Steve, we have a rule against bashing other religions. I call it our "Christian Charity" rule. Among other things, it says that participants of the forum are to show love and respect to all people regardless of faith. If you find any infractions regarding this rule in the future please let me know by private email and I will be happy to look into it.Oliver, I've taken care of our problem. Thanks for letting me know.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 25, 2004.
I have inadvertently deleted the thread, "Why can't Deacons do exorcisms?" I apologize to all for this error on my part.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 25, 2004.
I have managed to save most of the information and over the next few days, will recreate the thread. Again, please accept my apology for this error.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 25, 2004.
Oliver, you've proved that it's possible to create an argument over even the most inoffensive statement.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 25, 2004.
Karl, your post has been deleted because of your comments regarding the Church. Any further similar criticism of the Church by you will result in your expulsion from this forum.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 25, 2004.
Steve my friend, if you were offended by my post I apologise. I in no way intended to be argumentative. Basically I felt that the flash script was inappropriate because it obscured the text of the thread, which being about the rules of the forum, is I consider of high importance.Secondly, I felt the content of the flash script itself was a mocking to the forum, treating it as a joke. I believe Ed agreed with me, and I'm sure others too would agree that a cartoon duck covering the screen is not appropriate for the catholic forum.
I hope you can understand. Thanks.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 25, 2004.
Oliver, I was talking about your reaction to my call for us to show that we are more Christian than fundamentalist sites which pump out calumnies and hatred.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 26, 2004.
Steve, you're absolutely right. I'm sorry for being picky.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), May 26, 2004.
Jacob R., I’ve deleted your new thread entitled “Spam mail/ hate mail”. I realize you meant no disrespect, but it has no place here in our Catholic forum. It is nothing more than pure hatred and discrimination directed at Catholics. For those who relish this sort of garbage, I suggest they can check out any “Jack Chick” site and get their kicks there. It’s beyond me how anyone can believe this one-sided, unsubstantiated, biased, prejudiced, distasteful abomination to God’s Church after all the facts that have been brought forward the past 10 years regarding the truth in such matters.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 26, 2004.
I will be housecleaing the "Unanswered Threads" over the next few hours if anyone is wondering what is happening.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 30, 2004.
There! That's me finished for now!Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 30, 2004.
I see our friend has been back several more times since I last wrote. Hang in there everyone, the problem will be permanently rectified this evening (Monday).Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 31, 2004.
For those of you who haven't seen Dave's post and wish to rid yourself of these popups, you can perform the following:In Internet Explorer, click on Tools | Internet Options | Security and then click the "disable" button in the "Scripting" section next to the "Active Scripting" option.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 31, 2004.
That's a very helpful suggestion.Thanks Ed!
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 31, 2004.
In Internet Explorer, click on Tools | Internet Options | Security and then click the "disable" button in the "Scripting" section next to the "Active Scripting" option.A few things about the above: 1. In at least one version of Internet Explorer, after clicking on the "Security" tab, the next thing is to click on a "Custom Level" button to get the list of options (enable/disable/prompt) for "Active Scripting." 2. Skip over the "ActiveX" section at the top of the list and scroll down to the "Active Scripting" section. 3. When leaving this forum, if you start getting bad results at other sites, go back to the security options and turn on ("enable") Active Scripting again.
Henry IX
-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), May 31, 2004.
On IE 6.0, you can designate http://www.greenspun.com to be a "Restricted Site", which by default disables scripting. It's a pain because the cookies that hold your name and email don't work anymore.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 31, 2004.
For those of you who haven't seen Dave's post and wish to rid yourself of these popups, you can perform the following:In Internet Explorer, click on Tools | Internet Options | Security and then click the "disable" button in the "Scripting" section next to the "Active Scripting" option.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 31, 2004.
I have once again deleted all offensive material. Owing to other pressing personal matters, our techinician unfortunately hasn't been available to permanently take care of the situation. Hopefully he will be able to correct our problem today. Thanks for your patience and understanding.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 01, 2004.
ed,i posted a permanent solution to the active scripting pop up windows in a new thread, one that doesnt have to be turned off to go to other websites. perhaps that would be a good one to make visible to everyone? also, i contacted my Comp Sci prof to ask him for his suggestions on what to do.
-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 01, 2004.
Paul h. et al, I believe a long-term solution has been found to our problem. While we cannot prevent everyone from posting here, we now can delete many posts, in bulk, at the touch of a key, a feature we didnt' enjoy previously.From time to time we may be subjected to spammers. In a public forum like this, with a religious theme, I suppose it can't be helped; but the moderators are never away from the forum for more than a few hours at a time, so the inconvenience and annoyance should be held to a minimum in the future.
Paul h. I haven't had the time to try out your new suggestion. Perhaps its the solution to not being subjected to even one offensive post, but again, I don't think you will see us experience the same problems in the future to the degree we have in the past.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 01, 2004.
I tried to help some of the other forums in LUSENET, not realizing what they were all about. In some of them, you can't differentiate the spammers from the legitimate posters! LOL!And we think we have it bad in here!
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 01, 2004.
Ed,You're right. I went to Anarchy 2 after Zarove said that his name was hijacked there. Holy Cow!
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 01, 2004.
DHSP has been banned permanently from the forum for using vulgar language.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 02, 2004.
Ooga has virtualy destryoed Anarchy 2...he just keeps on posting his crap...there's nothing you can do about.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.
Anti-Bush, you're the moderator over there aren't you? If you are, email me in private and I will let you know how to get rid of any unwanted posts.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 02, 2004.
I have deleted the thread entitled, "hope the new anti spam rules help!" created by "Ooga". Ooga is banned from posting in this forum.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 03, 2004.
David, I am going to give you this warning one time only. If you post that I, or anyone else, dislikes or hates Americans (or any nation, faith, or people, for that matter) one more time in this forum, I will remove you from this forum permanently. This sort of mis-characterization of comments to promote divisiveness and hatred cannot and will not be tolerated.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 05, 2004.
+
Hello, Ed.In light of what you just stated, I need to ask you to clarify a couple of things, because of my uncertainty about them.
Since this computer/server is owned by a U.S. citizen, and since the forum was founded by a U.S. citizen, and since the vast majority of those contributing here are U.S. citizens. I think that we have a right to understand (with a bit of detail) your true attitude toward the U.S., since you yourself do not live in the U.S. and are not one of her citizens.
1. Can we U.S. citizens assume that your attitude toward the U.S. is very much like that of Pope John Paul II? That is to say ...
While rejecting the bad things done by individual Americans, the pope has repeatedly stated and shown his tremendous respect for the people of the U.S., his approval of the "democratic republic" form of U.S. government, his admiration for the wonderful things that the people of the U.S. have done (among them, liberating enslaved peoples in many nations), etc.. [I hope that you had a chance to see on TV (yesterday) how extremely evident the above things were in the pope's reception of our highly esteemed (and very pro-Catholic) leader, President George W. Bush.]
Therefore, Ed, can we assume that you too have the same kind of tremendous respect, approval, and admiration for the U.S. and its citizens that the pope has?Turning to another matter that you just raised above ...
2. Can we assume that your attitude toward, and beliefs about, non-Judaeo-Christian religions (e.g., Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) are very much like those of Pope John Paul II? In other words, do you admit that these religions, while they contain some fragments of what is good and true, were not established by God, but by men -- and therefore that we can state that they contain many false doctrines of faith and morality? And can we assume that we may quote from the pope (e.g., "Crossing the Threshold of Hope") concerning the errors of these religions, when the context of a thread makes such quotations appropriate?Thank you.
John Gecik
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
John, Ed's personal views on the issues you listed should not (and probably don't) influence his moderation of this forum. The forum has rules. He needs to follow those rules in moderating the forum. If new rules are necessary, they need to be established.Just my 2-cents and trying to keep neutral in all this.
-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
Ed,Is this a new rule about using the word "hate"? Does this just apply to Catholic American David?
Or are you just mad at me because I "topped" that older thread were you gave a explanation were its ok to have a "different opinion" than the pope?
Asking with respect so I understand the new rule.
Your brother in Christ.
-- - (David@excite.com), June 05, 2004.
Hi, Bill.I know that you meant well in posting your "2 cents," but I can assure you that there is no new information that you can give me about Ed, his views, his work as moderator, the rules, etc.. As a relative newcomer to the forum, you probably don't realize that Ed and I have known each other here since 2000. I have been a keen observer of what he has done here as a contributor (for years) and as moderator (for a few months). [Ditto for all the previous/current (co-)moderators.]
I know what good and bad moderation are. I know about the forum's rules too, whether they are followed by contributors and moderators, whether it is possible to amend them or add new ones, etc.. I especially know about what a moderator's duties and powers ought to be. I know whether or not those duties are being carried out and whether or not those powers are being well used or abused.
Bill, there is a great deal more that I could say, but I'm sure that some people would prefer that we not discuss these sensitive matters publicly. You are welcome to write to me privately if you wish.
God bless you.
John
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
Ed,When you get back to my question maybe you can anwer this one to.
How come I can't use the word "hate" but you allow people to post using a e-mail address anti-Bush? Is this because you agree with this guy?
The only kind of "anti" that should be allowed is anti-porno, anti- drugs etc... This is disrespectful to the President of United States of America.
-- - (David@excite.com), June 05, 2004.
Hey John,I thought you said you "couldn't" post here anymore for some reason having to do with pots and kettles. I guess that changed, huh? I won't be reading your reply, LOL!
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 05, 2004.
Good point. Although I would not favor banning A-B because of his name because it doesn't bother me and it makes it easy to see what you're dealing with, it does bring up the question of what anti- names would be disallowed. Permit me to guess:Anti-Wojtyla...............yes
Anti-Mahoney...............yes
Anti-Ghandi................yes
Anti-Mohammed..............yes
Anti-Chirac................maybe
Anti-Kofi..................maybe
Anti-Paul Martin...........maybe
Anti-Bush..................no
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 05, 2004.
I won't be drawn into any word games. The rules are clear. If anyone is in doubt, I suggest they re-read them. They can be found above. Act like Christians in this forum or be prepared to leave.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 05, 2004.
I respect both John and Ed. Personally, I am glad Ed is moderator, I think it is a thankless job. Thanks Ed! :)
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
I agree Bill. And also, I think Ed and Paul deserve much gratitude for their work with the recent punks messing up the threads. I will include paul h and ncc Dave as deserving of thanks as well.Bill, its good to have you back!
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 06, 2004.
Thanks fellows!You've just proven however, that it's not completely thankless. :)
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 06, 2004.
Eugene, I’ve noticed that you’ve used the words “imbeciles”, “asses” and “idiots” to describe others in the forum in some of your recent posts. Please refrain from these personal insults on individuals. No need to get into how you personally feel about the individuals who come here to debate you. Posts with personal insults such as these will be deleted in the future.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 06, 2004.
I'd just like to echo Bill and Brian's posts.Ed and Paul are doing a sterling job.
Well done and thank you chaps!
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 06, 2004.
John,No, I didn't see your message, but I WAS goading you, and for that I apologize, it was a sin against charity on my part, and I don't want to go to mass with that on my conscience. Forget about it.
Thanks for saying I did a good job.
Ed,
Remember, no matter what you decide, someone won't like it. Let your conscience be your guide, and as in anything, pray for guidance! :-)
Happy Sunday Everyone,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 06, 2004.
John, I’ve deleted your recent posts owing to the personal attacks you made on myself and others. My earlier remarks stand. When you or anyone else for that matter, places a post in the forum please treat others with respect and charity or the post will be removed.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 06, 2004.
I think Ed should have his moderator's salary doubled for having to deal with inappropriate posts in general and then also having to deal with people trying to second-guess his decisions.Also, I don't think speculation about any participant's eternal damnation belongs in this forum.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), June 06, 2004.
Thanks Sara, thanks Mark. I appreciate the kind words.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 06, 2004.
John, in re-posting the comments I removed earlier, you are directly challenging the authority of this moderator. Whether you agree with my decisions or not is not the issue. We have to maintain order and a set an acceptable standard of behaviour in the forum or inevitably, chaos will ensue, as evidenced in the past. If you post these comments again, you will be permanently prohibited from posting any and all comments in the future.I have tried to explain my point of view in private email, but, by your own admission, you refuse to read my emails. Enough is enough! Failure to comply with any of our forum rules in the future will result in your immediate expulsion. I am pleased to see that you are leaving the forum for a while, it will give us both time to reflect on how we can better serve this forum.
John, provided you are willing to live by the rules of this forum, you are always welcome here.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 07, 2004.
Ed,Thanks for cleaning up the President Reagan thread.
-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.
Frank,I also think you did a great job as a Moderator in 2001-02. I know we had our differences(Minasay incident, and some other things)but with your leadership this forum grew like the Nasdac in the 90's. We had converts running from the woodworks to join the Catholic Church because of you as a leader.
You had a 'special' way about you that knew what to delete and what not to, and always gave someone their fair say even if you didn't agree as long as no foul language was involved.
Honestly, I miss the days of forum when you were the Moderator. You made the forum a very fun place where even the most learned, could still learn.
I also wanted to apologise for the times I said mean things to you, when I thought I was being treated UN-fairly. I know your a good family man, Frank.
May God bless you with great health so you, and your wife can watch your grandchildren come into this world and teach them non-watered down Catholicism.
Under your leadership I learned a lot in this forum. You were the best.
-- - (David@excite.com), June 07, 2004.
Joker, I've deleted your subsecquent comments to my most recent post in the "Ronald Reagan" thread as well as Bill's followup remarks concerning. I have explained to you why I feel the way I do. You don't have to agree but, you do have to abide by my decision. The matter is closed for discussion.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Eugene, I've deleted two of your posts in the "Pope Scolds, Bush Squirms" thread. In them, you referred to others in the forum as "liars" and "fools".Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Eugene, Joker, I’ve deleted all of your posts from June 7 onward in the thread entitled “Going to Visit The Shrine”. This bickering has got to stop. You will have to start treating others in the forum with more respect beginning with each other. Eugene, among other things, you refer to Joker disrespectfully as “Joke” and “Jokes”. Joker, you’re perpetuating the problem by personalizing your criticism of Eugene’s comments. Please no more! If future dialogues include any personal criticisms then I shall continue to delete your posts without further comment or explanation.Bill, I’m sorry but I’ve had to delete a few of your posts as well. It seems you’ve been caught in the crossfire. While you have done nothing wrong, your posts, if left to stand alone, make no sense in the overall context of the thread. Please accept my apology for having removed them.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Eugene, it you have a problem with any of my posts, please point them out and I will delete them.Moderator.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Your opening posts of June 5, Iraq & Just War Revisited.A few notes later, you assume the worst about our motives in Iraq, With no substance, just repeating malicious hearsay,
Oil! Oil! Oil! Settling old scores, etc., and Texas style'' derision. You claim the war is ''immoral and illegal''.
Not so; if it were, our President should be impeached for breaking the law. You claim he didn't obey UNSC resolutions. That's false. He enforced #1441; in which the Security Council declared Saddam in material breech of his obligations to come clean with arms inspectors (He never did) and disarm or take the consequences. (That is why the war's legal.) Almost all your participation on June 5 is plainly Bush/America bashing, Ed.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 08, 2004.
Shows the bankruptcy of the U.N. though, doesn't it? What good is making threats if you're not going to follow up on them?Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 08, 2004.
Eugene, I was not referring to criticizing public figures for the decisions they've made or their policies. Just because I don't agree with a certain politician doesn't mean my post should be deleted. My opinion is that the war is illegal and immoral. My opinion is that the war is very much about oil. Am I not permitted an opinion if it doesn’t happen to conform with your way of thinking?I haven't removed posts because they didn't happen to agree with my way of thinking. I am not stifling free speech here. Posts were deleted because they were uncharitable toward others. Insults were being hurled at others.
I wanted to know if there was anything in my posts that insulted you or anyone else in this forum? Was there anything in my posts that was un-Christian toward anyone? Was there anything in my posts that personally insulted or ridiculed you or anyone else in the forum? If there was then I will delete it.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
paul h., as I am in agreement with you about an insulting post in the "Legionnaries of Christ" thread, it has been removed as has your corresponding complaint.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Ed,You're a 'hypocrite'!
You allow anti-bush to use his e-mail address and call the President 'Dumbya' because you have a strong dislike for President Bush.
If I or anyone else used anti-paul martin(Canadians prime minister) as a address you would be offended.
-- - (David@excite.com), June 08, 2004.
David, it would not bother me is someone were to use “anti- paulmartin” as a nick. I view it as a statement by the poster about how he feels about Mr. Martin the public figure and his policies which is permissible.However, you are quite correct about the comment “Dumbya”. It’s uncharitable and disrespectful. Initially, I honestly glanced at the post and mistakenly read “Dubya”, which is a nickname often used for Mr. Bush in the American press. Anti-Bush’s comment is not in keeping with the values this forum holds dear and I will remove the post. In which thread did it appear?
In researching your complaint, I’ve discovered a few old threads (2001) which use this slur as well. I won’t go back and take action on these threads as a substantial amount of time has passed.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Ed,
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I see certain phrases you post: ''Oil--Oil--Oil!'' and ''Texas Pride.'' that are clearly meant as denunciations of a good man's intent. You have no real insight into the motives that determine Bush's policy. But you invent the most venal and detestable.This very afternoon Bill has posted the truth: Iraq has full control of its oil industry. Not by chance; but because Bush/Cheney never had any intention of defrauding the Iraqi people. Yet you laid that charge at the door of George Bush, or at least you voiced nothing but cynicism and scorn.
It seems altogether plausible to you & many others that only diplomacy is Christian; that all things gained by other means must be ungodly. This is your opinion. You have a right to any opinion you prefer.
Just because you haven't challenged our position by rude means doesn't vindicate you. Yes, you're respectful when you stick the dagger into Bush and Americans who trust him. Those who approve of him until he proves unworthy. I know he's human and not perfect.
I realise now that you might have respected Bush except he strikes you too masculine. You would have respected a pussy-footer in the White House.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 08, 2004.
Eugene, I appreciate your candour. I don’t much agree with you however about treating your beloved politicians, or any politicians or public figures for that matter, with kid gloves. Public figures are open to scrutiny. Comments about them aren’t always the kind you could send home to their moms. However, it comes with the territory. Criticism at times can be biting but there still is no excuse for demeaning a human being or showing disrespect.The “oil, oil, oil” comment is something I truly believe. I do not know Bush personally so it was not a personal attack in anyway. I have drawn my conclusion from public facts which have been divulged. The “Texas pride” comment involved a point I was trying to make. In fact, it was a compliment to all Texans. The point I was making was that Bush was displaying misguided Texas pride, in that in my opinion, he wasn’t letting the Christian values he holds so dear, drive his decision making. I felt he was letting his personal, negative feelings get in the way of making serious decisions as a world leader. Contrary to what you might think, Bush’s masculinity does not intimidate me. My measure of a man isn’t always about how tough he is on the outside.
Personal comments about fellow forumites are another matter. I am talking about being charitable to other participants of the forum, about treating each other with dignity. The trick I guess in not running afoul of the rules, is not to personalize a post. If one sticks to the topic at hand (sometimes the topic of discussion might even be a politician), then there is no danger of someone in the forum being offended at a personal observation made about them.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 08, 2004.
Ed, I think you’re doing a difficult job very well. While I disagree with some of your decisions, and I feel I was unfairly put in the same category as Mr Chavez re personal abuse, I warmly welcome your efforts to remove personal abuse, lack of Christian charity, incitement to violence, and racial and religious vilification from the forum.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), June 08, 2004.
Jesus Christ has suffered in ways we cannot imagine because of our sin. Out of the same mouths come blessings and defilement. If we were to go before the Lord this very day, all mockings, self justification, pride, and jealousy would cease.Everyone : If you want this forum to continue, pray before you speak, ask the Lord before you type the words how He feels. We are all sinners, yet we are children of God. Let us therefore encourage one another. If our speaking will add little or no weight to the forum, then we probably shouldn't speak it.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 08, 2004.
If our speaking will add little or no weight to the forum, then we probably shouldn't speak it.The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 08, 2004.
"..Dubya which is a nickname often for Mr. Bush with American press.."That cute and effeminate Ed! :-) So you know you are using whats printed in the American press as a 'barometer' for this forum???? As long as its NEGETIVE about Mr. Bush you will stoop to any level!
I guess it is no accident that "ANTI-BUSH" was invited back here by you out of all the people you "banned"? Don't you see what your hate is doing to you?
-- - (David@excite.com), June 09, 2004.
David, on the 5th of June I warned you to refrain from using the word “hate” to describe anyone in the forum. I specifically asked that you refrain from using it to describe my feelings for others. Unless you apologize and assure us you will comply with the rules of this forum in the future, you are now prohibited from posting to this forum.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
Monica, unfortunately I have had to remove your post in the “Celiac Disease” thread. While specific individuals are prohibited from posting, this ban also includes any and all posts from the same IP address. It is the IP address, not the individual himself, that is outlawed, as we have no ability to differentiate between posters at the same IP address. Your post originated from an IP address that is prohibited from posting to this forum. Since I have no way of confirming who is actually submitting the post, I have had no alternative but to remove it. I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
In addition to David being prohibited from posting to this forum, so too, are all other pseudonyms who have posted from the same IP addresses as his, including, but not limited to, the following:- David (David@excite.com)
- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com)
- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com)
- Micheal W. (Noemail@nevr.str)
- . (.@....)
- kathryn mc kinney (oceanwave251@aol.com)
- Daniel Lawlis (dplawlis@iupui.edu)
- Deacon Norman Kutschenreuter (nstck@aol.com)
- Penelope (ren_princezz@yahoo.com)
- Helen Spryn (hsstardust@aol.com)
- Simon (Robert@noemail.nts)
- carol w. billie (bcornsilk1@aol.com)
- Guillermo Nomas (Guillermonomas@aol.com)
- Karri (Karri@noemail.com) (name and address amended by Moderator previously at the request of the poster)
- Mary Anne Boyd (Mab723M@aol.com)
- . (Your@friend.....)
- Brian the curious (Noemail@nsb.net)
- Sherae (cerulean42@msn.com)
- Sheila (swiora@hotmail.com)
- Rhonda (rhondad007@aol.com)
- hugh alvin peloquin (hapeloquin@aol.com)
- stefanie (bellumswife77@aol.com)
- miranda jordan mercer (MBratt1209@aol.com)
- Anonymous (peepmepeepyou@aol.com)
- Coy (afraid@bar.com)
- Sunid (sunid_982@yahoo.com)
- lisette chambliss (chai2life@aol.com)
- Teresa Benns (bennstere@aol.com)
- Debra (webb4457@aol.com)
- Linda Ann Simpson (LSim662657@aol.com)
- Don't want a response (sorryaboutaddress@hotmail.com)
- Joan (msheavensentual@aol.com)
- Patrick Steven Cordova (papacordova@hotmail.com)
- Lee S. (palatto1@aol.com)
- Justin (TwiztidDoss@hotmail.com)
- Lea Lee (thenamesLea@aol.com)
- ohsoanonymous (ohsoanonymous@hotmail.com)
- Robert (Noemail@nts.com)
- Rebecca (rebanne76@aol.com)
- Reader John (yfortoma@aol.ca)
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
ed, do you really think banning david is necessary? i mean, he does have a point in that you choose to engage in rather heated political debates which moderators in the past have refrained from.he also has a point that certain comments have slipped by the wayside on the anti-american, anti-bush side. by this i mean certain completely unbased and personal assaults on the character of president bush's daughter which attacks her in a thread which is about the topic of her impending visit to the shrine of one of our saints. i wouldnt say this about my political opponents family, and i would hope that the character of this forum is above senseless character assasination.
at any rate, david needs to cool off, but i think it is important to understand that when you engage in political debate and delete the posts of others, they arent going to be happy with you. i also dont think that banning, in this case, is the necessary action.
-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 09, 2004.
Paul h., on June 5 I specifically requested that David not use the word hatred when describing anyone in the forum. My instructions were quite clear. David chose to ignore my instructions and so, must face the consequences. He has been given ample opportunity to conform with the rules as I interpret them.As for threads you find offensive, I can only reiterate what I have said many times in the past. This forum is not mine or Paul M.’s. It belongs to all of us. I do not read all the threads thoroughly. If you find anything offensive then I would like you to bring it to the attention of the “official” moderators and they will deal with it.. We are all moderators in this forum and so, we are all expected to watch over it.
It is interesting to note you’ve mentioned you don’t think “banning” in this instance is necessary and overlooked my comment that all David needs to do is apologize and conform to the rules we all have to conform with, to be reinstated.
David's insubordination and total disrespect for the rules have gone on far too long and I am not going to put up with it any longer. It becomes to disruptive if left unattended to indefinitely. As a long-time participant in this forum, he was accorded addtional time to adjust to my way/style of moderating but nothing seems to have come of it. As a result, I have had no alternative but to take the course of action I have.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
Paul H, "certain completely unbased and personal assaults on the character of president bush's daughter which attacks her ...senseless character assasination" is obviously your way- over-the-top description of my harmless joke about her drink offence - a joke which even the pro-Bush Mr Crane laughed at. You can hardly accuse Ed of only picking on the pro-Bush people. He deleted from that thread several of my posts which in my opinion didn't contain anything offensive, yet he left standing Mr Chavez's insults including descriptions of me and others as "asses" and "imbeciles". Ed I repeat you're doing a good job. I hope David takes the opportunity to grow up a little.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), June 09, 2004.
Paul h. I’ve just noticed your comment about previous moderators refraining from heated debate. I wasn’t aware that moderators could not participate in debate. I realize you haven’t been here as long as some of us have, but I can assure you, moderators in the past have not hesitated to mix it up in heated discussions. I don’t have any problem with this. I believe they have a right to enjoy the forum every bit as much as anyone else. I have never endorsed the policy of allowing the use of several pseudonyms from one IP address. I believe it to be deceitful. However, in you wish, I can assume a pseudonym (another identity) when debating others in the forum and keep my true identity hidden if this makes you feel more at ease.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
Personally, i don't think David should be banned. For using the word hateful or hatred should definitely not constitute a ban imho. If the guy feels that someone is being anti-American or whatever, just let it be. I reckon that misunderstandings can fall both ways, and have from my observation. I feel that there are definitely some double standards on the forum. I know for a fact that at least one person here, possibly more has gotten away with insulting so many ppl on the forum with nothing done but some late deletions of their posts. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have left the forum because of their remarks, decent ppl too.Now, all credit where credit is due to you Ed, the moderation job is certainly not easy and you have for the most part done an excellent job. You've kept your cool in many heated situations and I take my hat off to you. I'm sure many of us would have felt like throwing in the towel had we been in your shoes. You have a real strength of character which is a positive reflection I believe in your love for the church and Jesus Christ.
However, I would say that frustration is creeping in for a lot of decent ppl here who I feel are becoming victims of a forum where obvious favouritism takes place. I still wonder how this person is able to get away with so much, whether their theological background is perhaps close to yours or not I don't know, but I can tell you, I'm not the only one who notices. I will not embarrass this person by naming them publically, but I hope you know who I am talking about.
Basically what the forum needs is consistency.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 09, 2004.
Hi Oliver, please don’t take what I am going to say the wrong way. I mean no disrespect. You said, “I know for a fact that at least one person here, possibly more has gotten away with insulting so many ppl on the forum with nothing done but some late deletions of their posts.”Forgive me Oliver, but in checking my mail lately, I haven’t been able to find an email from you where you complained to me about this individual. Could it be that you haven’t complained? If so, then all I can tell you is, you are responsible for the shape this forum is in. If you won’t make your feelings known, then can I be criticized for “anticipating” what I think the members of this forum want? This is your forum Oliver. It’s only as good as you make it. If you don’t worry about it, then chances are it will deteriorate into something no one is proud of and finally, even you too, will move on.
I work at the pleasure of Paul M. who I consider to be my “unofficial” boss, as there can only be one person in charge. If you or anyone else have any complaints about my methods or decisions and cannot get satisfaction from me (for I would first like the opportunity of addressing your concerns) then I invite you to make your concerns known to Paul M. He has my utmost respect and were he to suggest that I change my ways, or even leave the post of Moderator, I would abide by his wishes.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
Joker, you’ve made reference earlier to the fact that I’ve left some posts of Eugene stand while I’ve deleted yours. Its no secret that I hold older members of this forum to a different standard than newer members. Before you jump to conclusions however, its not for the reasons you might think. I am not playing favourites when I appear to be more tolerant to the older members of the forum. The reason I have done this since taking over as Moderator is so that, in all fairness, they might get accustomed to my style of moderating. You see, the older members where here when this forum was more akin to the old Wild West days when a “feller came out with both guns blazing”. New members acclimatize themselves to my rules immediately, but older members will take some time to adjust, since some of the things they used to say and got away with, are no longer permissible.It may appear to some that I am playing favourites in doing this, however, it has been six months now since I assumed the position of Moderator and in my opinion, the “transition” period is now over. Everyone in the future will now be expected to adhere to all the rules to the same degree. You may have noticed recently this has caused some friction, particularly with older members, as I assumed it would, but in order for this forum to move forward, it is my considered opinion this is a necessary step we must take.
Again, if you object to anything anyone has said, please don't retaliate. Instead let me know of your objection in private email and I will deal with it.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
Hi Ed, there are some who forget the three christain knight values- charity, compassion and chivarly and attempt to model themselves on "masculine" behaviour of the pagan warrior. They need to be reminded of the very basics of what we believe in- true Christianty is far more demanding than some here belive-asking men to set aside warrior ways to be gentle, humble and meek.For some here this is too much to handle, their faith is one of exterior peity and external appearances but little goodwill or understanding of Christs real messages , a shallow, selfish, baseless faith, really hjust an extension of their ego, for which they will be called to account. Lord knows Ive played that juvenile game but the "serve and volley" offered from some is about as much "fun" as a burning orphanage.
These so called men will often repeat the claim made many times by Nietzsche that Christianity "feminizes" men, little do they know they are attacking the core of their faith. Keep up the good work Ed and if the "hard men" protest just point them to Matt 5:3-12 for starters.
Be Not Afraid! God Bless :)
Hi Deacon Paul I hope youre still around I do miss your wise words, one day Ill get back to the forum to harrass yuou some more with my doubts and fears but things are just too busy for me these days to keep up with you all. Take Care and God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.
It is interesting to note that in the past 3 days I have received private email that I am far too lenient with the pro-Bush supporters and conversely, that I am far too lenient with the anti-Bush supporters. (LOL!)Moderator
-- Ed (Catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
Ed,I've just sent u an email now. You're right I didn't do so before. I thought it was obvious who it was, but apparently not.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 09, 2004.
ed,my contention is not that moderators should not get involved in debate. in fact, i have argued both for, and occasionally against, your predecessors. what i am saying is that moderators in the past have been more careful about making POLITICAL statements.
as much as we argue about whether or not politics holds a place in this forum, it would seem clear to me that if the moderators refrained from disclosing any political stance that it would go a long way towards smoothing over the perception of bias. i know you don't agree with the idea of psuedonyms, but you are allowed to have one so long as you dont manipulate the system. to that end i think that adopting a psuedonym without telling any of us the identity would be the best solution.
finally, maybe in the political spectrum things should be a little more lenient. there is alot more room for interpretation than with religious matters. while i dont support unbased character assasination (such as indicating that a person is only going to a shrine for a saint so they can drink) it happens and i think that people can deal with it. what i don't like seeing, and what puts a negative light on this forum, is when the time comes for respecting others (such as Ronald Reagan, or praying for a person going on a pilgrimage) and people cannot let their POLITICAL beliefs go long enough to realize that this is a RELIGIOUS forum and that those threads are NOT the place for such irreverant debate.
-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 09, 2004.
I've just deleted the thread "Pope fears Bush is Anti-Christ". It's assertion was based on nothing more than innuendo and hearsay. My apologies to Joe who had his excellent rebuttal removed in the same swoop.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.
thanks ed, that was a most offensive post. you know when i offer you advice, i still think you are doing a great job, and that i only want to help you out right, not question your authority.keep up the good work.
-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 09, 2004.
Hello Kiwi, et al ..Just a note to say that I am indeed still on the premises. Ed is more interactive in his moderating style than I am, by way of announcing that he has deleted messages or threads, and explaining why. When I see something offensive I simply delete it, and that's that. I have deleted more than 50 posts by our perpetual heckler "ooga" in the past few days. Fortunately we now have a working "bulk delete" feature so that we can eliminate all posts from a specific IP address throughout the entire forum, with one click of the mouse. This formerly took a half hour or more when a troublemaker posted some inane comment on 50 different threads.
There have been some criticisms of Ed's style, just as there have been some criticisms of my style, which is to be expected. We are a diverse group of people, and no-one can please everyone all the time. But pleasing everyone all the time is not our purpose. Our purpose is to provide, to the best of our ability, a workable forum where people can freely express ideas without harassment or attacks, either as Catholics or as individual persons. The few times I have visited other forums on this server, the utter chaos that seems to reign there leads me to believe that the system we have here, while certainly not perfect, is of some considerable value. Just the list of thread titles on some forums contains so much vulgarity and vitriol that I don't even want to risk seeing what is inside.
I would like to personally thank Ed for his efforts in moderating this forum. I initially took on the job at the insistent urging of the previous moderator, even though my schedule didn't really allow for any additional responsibilities. I don't know Ed's schedule, but he seems to be able to devote more time to the forum than I am usually able to manage, and he has devoted MANY hours of his time to making the forum a livable place for all of us. I visit the forum several times a day. Fortunately my job situation allows me to do this even when I am at work; and I know Ed is here more than I am. So anyway, for the present I plan on hanging around - something I was seriously questioning before Ed came on board - so if you don't see me, know that I am still working behind the scenes, doing what I can to keep the ship on an even keel.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 09, 2004.
Paul, Kiwi, et al:
When I see the analogy 'serve & volley'' presented here as something offensive enough to compare to a burning orphanage, I know all will associate me with that offense. Over time it might be fair to say this serving & volleying (of truth and righteous debate) had some merits. Not because it was ''pagan'' or warlike. Because adults, even the saints, don't always pay attention to ''hints,'' soft-ball pitches, and cloying religiosity.AND-- as I've said so many times, this forum is an Internet crossroads of opinion, not a Trappist retreat; not a ''Holy of holies.''
Since there's never any shortage of feel-good Christian contributions here; for which I'm truly thankful, not scornful-- from many who haven't the least interior reflex, or ''volley,'' to fire back, when confronted or challenged;
I would expect there's also room for spirited and strenuous argument. This gives the forum variety and impetus. We call upon the Spirit of God to fire us up as His holy people.
Yes; not rarely, a post becomes overloaded with acid and even cowardly comments; and these are sometimes allowed to remain current for long stretches. The other day, or DAYS-- Satan brought us a vile barrage of obscenties. Our Moderator was alerted; but because it was a prolonged period --Not of serve-and-volley-- of blasphemies; I retired from here for a few days in deep sadness.
We have a very good Moderator. Not always faultless; GOOD. I state once more that if & when he deletes me, I DO NOT SQUAWK. Go ahead and call me out of bounds. Delete away. I don't want special treatment, if some feel I get that, from our Moderator. If a post is not in good taste as I serve/volley; kick it out. You won't be hurting my feelings.
But here I am. When you see my name under here, pay attention. I'm not here necessarily to stroke your egoes. I'm a servant of God in this thread & many others. Let me speak from the heart. Although I'm only a sinner, I don't come in here to sin.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2004.
I’ve added another 22 pseudonyms to the existing 18 I have listed above which use the same IP addresses as David@excite.com. I’ve listed these here, so that in the future there is no confusion about why certain posts are being deleted from seemingly innocent contributors.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 10, 2004.
Holy cow, FORTY pseudonyms! And “David” (or whatever his/her REAL name is) had the nerve to complain about ME concealing my identity! Mr Chavez, instead of mouthing off freely and then saying you don’t mind if Ed deletes you (which I’m sure he always finds a difficult and agonizing decision), I think the point is YOU should make some effort to make your posts conform to the rules. I think six months’ grace is much more than generous and if anyone keeps offending for that long they should be kicked out. We should all meditate on Kiwi’s very wise words above.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), June 10, 2004.
Go ahead and meditate. You don't need me.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2004.
One respectful query, Ed. You told me on the "Ronald Reagan" thread "You are correct in your perception that “nothing negative about Reagan is allowed” - but only in this thread " Yet when somebody (not me) started a couple of other threads that had negative (and some positive)comments about Reagan, you apparently deleted both entire threads without comment. It'll be interesting to see what is and isn't allowed in this forum when Carter eventually kicks the bucket.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), June 10, 2004.
Perhaps the Lord Jesus would appreciate us talking about Him more. That is after all why this forum is here, is it not?This forum is quickly becoming a political one and is overshadowing it's original purpose imho.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 10, 2004.
That is a current problem Oliver, and the moderators are taking steps to correct it. I deleted three new threads today which were political in nature and had little or nothing to do with Catholicism. New threads of this kind will not be allowed.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2004.
The problem may be the timign of the threads. The neweer threads whre Knee Jerk reactiosn tot he fact they codnt slam him in the trubute thread.I dont think that, while his funeral is ongoing, it is approproate to have such threads about myself.
Let us now in a time of mourning reflect upon that, shall we?
Didd not the Bible have these words to say?
Ecclesiastes 3
1. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6. A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7. A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
I htink also, the notion of appropriate timing can be founf int he passage aove concernign our own discourses at the ime, so shall we take solomon's adivce, adice I may add that was guided by God himself, and leave off Reagan detraction tll a more suitable time after mournign has had its time?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 10, 2004.
I received an email today from a lady who stated she is leaving our "American Political Forum". Now it appears the moderators will have to edit not only each thread, but each individual post to ensure it is "catholic"-related and not purely political in nature. Tell me it hasn't come to this! Please, tell me it hasn't come to this!Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 10, 2004.
Ed,As long as people continue to post catholic issues, people who are concerned will also come to read. The hostile atmosphere of political debate may be distateful enough for some to stop from posting and others shy from reading catholic issues. In truth, this forum has had a profound influence on me in the short time I have been reading. When there's cohesion, my mood is great. When there's disunity, I get a little irratitated. Rather than continue reading and posting, I distance myself for the time from the adverse influence. More likely, this is what goes on with others who frequent this forum less. Think of us as being on sabbatical. We're not gone for good from a forum where one comes and goes freely and where all the nice stuff will surface again sooner than later...and believe me you, I take no sides...err but I am so very busy :)
I think the moderators are doing a great job. Given the nature of the work and criticism, I think it understandable that some will wear your patience thin; you have much patience. Who deserves what and how - your judgement calls are fair enough. However, I exhort you to even more charity in what you do - something all should always strive for.
God Bless!
-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 10, 2004.
No, Ed, we don't expect you to work that hard. But you and Paul need to sing from the same hymn-sheet. If he’s going to delete threads because they are “political in nature and had little or nothing to do with Catholicism” then you can’t start threads with partisan political statements like “President Reagan exemplified all that is good about America and was a beacon for freedom for all people everywhere. He was respected and admired by all who pursue true dignity for all men. The world has lost a great man.” and ban anyone from disagreeing, while allowing voluminous political tracts endorsing his policies and slamming Carter and the Democrats.When a man dies, the Church tells us to ask for God’s mercy on his soul. It does not require us to gag anyone from mentioning that he caused the deaths of millions and showed hypocritical contempt for marriage and the family, but pump out effusive emetic hagiographies pretending he was an exemplary Christian. Oliver, my post WAS about Christian morality but it was deleted for being “negative”.
-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), June 10, 2004.
Joker,You taught me a new word:
Hagiography: is by definition the biography or the representation of saints. The first part of the word hagiography, Hagio is the Greek word for Saint and the second part Graphy is the Greek word for writting. Adding the two words in one we have Hagiography the writting of the Saint.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 11, 2004.
Recently David posted several statements that Ed was lying about David's pseudonymns. Let's recall the post on this thread:-- Jeff Dombrow (cobeed76@aol.com), March 15, 2004.
This person was accused of being the same as "Anti-Bush" since they both had the same IP address. Jeff claimed to be working from a public library.
That same day we received a comment from David:
Its him Ed. He just used that "conservative" comment to try and throw you off.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 15, 2004.
I think it would be fitting to use the same standard for David that he thought would be good to use for others. I don't know much about computers. Is it possible for 40 different people to have the exact same IP address?
-- (an@observation.com), June 11, 2004.
Theoretically yes. In theory I coudl let 100 friends use my compiuter I have at hime, and all hundred may decide to post on this catholci message board. its unlikely, but possible...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 11, 2004.
Who posted from what IP address is NOT the issue. You are permitted to use as many pseudonyms as you like as long as they are not used in the same thread. I have never accused David of using two or more pseudonyms in the same thread to advance his position or argument.David and others at his IP addresses have been prohibited from posting because David defied the authority of this Moderator. Disregard for authority in this forum cannot and will not be tolerated.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 11, 2004.
JmjHello, folks.
A couple of days ago, I mentioned that I was leaving the forum. I thought I might update saints threads at some point in the future, but for now I was saying goodbye, and I even got rid of my "bookmark/favorite" for the forum.But then I heard today about what was going on here on this thread, and I knew that I had to speak up to protect a whole bunch of people.
Let's go back in time about two years. At that time, we had a Moslem woman (Minasay) come to visit for a couple of weeks. Some time after we thought she had left, she posted another message. The moderator at that time (for reasons I never knew) checked the IP address of that new message. He then accused David of impersonating Minasay -- posting a pro-Moslem message! -- because the new message's IP address was the same as one that had often been associated with David's computer.
David was able to contact Minasay and get her to come back to the forum to clear his good name. She even got angry at the moderator for wrongly accusing David. It took a veeerrrrrryyyy long time before the moderator admitted that he had been wrong. It was therefore clear to everyone that, at least when it comes to David's Internet Service Provider's customers, the IP addresses are potentially shared by hundreds or thousands of people.
Now that we understand this situation, it becomes clear that the list of four seeming aliases/pseudonymns listed above -- despite their common IP address -- cannot be associated by anyone, with any degree of certainty, with David's computer. I will go a step farther and state that I believe that one or two of the obviously phony names/addresses was used by David -- but I also believe (as firmly as I believe that my name is "John") that NONE of the real names and real addresses was used by him.
I have three reasons for believing this.
(1) Any inspection of some of the messages posted above some of those names reveals that they were not written by David. They are in completely different styles, with different kinds of spelling, etc.. I think that all "regulars" here know that David is not an impersonator. Moreover, it is inconceivable to a realistic, logical person that David -- a married man with a small child -- has been having dozens of different kinds of guests at his house, all posting at the forum recently.
(2) I have received an e-mail message from one of the people listed above (whom I will not name, but who may contact Ed by private e-mail), assuring me that he/she was not impersonated and did not post from David's computer.
(3) I have David's word of honor -- which I trust as much as I would my pastor's -- that what has been alleged about him above is not correct. He will not like me saying the following in public but ... contrary to what some seem to have assumed about David (probably because he is not softspoken), he is an extremely honest man who is genuinely seeking to be holy -- devoted to Eucharistic adoration, the sacrament of Penance, helping poor people, and his family. I know these things not only from reading his posts for over three years ... and not only from scores of private e-mails through the years ... but also from having met him a few times at Catholic churches and shrines (though we do not live near each other).Therefore, I appeal to all to realize that the following conclusions must be drawn:
(a) David has not been posting with forty seemingly real aliases and e-mail addresses.
(b) David has not been sharing his computer with over 30 people (nor even one!).
(c) It would not be proper to "hold hostage" certain IP addresses -- with everything coming from them being subject to deletion -- because that most certainly will result in the deletion of posts from various totally innocent parties who happen to be sharing the same Internet Service Provider.This is a tough situation -- not as clear-cut as originally thought. I ask everyone to take a calm, sober look at the whole thing and make wise, non-emotionally-based decisions.
I am not going to get involved publicly in whether or not David should be suspended/banned. That is between him and the moderators (and anyone else who wants to speak for or against David). I just wanted to speak up, FIRST, to clear David's good name on the incorrect conclusion some have drawn about his using massive numbers of aliases ... SECOND, to clear away the incorrect belief that David has been sharing his computer ... and, THIRD, to make it safe for all the real people listed above to post without fear of deletion.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.
You know, for someone who is always leaving, you post a lot.Actually, there is no way to really know who is posting from ANY IP address. How do you really *know* who is sitting down at a terminal? As far as the service provider goes, same thing. The moderators are doing the best they can with the information available to them.
The moderators don't have many options to weed out the posters from the imposters except by IP addresses, but there IS a very simple solution to this problem:
1. Only post under one handle, that way no one will have *good cause* to think you might be posting under several (I'm not speaking to David here, btw, but to a more general audience...) Take Eugene for example. If someone impersonated Eugene, first, it would probably be fairly obvious, but even if not, the mods could look at the IP and in all likelihood it would be different. Eugene just posts as Eugene, and I would be shocked if he turned out to be someone else here too. If you post with a bunch of names, how unlikely is it you are posting with one more? More importantly, why would you expect the moderators to be sympathetic when you say, "Yes, I'm posting as bill, fred, sue, tracy, and trixie, but I'm NOT posting as Steve, how could you accuse me of that?!?"
2. Don't post anything objectionable, and it won't get deleted. This seems simple enough. Most posters here never get deleted, or even warned. Those that do know in their heart of hearts what will happen, but they post anyway.
3. Be not afraid!
Not very hard, is it?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 11, 2004.
David,Just so you know, I think in real life you are a good man. I remember your posts about making the sign of the cross on your kids' heads before sleep (which I now do myself sometimes), and some other more personal things that I don't want to repost here that I'm proud of you for.
I don't know if the goodness in you always comes through to others in your posts though. LOL, if you read MY posts, especially in some areas you may say the same about me if you want, I know I'm guilty. Anyway, have faith David, this too shall pass.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 11, 2004.
I vouch for David too. Even when he takes liberties, it isn't with the truth.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2004.
Is there no one out there reading what I have written? I will say it again for those of you who have completely missed or ignored my earlier posts.David is not prohibited from posting in the forum because more than one pseudonym has posted from one or more of his IP addresses.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 11, 2004.
To all, I fear I may have made a terrible mistake and I need to offer my sincere apologies for having prohibited so many people from posting to the forum. It seems David@exicte.com uses AOL.com as his server when placing posts in the forum. The other pseudonyms I listed which emanated from the same IP addresses as David’s, also use AOL.com as their servers. I believe AOL employs proxy IP addresses for those customers who are on line at any given time. In using a server that employs the use of proxy IP addresses, it is conceivable that several posters could post to this forum at different times and all show the same identical IP address.To the forty individuals I have been preventing from posting to the forum, I apologize and readily acknowledge that I may have made an error in my rush to judgement. I ask that you forgive me for my actions. You obviously are immediately reinstated to the forum and permitted to post to it at your pleasure.
To David, about the point you brought up about my leaving the new thread this morning on the forum and informing everyone that you were behind it, you are incorrect. I stated the poster had an identical IP address as one of the IP addresses you have used in the past and that because of this I would be removing it later in the day. I did not say you were responsible for the post. The reason I did not remove the post right away is that the LUSENET server was slow in reacting and I was for pressed for time, having to leave immediately for work. These facts will now beg the question, how could I post a message to the forum but not delete the post outright? In “administration” mode the server takes much longer to download certain pages than in regular “poster” mode. Paul M. can corroborate what I am saying. As the admin. page was not responding and I was pressed for time, I placed a post in the thread in regular "poster" mode, asking that no one post to the thread, so as not to waste their time over a thread that was going to be deleted anyway.
To David, I never wrote that you had impersonated all of these people. I stated only that all of the above-mentioned pseudonyms emanated from the same IP addresses as your’s did. Many took this to infer you were behind some of the other posts, if not all of the other posts. For this and for any embarrassment this has caused you I truly apologize.
The matter, however, of your banishment is still before us. In the spirit of trying to put this all behind us, I am prepared to lift your suspension from the forum. I feel my actions contributed a great deal to the tension that permeates the forum presently and this gesture on my part will go a long way to repairing some of the damage I have done. You are hereby fully re-instated. I would ask but one thing. As per my earlier request, in the future, please respect my request to refrain from using the word hate to describe anyone.
I hope we can all put this unpleasant episode behind us. Again my apologies to all for anything I have done that has caused pain or embarrassment of any kind.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 11, 2004.
Ed,Thank you for handling this matter. It takes a good, humble man to admit a mistake. God bless you for your work as our moderator, as I know it must be a difficult job.
David,
I must apologize to you. I thought that anything originating from the same IP address must be from the same computer, and I assumed the worst when Ed posted all of those names as being from the same IP. I assumed that you were impersonating numerous different people. Please forgive me for this assumption against your integrity, and that of the other posters.
God bless you both.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 11, 2004.
I just want to thank Ed for handling this situation so well. I can't thank you enough for reinstating me. It makes me feel like being on this forum is a privelege. I really appreciate all the hard work that the forum moderators have to do, especially after so many trials.
-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.
JmjI just want to remark on how kind everyone who posted after me was to thank me for explaining the problem clearly and being the driving force behind getting it correced, getting everyone reinstated, etc..
Oh, wait a minute! NOBODY thanked me at all!
In fact, my name was not mentioned by anyone. The only comment in which I was involved was yet another nasty remark, another case of "goading" -- by the same person who apologized on June 6 for having goaded me the day before. [See above.] After working so hard to straighten things out here, the following is the only comment that was said to, or about, me:
"You know, for someone who is always leaving, you post a lot."
Now I know the meaning of ungratefulness -- and the meaning of the phrase, "No good deed goes unpunished." And now I know what it means to be "persona non grata." {;~)
It was also ironic that the person who goaded me then went on to advise everyone against the use of multiple aliases, even though he (in January of 2001) had written the very rule that explicitly permitted the use of multiple aliases. Moreover, he has himself used only an alias and a non-working e-mail address for about five years -- and I wouldn't be surprised if he has used several! What delicious irony! I'm sure that it would please God greatly if this individual would learn to leave me alone, instead of making a "career" out of trying to anger me.
God bless you.
John
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2004.
John,I for one would like to thank you for helping to clear up this issue and for all your contributions over the years to this forum. I know you have done a lot of work here so that people like myself can, at the click of a mouse, learn alot about all things catholic, and have interaction with other catholics and those who have an interest in catholicism. I am really grateful for this. I have learned a great deal from reading your posts. Your knowledge of the Catholic faith is impressive and inspiring. Your posts are very clear, well reasoned, and explanatory. I am sorry that you have taken leave here (right about the time I arrived). The forum is worse off by your absence IMHO.
That being said, it seems as if you are your own worst enemy. At times your sensitivity to criticism and petulance serve to create the image of you as some sort of Forum Diva. This is a shame for a man with so much to offer. I hope that you will continue to post here because you have helped many with their faith, and would continue to do so if you remained. May God bless you John!
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 12, 2004.
John,Oh, wait a minute! NOBODY thanked me at all!
In fact, my name was not mentioned by anyone.
You should have been thankful. Our Lord sees what good deeds are done in secret, by clamoring for attention NOW, you've given up eternal reward for what you consider to be a good deed. Hopefully it was worth it for you.
The only comment in which I was involved was yet another nasty remark, another case of "goading" -- by the same person who apologized on June 6 for having goaded me the day before.
You should try apologizing some time John, it's not "unmanly" or something like that, in fact, it takes a man to admit they've done something wrong. It ALSO takes a man to forgive, and not keep bringing up sins from the past, which is something else we could all work on, (you included, in case it slipped by you). You are a fertile field for sins on this forum, and shouldn't be throwing stones at someone else's glass house, IMO.
Now I know the meaning of ungratefulness
Ungratefulness? Really? LOL, why would I be GRATEful to you? What boon have you bestowed upon me? Really John, the world doesn't revolve around your sensitivities, and when you keep acting like a wounded doe when in fact you make sure your every post stirs the pot, well, ah, you've heard it all before, and nothing anyone saya to you will change anything.
It was also ironic that the person who goaded me then went on to advise everyone against the use of multiple aliases, even though he (in January of 2001) had written the very rule that explicitly permitted the use of multiple aliases. Moreover, he has himself used only an alias and a non-working e-mail address for about five years
There's no irony to your nonsense. I advise people against using multiple aliases if they don't want to be *accused* of using multiple aliases -- that makes sense to small children, adults shouldn't have a hard time with the concept. I also made the rule allowing multiple aliases, because some people on the forum wanted them. They naturally assume the risk of being accused of *using* multiple aliases, since they are, but for an ADULT, this should be something they can decide for themselves. No irony yet... And the LAST part, that I have used ***AN*** alias REALLY makes no sense. I have never posted under a bunch of aliases, only using one other, that of "moderator" when acting as an official of the forum. Coming from you who HAS used multiple aliases, even to nefarious ends, this is really too much. You aren't very introspective though...
and I wouldn't be surprised if he has used several! What delicious irony!
Unfortunately the only irony is that YOU who are falsely accusing me (and sinning in the process) have in fact committed that very crime yourself. It's a pathetic irony, not a delicious one.
I'm sure that it would please God greatly if this individual would learn to leave me alone, instead of making a "career" out of trying to anger me.
Perhaps this is true, sometimes I'd definitely agree, such as last Sunday. OTOH, you've got real problems John, and should consider the alternate theory that God is placing minor obstacles in your path trying to get you to change YOUR behavior for the better. If you assume everyone else is wrong and you are right, you'll never grow at all. That is NOT a good thing John! No one alive is so perfect they can't change to become more Christlike, and I wouldn't accuse either of us of being Mother Theresa (although I'm sure you're super close)...
If I have a strength, it's that I *know* I'm a sinner, from my vantage there's no way to go but UP!
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 12, 2004.
"...I feel I made a terrible mistake..."Bingo Dawg!
"..In using a server that employs the use of Proxy I.P. addresses, it is conceivable that several posters could post to this forum at different times and all show the same IP address.'
Ed, I didn't use any aliases with real e-mail addresses. I only use David@excite as my address.I don't pretend to be any females. I am 100% man. I used the (obvious) fake e-mail address "your friend" when I topped a thread for little-paul one time.
Paul asked some questions and I rembered a thread where Mateo (one of the smartest Catholics ever to post in forum) explained a few years earlier to Emerald the same questions that paul asked. So I topped it for the man.
So 38 out of the 40 people arn't me! So it is more than several people that are getting the same IP. It must be most or all of the people that use AOL are showing up the same number. Please be careful in future with this feature. I would never post and some of the obsene sacrelegious stuff that some people did!
I do accept your apology and mean it because we all are capable of making mistake(maybe not 38 out 40 :-)) but we are all sinners. God bless you, Ed.
Hi, Emily. You can't help what you think but you didn't say anyhing so I don't think you me an apology. You are one of the smartest and kindest people to come to forum in a loooooong time. If you believed it than most people probably did. God bless you and I hope and pray that everything is working out with your family.
Hi, John. Thanks for having the courage to speak up for me and the 38 others. You are a great friend! I know it was your courage and hard work that helped get to the bottom of this. I also wanted to thank you for the kind words you said about me above. I am grateful for this forum for getting to have a friend like you in real life. We have had some good holy times ie, praying stations, going to Holy Mass a few times, Eucharistic Adoration, visting the holy Nuns, praying for the deceased at graveyard etc............. not to mention all the dinners and breakfeasts you have treated me to. ;-0 God bless you John.
Thanks Olly, paul and Frank.
-- - (David@excite.com), June 12, 2004.
Hi, David.I posted a message yesterday in which I expressed my gratitude to you, but it must have been mistakenly deleted, since no explanation of the deletion appears here. So that no one will think that I am ungrateful to you for your comments, above, I will repeat what I said to you yesterday:
"Thank you, David, for your many kind words. You deserve all the help that I can ever give you."
God bless you.
John
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2004.
Hi, Brian.I posted a message yesterday in which I expressed my gratitude to you for the nice things you said about me -- and teased you about your criticisms, saying that I forgave you for them. I said that I was confident that, with time, your wrong (negative) impression of me will disappear.
I don't know if you had a chance to see that message. It must have been mistakenly deleted, since no explanation of the deletion appears here -- and since it contained nothing at all that could make it a candidate for deletion. If you didn't have a chance to read it, please send me an e-mail, because I think that I saved a copy of it.
I am leaving the forum again today (going back into semi-retirement), but I hope to see you here (or at another forum) some day in the future.
God bless you.
John
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2004.
Hi, Ed.I posted a respectful and informative message for you yesterday, but it has disappeared. I don't know if you had a chance to see that message. It must have been mistakenly deleted, since no explanation of the deletion appears here -- and since it contained nothing at all that could make it a candidate for deletion. If you didn't have a chance to read it, please send me an e-mail, because I think that I saved a copy of it.
My inviting you to "send me an e-mail" made me remember something that I have probably forgotten to mention. You were wrong to say (on June 7, above) that I "refuse to read [your] emails". I didn't tell you that at all. I only said that I didn't want you to reply to a certain specific message of mine, if your reply was going to contain a repetition of the same arguments that you had already used in the past. You have always been welcome to write to me about new topics at any time. It was painful to read your incorrect statement that I "refuse to read [your] emails," because that gave everyone else here a false impression of me. Your apology for that would be welcome.
God bless you.
John
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2004.
Hi, Ed.
I guess I am getting too old and forgetful. I meant to end that last message with best wishes for your health and happiness. As I mentioned to Brian (I think), I am now leaving the forum again to go into semi-retirement. I hope that we can have productive conversations here (or elsewhere) again some day.God bless you.
John
-- ("jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2004.
Moderators,Is it possible to repair the thread titled "John 6:63 - Does Jesus' Flesh Profit Nothing? (Refuting the Protestant argument against the Eucharist)", located here: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00By3c? It says there's a server error.
If it's not easily possible, I might be able to look through all my old emails to see if I can put it back together, but that would probably take awhile.
I checked my email, and the problem appears to be the fact that someone named Peter (prbankwi@mtu.edu) posted an extremely long article called, "Communion: Spiritual Fellowship with the Lord, And the Roman Catholic MASS," by Richard M. Bennett. However, this has little relevance to my thread since it's by another author and does not even address the points that I stated when starting the thread. I think the article should be a new thread, perhaps with a link to my thread, if it is to remain without infringing on copyright law or forum rules.
If you can't see it, I can email you a copy. Also, could you please add a new rule to the forum about no posting of extremely long articles such as this one? It appears that this is what ruined the thread.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. God bless,
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.
Paul, Emily, I managed to delete the post that corrupted the original thread. I believe it is working now if you want to use it. I deleted the post by "IP" address. I have also deleted Peter's "copy & paste" post in the "Why do Catholics have 7 extra books in their bible" thread.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 24, 2004.
Thanks so much, Ed! :)
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 24, 2004.
thanks for this ed
-- (Con_Ho_Dam_Tac@hn.vnn.vn), June 26, 2004.
Hi TBT-CHDT! What a pleasant surprise. “Con êch” đây nếu anh còn nhớ (không nên nhớ)). Peace out!
-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 27, 2004.
I have deleted several recent messages from Emerald, and Faith who is now posting as angeloflight@hotmail.com. These individuals are prohibited from posting.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 30, 2004.
I have deleted the recent post from "Curious" who is also known as "Faith", who is prohibited from posting.Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 30, 2004.
eddy boy, why did u ban a fellow catholic?
-- jr (foo@bar.com), July 30, 2004.
jr, all individuals who have been banned have committed infractions to the rules above.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 31, 2004.
The entire thread Norm Fink began recently has been deleted owing to his use of vulgarity. Fink's post was also considered by me to be nothing more than Catholic bashing and adds nothing of any value or significance to this forum. My apologies to Anglican Christian (Sharon)as her excellent rebuttal was removed along with the offending post.Mr. Fink, perhaps your talent for writing and penchant for hatred would be better served elsewhere. Please leave.
Moderator
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), August 20, 2004.
Ed,I thought he might get deleted but thought it was worth saying anyway.... no offence taken at my post being deleted along with his diatribe.
-- Anglican Christian (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), August 20, 2004.