Is Ed doing away the "male opinion" in forum???greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Ed,Whats up dude?
Emerald is banned and John G is not posting????????????????
Does Joe S want Emerald banned and John G not posting? You are not being fair to the forum.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 23, 2004
....
-- - (.@....), March 23, 2004.
Who is Joe S?I remember John G said something about giving up this forum if the atmosphere didn't improve? Or something? But I thought he said he was going to leave by the end of February. And I believe that Emerald asked to be banned, as shown in the post that Ed referred to in the rules of the forum thread. So how is this Ed's fault?
-- (confused@and.wondering), March 23, 2004.
Ed,How can you ban Emerald from this forum for disageeing with you? I don't agree with you!
One week you say he is charitable and a week or two later you bann him? What did you do to our forum Ed??
You have me not wanting to disagree with you because I know I'm next for speaking my mind??
How come Pat had to ask if he should drop his topic?
-- - (David@excite.com), March 23, 2004.
david,1) John has voluntarily left the forum. He did long before Ed became the new moderator.
2) Emerald asked to be banned. Who knows why? Ed left it up to emerald to leave in the same way that John chose to, but emerald instead got ultra-insubordinate, and, since he asked to be banned anyway, Ed did as he asked.
3) you disagree with Ed, but you do so respectfully. Thats the new rule of the forum: RESPECT.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 23, 2004.
paul h, you've summed it up quite well.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 23, 2004.
Hi, Paul H"John has voluntary left the forum. He did long before Ed became the new Moderator."
Just for the record Paul this statement of your is Not correct. You are wrong.
I rember when Paul the Moderator started a thread telling us that Ed was the new Moderator. In this thread John told Ed that he will be praying for him to be a "good Moderator". So how could he be looooooooooong gone if he posted that? Plus I could show you 15 more threads that John has posted in since than. Bingo Cat. :-)
But your right about me respecting Ed. I think he is a very devout Catholic and a good man. I know he gives a lot of his time too. But I also see other things as well and thats why I asked. I just miss some of my buddies.
-- - (David@excite.com), March 23, 2004.
actually, dave,john is still here, lurking occasionally and posting to the saints threads occassionally. so i bet you could probably find a few posts after Ed became moderator.
What i meant was that Ed's being moderator has little to do with John leaving the forum, and John was phasing himself out before Ed became moderator.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 23, 2004.
I suppose I should be thankful that I wasn't participating in whatever happened. I have seen Emerald ask to be banned before, and he was (temporarily). Ed is doing a good job. My only difference in judgment is that I would ban permanently anyone who obstinantly misrepresented as Catholic teaching something that was not.
-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 23, 2004.
Anon, I plan to prohibit anyone from promoting doctrine that is not in keeping with that taught by the Catholic Church. While everyone is encouraged to give their views on any given subject, prolonged, obstinate false teaching will not be permitted. Afterall, this is a Catholic forum.I would appreciate the help of all Catholics in defending the Faith in the forum and would like to be apprised of any unorthodox views you discover you feel have skewed or misrepresented Catholic teaching.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 23, 2004.
I agree with Ed. People of all faiths (or no faith) are welcome here - welcome to ask questions about Catholic beliefs and practices. But this is not the place for non-Catholics to be proselytizing, or to be attacking that which they are not in a position to understand or appreciate. There is no reason they should be allowed to do so in a Catholic forum. If they only realized how shallow and deficient their watered-down theologies sound to those who possess the glorious fullness of God's truth in His Church, they wouldn't even bother.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 23, 2004.
JmjHello, "confused and wondering."
After reading this thread, you will no longer be confused or wondering (I hope).Hi, Paul H.
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.I suggest that you click on the link, above, and read my message there before continuing here. [I'll wait for you to come back ...]
OK, good. You probably noticed these words: "Although there was an additional, significant motivating factor ... 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. ... [I]f the time ever comes that [the] 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."
Paul H, the "additional, significant motivating factor" -- the forum's "other major problem" -- has been brought up by you in this thread, so I want to say some things about that now. But before I do, I want to list some inaccurate statements that were made above:
1. "John has voluntarily left the forum. He did long before Ed became the new moderator. " [Paul H, 03/23]
2. "Thats the new rule of the forum: RESPECT." [Paul H, 03/23]
3. "paul h, you've summed it up quite well." [Ed, 03/23]
4. "actually, ... john is still here, lurking occasionally and posting to the saints threads occasionally. so i bet you could probably find a few posts after Ed became moderator." [Paul H, 03/23]
5. "What i meant was that Ed's being moderator has little to do with John leaving the forum, and John was phasing himself out before Ed became moderator." [Paul H, 03/23]As a way of correcting the above mistakes -- while also broaching the subject of the forum's "other major problem" that caused me to go inactive -- I will now give a long and mostly sad chronology of events:
The forum started in January of 1998. I was not here for the first two years, but found the site early in January of 2000. The respectable pre-2000 people who (perhaps?) still drop in here are Eugene Chavez and Enrique Ortiz.
Although the period of January 2000 to early 2002 was not without its ups and downs, I mainly found it to be quite enjoyable and rewarding here at the forum. I learned a lot from active threads and from the archives, and I made some good friends. Right from the beginning, I made up my mind to try to read every post on every thread, and I endeavored to do that right through 2002 and 2003. I believe that I posted over 7,000 messages during my three years as a forum "regular."
Early in 2002 (if I recall correctly), we began to be harassed by a trio of people who proved to be at least "de facto" schismatics and heretics. Soon a forum "veteran," who had previously seemed to be an orthodox Catholic, joined their Feeneyite chorus. This resulted in an incredible amount of hours being spent -- over the course of two years -- in many orthodox Catholics' attempts to gain these folks' reversion to the true Faith. For me, the experience was very stressful -- and eventually very angering, when it became clear that (1) vast quantities of time were being wasted on these people, and (2) they were not being banned by the moderator, but were being allowed to try to manipulate the minds of regulars and vulnerable lurkers (one of whom fell into schism with them). I repeatedly called for bannings, but I was ignored. Although I persevered here daily, the enjoyment was much diminished by comparison with 2000 and 2001.
The year 2003 began with the darkest days in forum history -- a few months of chaos that I won't describe fully in public. When that came to an end with an appointment of a new moderator in the Spring of 2003, my hopes soared. But by the time October or November, 2003, had rolled around, my hopes had been dashed. Despite my incessant pleas, none of the four Feeneyites had been banned -- even after almost two years of inflicting spiritual damage on themselves and others. "Anon(ymous@god.bless" says so well, above, a plan of action that was rejected by moderators for over two years: "I would ban permanently anyone who obstinately misrepresented as Catholic teaching something that was not."
I think that it was in March of 2003 that the forum took on the added burden of three pitiable souls who decided to make the forum a place for them publicly (and repeatedly ad nauseam) to express their tenderly nursed grudges against the Church's marriage tribunals. As with the "pseudo-traditionalist" quartet described above, this led to great tension and huge amounts of wasted time for some of us. Even more significant was the fact that we almost totally ceased to get new threads from people seeking help with questions about their marital situations, divorce, nullity, and related matters. I am sure that many people were intimidated or totally turned off by the troubled triad -- and went their way with their questions unposted and unanswered. I repeatedly called for the banning of the three anti-tribunalists last year, but I was ignored by the moderator.
Similarly ignored were my many pleas for the banning of each member of a group of ex-Catholics who had peppered the forum -- for months or years on end -- with errors that had to be refuted over and over again. One of these four "defectors" from the true Church had become a forumite of "vintage 1999," yet was still occasionally visiting in 2003, fighting our devotion to Our Lady and the saints, and trying to plant seeds of doubt in our minds. Another (vintage 2002) is now an atheist who tries to spread moral relativism galore. Another (also vintage 2002) is now an Arian who defends contraception, tries to convince us that Jesus is not divine, and talks about his imagined private revelations. The last (vintage 2003) is now an ultra-liberal Episcopalian who defends homosexual activity and has an obvious mission to bash the president of the United States. Each of these "lost souls" once had a right to follow the forum's rules by asking respectful questions about Catholicism and by presenting their own contrary beliefs for discussion and refutation. But no respectable forum would ever allow these four people the leeway that they have received -- namely, anywhere from several months to several years of attacking and proselytizing.
It should be obvious, from the above narrative, that being here became a mounting strain on me throughout 2002 and 2003, due to the failure of moderators to ban those who so clearly deserved, and so urgently needed (for their spiritual good), to be banned. These bannings would have been analogous to the medicinal act of excommunication from the Church. It is horrendously misguided thinking (or misplaced compassion) to believe that people like the eleven "ban-ables" are better off being allowed to remain in our presence, exposed to the truth, than to be banned. They have proved, from their very earliest days here, that they have no use for the fullness of the truth that is Catholicism. Instead, they have continuously fought to subvert the truth -- and they have caused untold harm to countless lurkers, who are now far less likely to become Catholics as a result. This forum's moderators need to repent and make good Confessions of these sins of omission, these failures to protect lurkers and to keep the forum's archives free from permanent taint.
When the moderator who began to work in the Spring of 2003 persisted for about six months in ignoring my calls for bannings of these people, I decided that I would have to leave the forum. Therefore, in October or November, I announced that I would leave at the end of February, 2004, unless the forum had turned over a new leaf by then. (This would have to be demonstrated by bannings of the ne'er-do-wells -- or at least the forbidding of their continued attacks on Catholic doctrine, liturgy, tribunals, etc.). As usual, I was completely ignored throughout November and December, and I began to prepare myself mentally for a March 1 departure.
Much to my surprise, though, a new and very active moderator was named on January 9, 2004. This made me drop my plans to leave at the end of February, because I wanted to give the new man a chance to prove himself. That is why I continued to post messages up to March 20. Unfortunately, the situation turned out to be even worse than it had been under the previous moderator in 2003. The new man failed to "clean house" by requiring all of the eleven "ban-ables" to change radically or to leave. And he added insult to injury by instituting his deletion of good Catholics' messages under subjective standards (about which I wrote on the other thread, earlier today).
While I was still active here, very early this year, the new moderator banned one of the "pseudo-trads" (along with his computer-sharing spouse), but for the wrong reason -- impersonation, rather than heresy! Then another of the "pseudo-trads" then got banned, but for the wrong reason -- alleged insubordination, rather than heresy! No one should ever be banned for alleged insubordination to a moderator. Such banning is "power-tripping" big-time -- exactly the kind of thing that the forum's owner (Philip Greenspun) once told me to watch out for in unpaid moderators. A moderator is only a facilitator with powers, not a leader with authority, since he is neither elected by those whom he serves nor appointed by the Church.
I was told that, after I left, the Episcopalian ex-Catholic was banned -- and for good reasons. I applaud this, but I shudder at what I read on the other thread today -- i.e., that this person is being "unbanned," even though he has not publicly apologized for his gross offenses of the past (including obscene language) and has not been required to use a valid "handle," instead of the one that is so disrespectful to the U.S. president, whom some of us love. On the other thread, he promised to show respect, but he will never do that by calling himself "Anti-"someone (except "Anti-satan").
I am somewhat encouraged by two statements that were posted on this thread by the co-moderators on March 23. The words seem to be a "sea change" from their prior attitudes and lack of decisive action. I would appreciate it if my forum friends would write to me to let me know if the moderators have really followed up on these words of one month ago -- and have acted accordingly, by banning some or all of the eleven people I talked about earlier. If they have done so -- and if the new moderator abandons his improper practice of deleting orthodox Catholics' messages according to subjective judgment -- I will return to active status at this forum with great enthusiasm.
Here are the encouraging statements:----- "I plan to prohibit anyone from promoting doctrine that is not in keeping with that taught by the Catholic Church. While everyone is encouraged to give their views on any given subject, prolonged, obstinate false teaching will not be permitted. After all, this is a Catholic forum. I would appreciate the help of all Catholics in defending the Faith in the forum and would like to be apprised of any unorthodox views you discover you feel have skewed or misrepresented Catholic teaching."
----- "I agree ... People of all faiths (or no faith) are welcome here -- welcome to ask questions about Catholic beliefs and practices. But this is not the place for non-Catholics to be proselytizing, or to be attacking that which they are not in a position to understand or appreciate. There is no reason they should be allowed to do so in a Catholic forum. If they only realized how shallow and deficient their watered-down theologies sound to those who possess the glorious fullness of God's truth in His Church, they wouldn't even bother."Paul H, I started this message by saying that I wanted "to list some inaccurate statements that were made above." I hope that my narrative has shown how they were inaccurate ...
1. "John ... voluntarily left the forum ... long before Ed became the new moderator. " [Paul H, 03/23]
No. I left about ten weeks afterward.2. "Thats the new rule of the forum: RESPECT." [Paul H, 03/23]
No. The new rule was two-fold before I left on March 21: (a) good Catholic posters' fear of deletion, and (b) intimidation by the new moderator. True "RESPECT" is shown by a moderator who does not delete messages based on fallible, subjective standards.3. "paul h, you've summed it up quite well." [Ed, 03/23]
No. You had not summed it up well, for the reasons I just explained. Most troubling is that the person who wrote those words was well aware of the fact that I had not "left the forum ... long before" he "became the new moderator." Thus he knew that you had not "summed it up quite well."4. "actually, ... john is still here, lurking occasionally and posting to the saints threads occasionally. so i bet you could probably find a few posts after Ed became moderator." [Paul H, 03/23]
No. By the time you wrote this, I had been gone completely for three days and had not posted to a saints thread for over three weeks.5. "What i meant was that Ed's being moderator has little to do with John leaving the forum, and John was phasing himself out before Ed became moderator." [Paul H, 03/23]
No. The new moderator's wrong choices were instrumental in my leaving the forum. Yes, I probably would have left anyway if he had not been named, but the clock was reset to "00:00" on January 9, when he was appointed -- and I would be active right now if he had made the correct choices.
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. If anyone needs to know the identities of the eleven ban-ables, I will disclose those privately. (To some people, they will be obvious.)
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.
[Topping, in case Paul H missed my response to his comments about me.]
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
I doubt he could miss that barage John! John I never knew a man of your class and dignity was in the grievance industry... Mr Gecick ..the petty hard done victim ! Oh please!!!Poor, poor you John, Id kiss it better Sir but Ive got bigger fish to fry, why not join us! John this paranoid sensitivity is unbecoming of a man, and as unintentionally amusing as your triades are, youre majoring on the minors as usual.
We are here to look forward not backwards -in hope, charity and with hearts full of joy! The moderators give us all enough rope- you just happen to tie your own noose. If youve been wronged, (believe me youre not the first man in history with such a claim) its how you respond that shows the man. Place yourself last for a change John.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.
Dear John F. Gecick: for a long time I always read your posts with great interest, and in truth I must acknowledge I learned a lot from them. This may be the case for many other "foristas".I won't discuss your reasons for departing from the forum. I just want to say that your are a great contributor. Let bygones be bygones. There is always something positive to say on any subject and you have the knowledge to do so.
I'll be very happy to see you back.
Acuérdate además que siempre te he considerado un amigo querido y apreciado.
Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.
JohnI'm just a little ink spot on the page around these parts, so my voice may be muted and inaudible. But, here goes anyway.
Who the flip cares about what anybody here has to do with your contributions. I view you as a man who walks with God. You have the experience and knowledge to teach many the truth. If you are who you say you are, then make your voice known to all. You've ticked me off a few times, but who cares. The truth is the truth even if it offends others. Eventually, the light that you provide will be worth it to the receiving end.
Just post! It's a mean world with many destructive people in it. They are just waiting to sink ships. You are unsinkable, John.
........................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.
John has had some interesting posts. At the same time, I have no time for whiners or peacocks. And I have found his practice of anonymous posting to be without integrity, no matter how eloquent at times. More often than not, his posts are laced with sarcasm for anyone that doesn't cow-tow to his barrage.If he stays great, if leaves, its the same from my perspective.
-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 25, 2004.
John,From my "perspective" I don't think the forum has been the same since you left. :-)
I think Ed went on a power trip for awhile but he seems to be keeping his guns to his side more now. Everyone knows Enrique is a wise bird maybe thats a wise opinion to read.
Blessed be God a million, million, million times!
-- - (David@excite.com), April 25, 2004.
Hello John ,I know we never will be friends ,
But I really don't understand you !!
Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 26, 2004.
John G,I really appreciate your contributions to this forum. Your wisdom and insight have helped me to understand my Catholic Faith more deeply, and your Saints of the Day have inspired me to look into their lives for inspiration. But after reading your two most recent posts I have to wonder about your dedication. I mean, you left because certain people were not banned and were allowed to rant anti- Catholic and anti-tribunal thoughts, and because your own messsages were deleted subjectively? Maybe you should have volunteered to be the moderator if you felt the job wasn't being done properly.
The Sanhedrin and the Pharisees never "heard" Jesus' message either, but that didn't stop Him from trying; her never ran away. In fact, what was His response? Forgive them, for they no not what they do! After being baptized by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles didn't run away either; they boldly preached the faith, and as we read in Acts yesterday, they rejoiced when they endured dishonor on behalf of the faith. John, you should be rejoicing, not brooding.
Do you want to know the power of this forum? Last Summer, I posted a question asking about the meaning of signal grace. You responded to that question, and I thank you for your response. But others (unbeknownst to me) responded as well. My Father-in-law suffered an apparent heart attack last month, and my mother-in-law was looking for signal grace when she came upon the thread and the November post that explained it so beautifully, just when she needed it most. ALMOST EIGHT MONTHS AFTER I POSTED THE QUESTION.
God works through this forum. He works through people like you and me and Eugene and Ed and big and little Paul and Bill and everyone else who posts here. He even works through those who question our faith, for through them we are challenged, and every defense makes our faith stronger. And we should rejoice in this!
John, your voice is valuable. Don't run away. Rejoice that you strike a nerve in people. The message is getting through. But God needs all his messengers, including you.
Pax et Bonum.
-- Thomas (psalm23@catholic.org), April 26, 2004.
Jmj
Greetings, Kiwi, Enrique, Rod, and Thomas.I was very surprised to see your messages to me here, because I had written these words in my long message: "If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, feel free to send me an e-mail message."
I thought you would realize, therefore, that, because I am no longer active on the forum, I did not want to have a conversation or debate on this thread. I just came back twice (on the 25th and today) to see if the person whom I had addressed (Paul H) had acknowledged receipt of my response to his words about me. Ironically, he did not post an acknowledgment, while all of you did write unexpectedly.Although I do appreciate the kind things that all of you (and others who wrote to me by e-mail) have said about me and my past efforts here, I was very dismayed about two things:
(1) You all encouraged me to begin posting again, without delay, even though that is impossible. It seems that the first three of you must not to have read my explanation (on the other thread) about why my posting regularly would be an improper thing to do -- a sin of imprudence on my part. At least three of my messages were unjustifiably deleted in February and March, and I will not return to be a "regular" here until the danger of deletion under a subjective standard has disappeared. I would have to be a masochist to return.I can see that the last of you (Thomas) did read my explanation about deletions -- yet you still encouraged me to begin posting again. You almost insisted on it! I'm sorry, Thomas, but you are not using the head that God gave you. Contrary to what you accused, I am not running away from anything. I have stood up to all "comers" here for four years, without any fear, posting my real e-mail address thousands of times, and I will be happy to do the same again some day -- when my messages will be treated with respect by the moderator. I am not running away now. The only thing I am doing now is not taking the chance of wasting my time -- i.e., doing research, thinking, formulating an answer, keying it in, proofreading it, etc. -- only to have to see a moderator (with, in my opinion, poor standards of judgment) annihilating all my work by deleting me.
(2) It seems that none of you realizes that what is needed is not for you to encourage me to start posting again ... but for any or all of you (publicly or privately) to encourage the co-moderators to remove their impediments to my posting! That means that I need you (a) to ask them to get rid of the new, uncodifiable, subjective standard of deletion, (b) to restore the old objective standard of deletion that was used here throughout almost all of 1998 through 2003, and (c) to keep the forum free of the people who have no right to be here (e.g., proselytizers of various kinds and those who have bashed the Church's tribunals for months and months). If, after you communicate these things to the co-moderators, one of them lets me/us know (publicly or privately) that the forum will now be hospitable to me (no danger of deletion, no ban-able people still permitted to hang around), then you will see me back. The co-moderators have not so informed me yet. But perhaps they will do so, IF you help them to understand what they need to do. Please do not be afraid of them! They are your equals, not your betters. They are only human beings!
To save you the trouble of tracking down what I said about deletion standards a week or more ago, I will copy the most important elements of my post here:
... 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 ... 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. ...
If you want me to become active at the forum again, ... 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 ..., 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.God bless you.
John
PS: David/excite, I truly appreciate your support.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@spamfreehotmail.com), April 28, 2004.
Hi John.I read and have complete understanding of your explanation and reasoning for not posting. But, sometimes we do things that must go beyond one's reasoning. Perhaps the moderators can witness support for you that they may not be able to see via personal emails? We shouldn't blame anyone, but ourselves for not following directions. I posted for a reason. The points you have made should be considered in order to keep this forum "Catholic".
As far as I can see, John is the only man who is willing to make changes in this forum to defend the faith. So, exactly why won't the moderators do what needs to be done, as suggested by John? Are things in the making and we are not seeing what is going on behind the scenes?
.........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 28, 2004.
John,(1) You all encouraged me to begin posting again, without delay, even though that is impossible.
Considering that you've posted two lengthy posts on this thread alone, it's clearly NOT impossible for you to post here. You obviously aren't dead, your fingers aren't all broken, etc. You COULD post here, it's NOT impossible, but you CHOOSE not to. That being the case, there's no reason for wasting valuable electrons explaining why you aren't posting. Either post, or don't, but shut up about it. Take a tip from the commercial, and "Just do it".
Post or don't, as you please, but quit whining about it.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 28, 2004.
JmjWell, I see that it is useless to expect to receive e-mails from you guys, even though I asked for them! You choose to post to me here instead, even though I keep coming back only to look for a message from Paul H (whom I originally addressed).
Thanks very much, Rod. I appreciate your support and efforts on my behalf.
Frank, I feel very sorry for you. You have not increased even slightly in wisdom or common sense in the weeks/months since I last saw a post from you. Your message was 100% worthless, though I won't ask the moderator to delete it, since it does not violate objective standards!
Frank, you show your lack of "class" by attacking me even though I did not mention your name as the culprit in the forum's "period of gross anomaly in January to March of 2003." Now that you have ruined it for yourself by attacking me, though, newcomers should be informed of the fact that you were the first ever to impose an intolerable subjective standard of deletion. In fact, you imposed a three- month "reign of terror" that was even more draconian than that of the new moderator. For even one sentence that rubbed you the wrong way, you deleted not only the message that contained it, but ALL the messages posted by that person on the same day!
The forum lost at least four of its regulars because of this sheer madness -- though they returned when health problems caused you to surrender your powers to a different moderator, who restored the forum's objective deletion standards. (As they say, God can bring a good things [a revival of the forum] of out of a bad one [your illness].) I just hope that tragedy does not strike the new moderator, too, before he is able to discard his current, improper deletion practices. He is a far better man than you, overall -- a true pro-lifer, for example -- and I don't want him to get sick, as you did.
Frank, you need to try to use the brain God gave you for something other than harassing me. If you had put your thinking cap on, you (like Rod) would have understood the meaning of my use of the word "impossible." It should have been obvious that I didn't mean "physically impossible," but "morally impossible" -- i.e., unthinkable and imprudent, under the threat of deletion. You should have had enough smarts and guts to understand that I have every right to put forward my arguments (1) against subjective deletion standards and (2) in favor of banning trouble-makers (some of whom you repeatedly failed to ban in 2002 and early 2003) -- without your childishly referring to it as "whining."
God bless you, Rod, and all who approach the moderators publicly or privately to support either or both of my positions (on deletion standards and/or banning).
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@spamfreehotmail.com), April 29, 2004.
John..don't know if you remember me..but I sure remember you. Ordinarily, I don't get into posts which have anything to do with asking people to stay on a forum..for what it's worth though, it's my belief that you have so much to offer folks that I wish you'd change your mind and make the "impossible" possible. Have you considered that by having your heels so firmly implanted in the sand of principle that you might be leaving some folks in mud needlessly? (it's early in the morning and that's the best I could do..)..translation: your wisdom is needed..come save folks from my terrible analogies. God bless you John.
-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.
I support the current standards that the co-moderators are using and have enjoyed the forum much more since they have been in effect. I believe that the personal attacks, insults, name-calling, and the unkind and disrespectful manner that had been used by people posting (including some regular posters) are very much contrary to the kind of behavior that we should exhibit as Catholic Christians. God is Love and yes, sometimes love must be tough, but love ALWAYS wants what is best for the other person, and the behaviors listed above do NOT convey the Christian love that we are commanded to show. Jesus did show tough love, and he was stern with the Pharases, but He is God and has the right to judge! We are told to stop judging and you will not be judged. If anyone does not remember Jesus's words on love and judging, I urge you to go and read Luke 6:27-42.I have teenagers, and I KNOW that sometimes love must be tough. But love, while being tough, is never uncharitable. On the contrary, "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jelous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth." (I Cor. 13:4-7). I know these are words that are usually read at a wedding, but they apply to all love, not just married love.
The standards that the co-moderators have instituted are rightly in line with Christian principles, and if anyone disagrees they can post and risk having their posts deleted or they can comply -not with subjective standards- but with the standards that are a part of living as a Catholic Christian.
Having a lot of knowledge is a great thing. Lots of people can learn from it. But unless it is conveyed with love, then it is not wisdom; it is nothing. "If I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." (I Cor. 13:2).
To answer the original question of this thread, "Is Ed doing away with the "male opinion" in [the] forum?" I believe that the male opinion here is alive and well. I respect the male opinion that is NOT filled with insults, name-calling and uncharitable behavior, much more than one that is.
Thank you moderators!
-- ck_sunshine (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.
John,You used to post good things, now all you do is type out long rants of self-indulgent bilge. Give it, and us, a rest.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 29, 2004.
As one of John's 11 banable people, I have to add the following (which I even onc wrote to him privately into his e-mail):I don't engage new-Catholics (Leon,Gail,....as much...), never discuss marriage and divorce with those requesting that type of question.
I do engage only people with a good Catholic background on theological issues.
On Theology: divinity of Jesus, Mary,...only John Gecik (good feed back, and Eugene Chavez-he cares for my salvation mainly.
On Christian Trivia: Paul M, Paul H, Abraham (I stopped with him because I felt he wasn't stable enough), Frank, Marilu.
On dreams: Eugene Chavez ,Rod (sometimes Paul H), and David@excite.
I found discussions with John Gecik thought provoking. I realize he was becoming frustrated because he had failed to refute my arguments, contray to what Eugene has said. I call it a draw. more than 700 of his posts (10%) were directed at me.
A learned Catholic must always be able to engage others in what they believe.
I have never used obscene,hard, or any similar type of language with anyone in this forum.
I am a teacher of mathematics.
Not only that. I also completed degrees in math, Spanish literature, religous studies (with former Jesuits), economics, and Mexican American studies.
I also worked for the Catholic Church in many positions. The Church was good to me. What I believe now was the result of years studying the scriptures in Hebrew, Attic Gree, Koine Greek, and Western Aramaic.
Aramaic Examples: Gabra=man so Gabriel means man of God. Gabriel as a name appears only in the Aramaic work of Daniel before it appears in Luke ch 1. Matthew doesn't even mention it. Neither do John or Mark.
Though is true that Hebrew and Aramaic don't make a distiction between brothers (real) and cousins, we are always told who they are by context. Greek has a word for cousin. It is never used in the gospels or letters of Paul to refer to Jesus brothers.
Even though Satan now refers to the Evil one, originally it meant adversary or opponent. In Job, it is the accusing angel.
Gehenna (Gehinnom) = Valley of Sons of Hinnom is jsut a place south of Jerusalem. Yet, people identify it with a burning Hell.
I can go on... but I quit here now.
What I found made me understand God Yahweh's purpose better.
I can tell John has been reading whatever I have written of late. I only engage political posts now. I left after a while when John G. requested I leave in May 2003. I have almost quit posting here. I have been called all kinds of names.
Many of my posts have either been deleted because the moderator didn't like them, or because John G. told them to do it.
Yet, Frank, Paul M, or Ed never have ever received a complaint from me.
And no: I am not an Arrian. Arrians believed in the virgin birth. They believed that Jesus was in the beginning with God. Yet, there was a time he was not in the beginning.
I am a Christian Yahwist (A Pauline-Jamesian Ebionite Hybrid).
The Man of Yahweh.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 29, 2004.
Well Mr Gecik , I know you ignore me , but please , will you still explain to me your first reply from April 21 , 2004 in this thread , 'cause I really don't understand !!Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), April 30, 2004.
Elpidio, you said, “I have never used obscene, hard, or any similar type of language with anyone in this forum.”Your conduct here has been exemplary. You have indeed always been courteous and respectful of others. That is not the issue I have with you.
You said, “A learned Catholic must always be able to engage others in what they believe.” This is where you and I begin to part ways with respect to what this forum was created for and what it can do for Catholics and non-Catholics who visit here.
Elpidio, the purpose of this forum is NOT to engage in debate of the Catholic faith.
“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.” (from Rules of the Forum)
Elpidio, you say, “I do engage only people with a good Catholic background...” then I must caution you that “engagement” in debate of our Faith is not the purpose of this forum. This sort of participation is not in keeping with the rules of our Forum. Too often those who do not belong to the Catholic Faith, or disagree with elements of it, come to this forum with the “expressed” purpose of “engaging” regulars here in debate about our Faith. Everyone who visits here must be made to understand, we are not here to debate our Faith. We are here to answer any questions Catholics or non- Catholics might have about our Faith. In answering certain questions, undoubtedly more questions arise that need to be addressed and this is permissible in the interest of enlightenment. However, for someone to continue to argue against our beliefs or proselytize their own beliefs, or beliefs not held by the Catholic Church, weeks and months on end, is NOT permitted.
If someone is genuinely interested in “engaging” Catholics in debate about their faith then they should seek out apologetic sites that have been designed for that purpose. Recently I’ve had to ask a few individuals to leave the forum for this reason. They had their own personal agenda and did not come to the forum with the genuine interest of learning more about why Catholics believe what they do. They came with a mission to convert or change the minds of as many Catholics as they could. In the end, because their motives became all too obvious over time, they were asked to leave.
I ask all those who visit here to be respectful of our beliefs. We do not wish to “defend or debate” the tenets of our Faith. This forum was not designed for that. It was designed to explain why Catholics believe what they do. At the end of the day, if anyone does not agree with what we believe that is their prerogative, however, rather than stand and debate the issues we would prefer if they moved on and attempted to convey their convictions elsewhere, perhaps in a venue better-suited for that purpose.
There are a few individuals who are here at present that resist complying with our wishes and continue to debate and criticize our Faith. This has been going on for months now. Their good behavior is what has been preventing anyone from asking them to leave, but their incessant efforts to persuade Catholics to change their minds about certain Catholic beliefs is wearing our patience thin. They are slowly wearing their welcome out.
I would again implore everyone to read the “Rules of the Forum” to understand this is a Catholic site, not a Catholic apologetics site. There is a difference. Debate or engagement in the interest of informing others of our Faith is permitted however, continued debate, engagement or argument for the purposes of disproving what we believe in, is not. If someone doesn’t agree with what believe, so be it, but if, after a few weeks, an individual remains obstinate and adamant that what we believe is not in keeping with what he/she feels is the Truth, then we are not interested in continuing that debate. At this point, we would ask they please move on and allow us to continue to inform those who come here with the genuine interest of learning more about out Catholic Faith.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 30, 2004.
Laurent, if John will permit me to speak for him (boy, am I on thin ice here!), I think I can sum up what John is saying in two sentences.1. John has not been happy with the way I have been conducting myself as Moderator to the point he finds it impossible to continue posting to the forum.
2. Until such a time that he is assured that my efforts will change in this area more to his liking, he will not be posting to the forum.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 30, 2004.
Friends, I stopped back to say that ... if anyone has posted messages to me since my last message, I have not read them, and I won't read them. The tension and displeasure of it all is just too great for me to bear. I asked for e-mail messages -- particularly good news about changes needed in the forum. I'm just not willing to read anything else here, and I am not going to feel obliged to write anything more here. My beliefs ought to be very clear by now, so I don't want to repeat myself. JFG
-- (jfgecik@spamfreehotmail.com), April 30, 2004.
Hi, FrankWho were [you] refering to when you posted to John: " Give it, and [us] a break."
Who is the ["us"]? Because you arn't speaking for me,I want to see John post again in forum! I have learned a lot from John about Catholicism.
Please speak for yourself or explain yourself better?
May God grant you peace with yourself.
-- - (David@excite.com), April 30, 2004.
David,This has already been explained in my subsequent posts, but they were unfortunately deleted. Perhaps you can convince the moderator to restore them, then your question will be answered. I don't want to type it over again.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 01, 2004.
If the moderator has deleted the answers David seeks, then those answers violate this forum's rules and should not be posted again. Does that sound logical? So, David, you don't deserve a public answer to your questions. Is that the way things are? Never mind that question; the answers may very well get deleted anyway....along with this post. :)........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 01, 2004.
I've deleted two of Frank's posts and one of paul h. whose comment concerned them. The two posts included no information of appreciable value and served only to taunt a poster.My "subjective" standards can work both ways - both for and against those who consider them unfair.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 02, 2004.
Ed,I don't consider your standards unfair at all, btw. I know I wasn't adding anything of substance, but I WAS enjoying myself. Since the poster in question said they weren't going to READ the thread, although they were going to continue posting to it, it wouldn't be taunting them though, would it?
For example, if I was saying "hey batter, batter, batter" in Los Angeles to a Yankees game in New York, they couldn't accuse me of disrupting the batter -- he couldn't hear me. So it the delicate poster on THIS thread really isn't reading it like he claims, he couldn't be affected either, right? He'd have to READ the thread to really be taunted.
Oh, and I may not read any replies to this before posting again to this thread. There's some great reason for this, even if it escapes me at the moment.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 02, 2004.
Frank,You're so funny! LOL
I've not had such a laugh since a certain US President didn't have sex with THAT woman!
Don't quote me on that though...I don't want to read about it in one of those trashy tabloid newspapers that I never buy!
-- P.Seudonym (tongueincheek@laughing.com), May 02, 2004.
Frank, I know you were merely having fun, however, readers of the forum might perceive it as taunting and therefore, uncharitable as paul h. did; and I agree.
-- Ed (catholic4444@ahoo.ca), May 02, 2004.
" I have not had such a laugh since a certain U.S. president did not have sex with that other woman".Well than you need to get a life! :-) That has been over 5 years ago.
-- - (David@excite.com), May 02, 2004.