FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? (/showthread.php?tid=52878)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - VoxClamantis - 02-01-2012

I've not kept up with that blog, but maybe they don't want their name(s) dragged through the mud because of nasty commenters. That absolutely happens -- commenters' posts get lumped in with "what Rorate Coeli" thinks. And if they're taking ads, stuff like that not only hurts emotionally, but financially. If all they're asking for is basic civility, then I don't see how anyone can argue with it (well, with a good argument). My guess, too, is that people who cry the loudest about such a thing are folks who've never run their own blog and been dissed, had their work dismissed, etc. because of what someone else does.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - TrentCath - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 02:44 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I've not kept up with that blog, but maybe they don't want their name(s) dragged through the mud because of nasty commenters. That absolutely happens -- commenters' posts get lumped in with "what Rorate Coeli" thinks. And if they're taking ads, stuff like that not only hurts emotionally, but financially. If all they're asking for is basic civility, then I don't see how anyone can argue with it (well, with a good argument). My guess, too, is that people who cry the loudest about such a thing are folks who've never run their own blog and been dissed, had their work dismissed, etc. because of what someone else does.

Again fair enough but:
a)Its nowhere as bad as you what happens on here, and
b)Their blog is aimed at those sorts of people vis a vis the news and commentary they provide


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - OldMan - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 02:44 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I've not kept up with that blog, but maybe they don't want their name(s) dragged through the mud because of nasty commenters. That absolutely happens -- commenters' posts get lumped in with "what Rorate Coeli" thinks. And if they're taking ads, stuff like that not only hurts emotionally, but financially. If all they're asking for is basic civility, then I don't see how anyone can argue with it (well, with a good argument). My guess, too, is that people who cry the loudest about such a thing are folks who've never run their own blog and been dissed, had their work dismissed, etc. because of what someone else does.

Again fair enough but:
a)Its nowhere as bad as you what happens on here, and
b)Their blog is aimed at those sorts of people vis a vis the news and commentary they provide

Rorate can make its own rules and actually it is quite informative on many issues.

Personally, I just don't see the level of harshness now supposedly being suppressed. The threads themselves are screened, so I wonder just whose fault it is if "mean" or "nasty" posts show up. I'm all for banning personal attacks and gossip, but my experience when visiting RC has been that anything that is  remotely critical of any of the conciliar popes is not posted. Some things are black and white folks and not always grey.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Mithrandylan - 02-01-2012

Ok, I understand now.  Rorate banned Jackson's IP address. 



Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - TrentCath - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 03:12 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 02:44 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I've not kept up with that blog, but maybe they don't want their name(s) dragged through the mud because of nasty commenters. That absolutely happens -- commenters' posts get lumped in with "what Rorate Coeli" thinks. And if they're taking ads, stuff like that not only hurts emotionally, but financially. If all they're asking for is basic civility, then I don't see how anyone can argue with it (well, with a good argument). My guess, too, is that people who cry the loudest about such a thing are folks who've never run their own blog and been dissed, had their work dismissed, etc. because of what someone else does.

Again fair enough but:
a)Its nowhere as bad as you what happens on here, and
b)Their blog is aimed at those sorts of people vis a vis the news and commentary they provide

Rorate can make its own rules and actually it is quite informative on many issues.

Personally, I just don't see the level of harshness now supposedly being suppressed. The threads themselves are screened, so I wonder just whose fault it is if "mean" or "nasty" posts show up. I'm all for banning personal attacks and gossip, but my experience when visiting RC has been that anything that is  remotely critical of any of the conciliar popes is not posted. Some things are black and white folks and not always grey.

Indeed, I am sorry to say it appears to be a front for pushing their own agenda. Which of course is fine it is their blog after all, but it is also disappointing, I suspect one of the contributors was removed or left or something, I guess we'll wait and see.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Lavalliere - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 11:35 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 10:59 AM)maldon Wrote: They have asked people to tone down the nastiness in the comments. They expect people to speak as responsibel adults should to others. Hardly an earthquake. It is an excellent site.

Not the whole story i'm afraid, the comments they insist are 'nasty' that is the ones they block are simply those which express opinions more akin to that of the SSPX then the FSSP and are often nothing more than the truth. The site appears to be becoming a lot like Fr Z's where most comments that don't agree with his particular 'agenda' get blocked, I know both of these things from personal experience and the experience of others. Crticisms of the holy fathers, defecnes of the position of the society etc... all done reasonably are now getting blocked, the 'nastiness' was much exaggerated and often came from those who wanted to bash the SSPX as much as those who supported it.

I agree.  I noticed a while back that the place was changing. 



Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Lavalliere - 02-01-2012

One more thing.

Traditionals do not hold the market on "nasty".  The nastiest Catholics I ever encountered on the internet is on a forum that is anything but traditional.




Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Scriptorium - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 01:26 PM)TrentCath Wrote: This would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that the posts Rorate make support said agenda and attract said types of people therefore they are somewhat shooting themselves in the foot.

And as for armchair theologians, I suspect most theologians spend a lot of their time in their armchairs  :LOL: But seriously it is more than a little presumptuous of you to disregard all such comments as from 'armchair theologians' and more than a little ignorant to be honest.

They don't all have to be that way. I'm not trying to broadbrush it. And I bet that the substantive comments are from the non-armchair group. I don't presume much. I have waded through tradition for over ten years now, and add many more years of experience from the counsel of long-time trads -- we are way heavy in the armchair group who don't mind swaggering around virtual and/or other venues. The leading lights of tradition don't spend much time in the comments section of blogs. That's why I said, make a blog. The leading lights who have something substantive to contribute make it know through a work of their own, be it blog, book, speaking, etc. I would imagine there is plenty of room to discuss on RC. I don't participate on RC, nor do I know the latest goings-on, but I can read in their comments post that they are tired of whom I precisely am describing -- the swaggering armchair theologian -- whomever they may be. Extra me nullus salus est type. These are precisely the worst people to handle evangelization, whether it is to Catholcism itself, or adhering to tradition. I can see wisdom in the diplomatic decision to shut them up. There is the truth dlivered well, and the truth delivered badly. RC says quite clearly the want to improve and even the tone in consideration of the non-traditional Mass attendees. Tradition is self-sufficient, because it is on the right side, but if people are repulsed by the message, then there is something wrong. It may be that they are wrong, but it is right to look at what we do too. I really doubt the truth is being stifled over there.

(02-01-2012, 02:59 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Again fair enough but:
a)Its nowhere as bad as you what happens on here, and
b)Their blog is aimed at those sorts of people vis a vis the news and commentary they provide

But they said "... that a very large proportion of our readers do not attent the Traditional Mass regularly." I would hope their blog wasn't simply aimed for the choir.

(02-01-2012, 03:18 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-01-2012, 03:12 PM)OldMan Wrote: I'm all for banning personal attacks and gossip, but my experience when visiting RC has been that anything that is remotely critical of any of the conciliar popes is not posted. Some things are black and white folks and not always grey.

Indeed, I am sorry to say it appears to be a front for pushing their own agenda. Which of course is fine it is their blog after all, but it is also disappointing, I suspect one of the contributors was removed or left or something, I guess we'll wait and see.

Who isn't pushing agendas? A blog screams agenda by its nature. Sometimes a corrective in the traditional community is necessary. The Pope bashing is pretty strong these days. Even if they were the worst Popes ever, no one would look at the bashing and conclude that these were disciples of Christ. There very little savor in some these types of posts of being on the Pope's side. A one tune band gets boring after a while.

(02-01-2012, 03:36 PM)Lavalliere Wrote: One more thing.
Traditionals do not hold the market on "nasty".  The nastiest Catholics I ever encountered on the internet is on a forum that is anything but traditional.

Sure. The best way to make the distinction, is to actual make it.


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - Mithrandylan - 02-01-2012

Great post, Script. 


Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - TrentCath - 02-01-2012

(02-01-2012, 03:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: They don't all have to be that way. I'm not trying to broadbrush it. And I bet that the substantive comments are from the non-armchair group. I don't presume much. I have waded through tradition for over ten years now, and add many more years of experience from the counsel of long-time trads -- we are way heavy in the armchair group who don't mind swaggering around virtual and/or other venues. The leading lights of tradition don't spend much time in the comments section of blogs. That's why I said, make a blog. The leading lights who have something substantive to contribute make it know through a work of their own, be it blog, book, speaking, etc. I would imagine there is plenty of room to discuss on RC. I don't participate on RC, nor do I know the latest goings-on, but I can read in their comments post that they are tired of whom I precisely am describing -- the swaggering armchair theologian -- whomever they may be. Extra me nullus salus est type. These are precisely the worst people to handle evangelization, whether it is to Catholcism itself, or adhering to tradition. I can see wisdom in the diplomatic decision to shut them up. There is the truth dlivered well, and the truth delivered badly. RC says quite clearly the want to improve and even the tone in consideration of the non-traditional Mass attendees. Tradition is self-sufficient, because it is on the right side, but if people are repulsed by the message, then there is something wrong. It may be that they are wrong, but it is right to look at what we do too. I really doubt the truth is being stifled over there.

Right so unless you're a leading light go away? I don't think so and the only reason anyone would be offended is if they were completely and I mean completely and totally new to the traditionalist movement in which case they could just ignore the comments section like many people do. Also to put it bluntly if you don't really read RC or participate you should perhaps take the word of those who do and are saying that this about more than just 'nasty comments'
(02-01-2012, 03:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: But they said "... that a very large proportion of our readers do not attent the Traditional Mass regularly." I would hope their blog wasn't simply aimed for the choir.

And yet no one has seen those poll results  :P But really you hardly change another site because some people don't like it, those who you are not even aiming the site at.
[/quote]
(02-01-2012, 03:47 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Who isn't pushing agendas? A blog screams agenda by its nature. Sometimes a corrective in the traditional community is necessary. The Pope bashing is pretty strong these days. Even if they were the worst Popes ever, no one would look at the bashing and conclude that these were disciples of Christ. There very little savor in some these types of posts of being on the Pope's side. A one tune band gets boring after a while.
Again you did not read what I said, I didn't say it was a bad thing, I said it was a shame they had decided to completely change their agenda and audience. As for Pope bashing perhaps if the popes didn't do such outrageous actions people wouldn't have to criticise them for it?