CNN reporter lies about Dimond brothers
#51
Update: that traditional Catholic DMV employee was forced to resigned
Reply
#52
(12-20-2010, 09:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:53 PM)Satori Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:35 PM)Satori Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:29 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The poll should have qualified votes. The vote of the older or more active fishies in tank (e.g., those who have more than 6,000 posts or who registred prior to 2007) should be worth at least the double.

:laughing:

This isn't a bad idea.  You know, if I hadn't deleted my old account (twice!) on the old forum, I think I'd be just about the top of the rankings.  So I should get EVEN MORE votes.

That's my situation as well. Our vote should be worth at least the triple if nothing at least because of our perseverance (born-died-reborn-died-reborn, etc.)

You get 2x what WRC does because I've been "mean" to you and you survived.  I suppose that means Iolanthe should get 3x because not only did she survive, she shoved it back down my throat...

She did? Such a fiery girl! If only she were rich...*sigh*

She's very pretty. Surely her beauty counts for something?

Don't be shallow, Satori. There's more to love than physical beauty.

Well, physical beauty does a better job of promoting the primary end of marriage than wealth does. You're more likely to have beautiful, healthy babies, too.

Wine does the trick if beauty fails but not if money fails.

This reminds me of my grandfather's famous advice: "Never marry for looks.  Looks fade.  Marry for cooking, because that lasts forever."
Reply
#53
(12-20-2010, 11:27 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 09:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:53 PM)Satori Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:35 PM)Satori Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:29 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 02:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The poll should have qualified votes. The vote of the older or more active fishies in tank (e.g., those who have more than 6,000 posts or who registred prior to 2007) should be worth at least the double.

:laughing:

This isn't a bad idea.  You know, if I hadn't deleted my old account (twice!) on the old forum, I think I'd be just about the top of the rankings.  So I should get EVEN MORE votes.

That's my situation as well. Our vote should be worth at least the triple if nothing at least because of our perseverance (born-died-reborn-died-reborn, etc.)

You get 2x what WRC does because I've been "mean" to you and you survived.  I suppose that means Iolanthe should get 3x because not only did she survive, she shoved it back down my throat...

She did? Such a fiery girl! If only she were rich...*sigh*

She's very pretty. Surely her beauty counts for something?

Don't be shallow, Satori. There's more to love than physical beauty.

Well, physical beauty does a better job of promoting the primary end of marriage than wealth does. You're more likely to have beautiful, healthy babies, too.

Wine does the trick if beauty fails but not if money fails.

This reminds me of my grandfather's famous advice: "Never marry for looks.  Looks fade.  Marry for cooking, because that lasts forever."

And that in turn reminds me of something my husband said after eating fried chicken cooked by a very fat woman: "She can look like a bus with a head if she cooks like that."
Reply
#54
(12-20-2010, 01:55 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I think you've spent some time here doing it, yes, but obviously not all of your time here is spent doing it. 

Remember this?

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33373261

"A Catholic Thinker" Wrote:I've "charged" people with sede vacantism who sound like sede vacantists.  I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Of course I remember it - what does it have to do with "trolling for" sedes or anything else?  That's an assumption of motivation and one that's rather insulting.  Rather than looking for SVs here it's been close to the opposite: I wouldn't have expected to find so many (and I'm talking only about those who have said directly that they're in that camp or at least one that puts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the pope) and have found it somewhat discouraging, if anything.  I haven't been posting here too long but what I came looking for was a "home" of like-minded traditional Catholics - by which I mean those who greatly prefer the Tridentine Rite Mass, have no use at all for the novelties of the post-conciliar environment, but do believe in the indefectibility of the Church in the sense that She is not officially teaching outright error and recognize the fact that along with the bad there are also many good, orthodox priests and bishops.  That is, either the common diocesan Latin Mass goer or even the common SSPXer.

It was only after reading the forum daily for some months that the picture of its "character" emerged, and that character is, I think, one that at least has a lot of sympathy for the SV position and other, frankly, "extreme" (for lack of a better word - I don't like it either) positions such as Feenyism or pseudo-Feenyism.  Now, if you disagree with that objective take that's quite fine but that is nothing other than the plain facts as I see them.  I could even be off-base on that but if I am it's an honest mistake and not due to some kind of malice or ill intent.


Quote:The worst was ies, though.  It was clear he suspected people of closet sedevacantism and demanded people prove their fidelity to him.  If and when he comes back, he'll have to knock that off if he wants to stay around.

Ockham is a close second to ies on demanding proof of fidelity, mainly lately, but more in general than specifically sedevacantism.  He'll have to knock it off soon, too.  I'm hoping he gets the hint from my sarcastic replies to him.

When you guys get the mitre, you can call people sedes, unCatholic, schismatic, etc., or demand proof of their fidelity, and then maybe you'll have some ground to stand on.  You're as bad as trads who say people who go to the NO are all "Modernists" or "not Catholic" because they might say JP2 was "sniffing the Koran" instead of kissing it to excuse his behavior.    That doesn't make the person a Modernist, just delusional.

What you are suggesting I've been doing here ("you guys") is quite false: never have I placed anyone in any camp outside of their wishes or insisted in any way whatsoever that they hold some belief that they say they don't.  If I've pointed out that a certain person has a sympathy for SVism it's because they've said so themselves - or, at worst, I thought they did.  Making me - someone who is, actually, a heck of a lot more measured in my posting than others that, unless I've missed it, escape this kind of moderator attention - out to be some kind of SV witch-hunter is really rather ridiculous.  I came here both to learn more about the faith and to help others or defend the faith as I'm able (as well as sometimes to just shoot the bull), not with any kind of agenda.

Speaking of ad hominem attacks, name-calling, etc., I have to wonder why I'm singled out while I've been called "modernist" and "neo-con" (both accusations quite ridiculous) too many times to count with no word from anyone of authority.  (Not that I'm pining for that: the couple times I have alerted moderators to something it's been out of concern for the forum looking like a Catholic version of Animal House rather than some plea for assistance because I can't take care of myself.)  Maybe you just missed those things - I doubt you're able to read every thread, after all.

One thing that's confusing me slightly is that you speak of sede vacantism as if it's something objectively and universally seen as a negative and which no person ascribes to publicly but obviously that's not the case.  Of course, all such people do also consider themselves good Catholics (and I think that is very understandable, and I would not argue with it).  Never once have I called anybody on this forum not Catholic.  Never have I, for example put the word "Catholic" in quotes when referring to someone here - as I've seen done to those who take what is seen as  "modernist" position - even when that position is actually fully orthodox.  Judging views and beliefs versus judging a person is perhaps the single most important distinction to keep clear in debate.

And so, calling a person not a Catholic is a completely different matter from pointing out a belief as such, which is an objective matter that generally can be verified as true or false.  I have said and will say again that denial of baptism of desire is an un-Catholic position (I am speaking to this topic because you've referred to it).  That's fact, as much as it's a fact to say that rejecting any other doctrine of the Church is, by definition, un-Catholic.  It's not an ad hominem attack, or insult, or anything of the sort.  The fact that this un-Catholic position apparently can't be plainly called out as such yet any of the un-Catholic positions fashionable with modernist heretics could be seems a double standard to me.  Again, perhaps my experience here is just not broad enough yet.


Quote:Don't feel special.  We used to have people who would troll for (among other things): Judiaizers, Marranos, Modernists, Zionists, Liberals, Racists, Schismatics, Nazis, etc.  I don't want trolling and accusations of this type from any side of the spectrum.

You still have people who troll for modernists, neo-cons, liberals, etc.  Or, if not troll for them, will jump on anyone who expresses a position that's something other than the extreme, non-Catholic position they hold to (such as that the Novus Ordo Mass is never valid, or Feenyism, or that there is any truth at all in other religions, etc.) with general condemnations and personal insults. 

A point that was made by Ies and I and ignored in that other thread you referenced had to do with the "character" I spoke of above.  Frankly, the people I know who are excellent traditional, orthodox Catholics, good family men who attend only the Latin Mass, find or would find some (or sometimes much) of what's posted here to be a big turn-off.  Some of it appeals mainly to the young, angry, single male trad crowd and that's about it.

Not that I'm saying you don't police the board at all - obviously you do.  And your actions in relation to these others things I've mentioned I never would have mentioned if I wasn't put on the defensive myself like this.  (It's good that as orthodox Catholics we can recognize censorship as the good and appropriate thing it is in certain contexts.  There is no intrinsic right to spread error!)

I'm honestly not sure if you've mischaracterized me by mistake or really have as low an opinion of my posts here as you seem to.  Rest assured if you make it clear you don't want me around I'll simply leave.

ACT (Too orthodox for Catholic Forums, to reasonable, perhaps, for Fish Eaters.)
Reply
#55
Hey, Thinker, do I sound like a sedevacantist?  Just curious.
Reply
#56
(12-21-2010, 12:27 AM)paragon Wrote: Hey, Thinker, do I sound like a sedevacantist?  Just curious.

Never got that from you.  Meaning, you've never pretty much come out and said it.  So how would I know. 

(I hope you're not just being a smart ass.  It's dangerous territory.)
Reply
#57
You said I sounded like a schismatic or heretic, so just wondering whether you thought that meant sedevacantist.

Not being a smart-alec.  I have nothing against you.  :)
Reply
#58
(12-21-2010, 12:37 AM)paragon Wrote: You said I sounded like a schismatic or heretic, so just wondering whether you thought that meant sedevacantist.

Not being a smart-alec.  I have nothing against you.   :)

And what was that in response to?
Reply
#59
Me bagging the SSPX, I'd imagine.
Reply
#60
ACT, If I didn't want you around, I'd ban you.  What I want is for people to stop putting people on trial looking for whiffs of heresy, schism, etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)