Author Topic: Traditional Catholic Chat Boards (Read 8863 times)

Ancilla_Indigna · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2007, 12:38:38 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

Well, you can't really tell anymore -- since the moderator titles are gone. (Or can you look up the moderators some other way?)

What % of moderators are women? It would be interesting at least to know.

What difference it makes is another topic, but it obviously must make a difference of SOME kind, since men and women ARE DIFFERENT...

Matthew

Yes, I think it was easy to assume that the main moderators were women, with Vox being the alpha-female, and the others just sounding off from Vox's leadership, just as one can assume that most feminists are women.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2007, 12:45:06 PM »

Quote from: Ancilla_Indigna

Quote from: ChantCd
Well, you can't really tell anymore -- since the moderator titles are gone. (Or can you look up the moderators some other way?)

What % of moderators are women? It would be interesting at least to know.

What difference it makes is another topic, but it obviously must make a difference of SOME kind, since men and women ARE DIFFERENT...

Matthew

Yes, I think it was easy to assume that the main moderators were women, with Vox being the alpha-female, and the others just sounding off from Vox's leadership, just as one can assume that most feminists are women.

This is detraction of the worst sort. How do you know the main moderators are women? In fact, half of the moderators are men. I'm sorry, but if this is how charity is exhibited, I want no part of it.

clare · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2007, 02:01:18 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

In fact, half of the moderators are men.

Incidentally, now the moderators are "declared" beside each posting, under the avatar.

Clare.

Vandaler · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2007, 05:59:13 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Even Vandaler acted the gentleman here, to my surprise.

I just noticed this bit. I suppose this is as close a compliment I will get so I'll cash it.

Matthew · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2007, 10:01:05 PM »

Just to clarify -- at the time of this original discussion, there were only 6 moderators (whose genders are public knowledge):

Gender   Posts   % of mod posts
------------------------------------
female   6093   37%
female   3003   18%
female   1541   9%
female   2923   18%
male   1102   7%
male   2005   12%

So not only were there 4 females and 2 males, the females were more visible in everyday life. For every post by a male moderator, there were 4 posts by a female one.

That is what some of us were talking about.

At any rate, it was many weeks ago, and I have moved on.

I hope everyone else here will follow my lead.

Matthew

clare · « **Reply #35 on:** February 25, 2007, 06:14:02 AM »

Quote from: ChantCd

For every post by a male moderator, there were 4 posts by a female one.

Perhaps the men are too busy being bread winners to post as much as the women!

:roll-laugh1:

Sorry. Yes, moving on! All for it!

Clare.

veribus · « **Reply #36 on:** March 20, 2007, 10:52:51 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

Welcome, welcome, Veribus. I think you have found the site. I don't go site hopping, so I don't know about others, but I left FE for what I felt was good reason. In fact, basically the same reason you complain about.

We're in a tough time and there can be no tolerance for heresy. When something is only the slightest bit heretical it's harder to recognize than outright apostasy. But my rule is that any Catholic discussion site, group, or conference that does not allow discussion of all matters of the Faith, that makes certain topics relating to Apologetics off-liimits, is to be avoided -- and publicly absconded.

What progress has been made in 40 years of "traditional" action?

Anyone who identifies with what's called the "traditional" Catholic movement would certainly not confuse the more blatantly heretical aspects of the Novus Ordo religion with Catholicism, but to me the greater enemy and more wicked evil are the publications and sites and groups that put on a veneer of traditionalism while carefully rejecting certain aspects of the Faith.

(I'm not even saying that you even have to reject the Novus Ordo Church leadership to be Catholic, per se, but if a group forbids polite, civil discourse on that matter, and the group states that acceptance of clergy ordained in the New Rite is unquestioned and axiomatic, then at that point I'd have to say that this group is either (a) wickedly and deviously anti-Catholic, or (b) ignorant and seriously uncharitable. A layman's beliefs is one thing, but when a layman decides to open a public Internet forum, he takes on further responsibilities. Angelqueen and Fisheaters are clearly part of the SSPX/Novus Ordo sect and I publicly renounce their uncharitable actions.)

By the way, besides this board and the others already listed in this thread, the Catholic Men's League is a very good and recommended board:

http://www.catholicmensleague.com/

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #37 on:** March 20, 2007, 11:19:07 AM »

I quite disagree with you on the point of Fisheaters. Vox has made shown her reasons why she doesn't want any discussion of sedevacantism. And I definitely disagree with you that she is part of the "SSPX/Novus Ordo sect", whatever that is. I think it is your tone that is uncharitable.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #38 on:** March 20, 2007, 01:47:13 PM »

I agree, QVP, that I know of no forum that I would call part of an "SSPX/NO sect" as I too have no idea what that could be exactly, but I've seen very little wrong with Veribus' tone so far. He's certainly expressed some strong opinions as well as a few unproven accusations, but he's barely posted enough to develop much of an uncharitable tone.

One point he's arguing is to be called Catholic, a board must allow all aspects of Catholic discussion. I don't agree with this as there is certainly room on the Internet for specialized forums that could still be considered Catholic as long as they don't outright reject certain aspects of the Faith. To not allow discussion of sedevacantism is fine in my opinion; whereas, to state definitively that it is or is not Catholic is another matter entirely.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #39 on:** March 20, 2007, 02:15:23 PM »

Still, veribus seems to insinuate that Vox deliberately had her forum as non-sedevacantist, when he doesn't know the whole story. She had intended it as "pan-traditional" but found that it didn't work out at all; so she was forced to change it. You can see her reasons on her website section "Newest Stuff".

MaterDominici · « **Reply #40 on:** March 20, 2007, 02:39:49 PM »

I was around FE at the time this became policy, and honestly didn't give it much attention. But, reading this now certainly does not increase my opinions of Vox's policies:

Quote from: Fisheaters: What's New?

I am restricting the discussion forum to non-sedevacantist Catholics (and, as always, to any guest who respects such Catholics' sensibilities, speaks of the Holy Father with respect, and obeys the rules of the forum). I'd wanted the forum to be "pan-trad" but am finding that initial premises are too far-reaching in discussions among sedes and non-sedes, and that non-sedes tend to be put on the defense too often, leading to too many conversations about those premises, and too few conversations about actually living the Faith. I was also discouraged by some slurs and little snide remarks against the Holy Father. Though these were kept, in accordance to the rules, in the forum made for "sede vs. non-sede" debate, I simply don't want to provide a place, on my dime, for comments such as these that would flow naturally from sedevacantist premises. Respectful critism of papal actions is sometimes not only warranted, but necessary; disrespect, never giving the benefit of the doubt, and an apparent desire to find problems aren't -- but those who don't believe Benedict XVI is the Pope at all have no motivation to afford him that much.

Are we children? She says someone believing the sedevacantist position is not capable of conversing with other Catholics without engaging in sedevacantist arguments. But, the non-Catholic who can obey the rules is welcome. Why is it the individual and not the topic which is banned? I have to agree with Veribus on this one--a site which calls itself Catholic and yet forbids certain groups of Catholics from participating is hardly what it claims to be.

CampeadorShin · « **Reply #41 on:** March 20, 2007, 02:58:58 PM »

Perhaps the term "Indult/novus ordo" would fit better veribus?

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #42 on:** March 20, 2007, 03:12:13 PM »

Think what you will: Vox felt that respect to Benedict XVI wasn't shown to him by quite a few sedes in that particular subforum. I know a few exceptions, like gladius, but as I said, only exceptions.

Carolus Magnus · « **Reply #43 on:** March 20, 2007, 04:09:22 PM »

Quote from: veribus

Quote from: Trinity
Welcome, welcome, Veribus. I think you have found the site. I don't go site hopping, so I don't know about others, but I left FE for what I felt was good reason. In fact, basically the same reason you complain about.

We're in a tough time and there can be no tolerance for heresy. When something is only the slightest bit heretical it's harder to recognize than outright apostasy. But my rule is that any Catholic discussion site, group, or conference that does not allow discussion of all matters of the Faith, that makes certain topics relating to Apologetics off-liimits, is to be avoided -- and publicly absconded.

What progress has been made in 40 years of "traditional" action?

Anyone who identifies with what's called the "traditional" Catholic movement would certainly not confuse the more blatantly heretical aspects of the Novus Ordo religion with Catholicism, but to me the greater enemy and more wicked evil are the publications and sites and groups that put on a veneer of traditionalism while carefully rejecting certain aspects of the Faith.

(I'm not even saying that you even have to reject the Novus Ordo Church leadership to be Catholic, per se, but if a group forbids polite, civil discourse on that matter, and the group states that acceptance of clergy ordained in the New Rite is unquestioned and axiomatic, then at that point I'd have to say that this group is either (a) wickedly and deviously anti-Catholic, or (b) ignorant and seriously uncharitable. A layman's beliefs is one thing, but when a layman decides to open a public Internet forum, he takes on further responsibilities. Angelqueen and Fisheaters are clearly part of the SSPX/Novus Ordo sect and I publicly renounce their uncharitable actions.)

By the way, besides this board and the others already listed in this thread, the Catholic Men's League is a very good and recommended board:

http://www.catholicmensleague.com/

So let me get this right the only true Catholic organisations and only true priests are those who hold the Sedevacantist point of view, is that what your saying or am I reading you wrong?

Daniel · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2007, 04:56:22 AM »

Quote

By the way, besides this board and the others already listed in this thread, the Catholic Men's League is a very good and recommended board:

This site is good for it's links and that is about it. Don't bother posting anything that does not directly and absolutely conform with the sede vacantist views of its owner. Your post willlast about 5 minutes if you are lucky. No discussion allowed, unless it is to agree with old mate about everything.