[ServusSpiritusSancti]

And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban.

Logical Flaw: You assume you have to write something worthy of a ban to be banned from FE.

That is true, stevus.  

[Dellery]

Vox Clamantis wrote on Dec. 30th 2012

"If he can't answer a question, based directly on what he says here, without its being called "sede-baiting," then it sounds as if what you're saying is that he's promoting sedevacantism here. And that's exactly the problem with some of the posters who've been banned: they've been promoting sedevacantism here even while denying it -- even while claiming not to be sedevacantists. People who used phrases like "the Conciliar Church" (instead of speaking, say, of the Church in the post-conciliar era, etc.) are, in fact, promoting sedevacantism, schism, or the idea that there is more than One universal Church".

 Her statements get more incoherent, and idiotic, as the weeks go by.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Archbishop Lefebvre would have been banned from that forum, then. He used the term "conciliar church" very often.

[Anthony Benedict]

And I also don't think I wrote anything on FE that was worthy of a ban.

Logical Flaw: You assume you have to write something worthy of a ban to be banned from FE.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

[Stubborn]

No worries Dellery, I can take care of this...............think this will be obvious enough?

Conciliar Church, where the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy."




Catholic Church, where the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ our Savior at Calvary is reenacted in an unbloody manner

[Dellery]

Archbishop Lefebvre would have been banned from that forum, then. He used the term "conciliar church" very often.

 That's right Spiritus. Think of how many Saints would have been banned from the Fisheaters forum, St. Jerome wouldn't have stood a chance. Our dear Lord possibly would've even received the same treatment after explaining the true nature of Marriage and adultery. To suggest that any holy person would accept the hidden conditions foist upon them ( i.e. acceptance of heresy in the name of Catholic orthodoxy, among other things), after they were deceptively conned into joining what they though was a Christian forum, is highly unlikely. To suggest they would heed or respect the evangelistic program of a public sinner is even more unlikely.
You bring up a good point, and a give us a good standard by which to judge these supposedly Catholic internet forums.

[Dellery]

More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:

Vox Clamantis said 1/30/13 [emphasis mine]

That about sums it up for me. Asking politely and even begging people to use prudence and behave charitably when writing about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs hasn't worked. So I add a filter so that 4 of the most common slurs used to refer to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are replaced by the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" and it's like the end of the world. If anyone thinks I like having to resort to such things, he'd be wrong. I loathe it. I am SICK of it. I am more sick, hovwever, of asking people to write as if they're aware that people are reading over our shoulders, to be aware that subject lines go on the front page and in RSS feeds that show up in a million places. But too many still insist on using words kindergartners use to insult each other. And on a traditional Catholic forum.

Unlesss GGreg was writing about a bundle of sticks or a hunk of dirt with grass growing on it, I don't know what he could have possibly posted to cause Rosarium to write, "This came to my attention when ggreg wrote something in response to me and a phrase which had a filtered word was changed to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without warning. i thought he wrote that and almost responded to it, but I refrained. What if I had responded? Why does the software create occasions of sin?" There are 4 words that are replaced with the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ," and none of them would be used anywhere 99.99999999999% of the time on a Catholic forum unless quoting someone who has no prudence or talking about that bundle of stick or hunk of dirt.

Some of the posts in this thread demonstrate the reason for such mommy measures. I am sick of some folks smearing the FAITH circuitously by bad example. I am sick of some people undoing the work of the main site by making traditional Catholicism look like a religion for raging, hateful, name-calling idiots.  I am sick of having to worry about ending up on some SPLC "hate group"  list because some people can't control their mouths. If those who can't resist calling ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs by slurs want to go to a FEMA camp, they can have at it, but I'm not going to let them drag me with them. They can order their FEMA camp tickets on their own sites. If I go to a FEMA camp, I want it to be for the cause of the Faith, not because some loose-lipped ranter on my forum just couldn't watch his mouth.  I am also sick of trying to attract advertisers so I can afford to feed my cat only to have the aforementioned imprudent types force me two steps backwards. The rules are clear. So four of the most common slurs are replaced by the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ." Big deal.  I also don't like it on principle, don't like the idea of changing the text of someone's post. In fact, I hate it. I hate having felt compelled to do it even more because knowing that I can't trust some people to not only obey the rules, but write such that people will not be turned away from Christ's Church disgusts me and makes me mad. But subject lines with offensive words in them are something up with which I will not put.

Having said that, I likely will undo that auto-replace and just ban people who break that rule because, as I said, I don't like it on principle. It bugs me, also.

But no, Rosarium, I won't stop re-typing subject lines that have been written in ALL CAPS. It's annoying, ugly, against the rules, and rude to type in ALL CAPS like that and I don't want that stuff on my front page and in RSS feeds. And doing so does nothing to any post's integrity.

It's been clear for a while that you don't like this place. You've been complaining about it pretty much non-stop for months. So I will undo the auto-replace of the four slurs that have you angered, thereby preserving the purity of whatever posts you have made that use those words, and I will delete your account, something I usually don't do (and the asking for which is also against the rules).

Nota bene:  to the small handful of folks who insist on using slurs to refer to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, thereby making the average person see traditional Catholics as nasty jerks, you risk a ban engaging in that sort of behavior. And before anyone goes on about "political correctness" yada yada yada, it isn't a matter of political correctness to ask for prudence and CHARITY. Anything that can be said -- and must be said -- about the radical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖist agenda can be said like a grown-up would say it. Nothing "politically correct" about saying, for ex., "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 'marriage' is against Church teaching and natural law" instead of "So-called 'marriage' between two fabulous, fudge-packing nancy boys is against Church teaching and natural law."  If you don't see the difference between political correctness and requesting prudence and charity, there's little hope for you, really, and I see such thought as the expression of those who want to rant more than communicate and teach and attract people to the Church. If you value ranting more than those things, there's litttle hope for you with that, either, though I suggest you go talk to a priest about it 'cause there's something really, really wrong there.

Vox Clamantis said 2/1/13 [emphasis mine]

The software has been reset so there are no autocorrects for that now, but the words were, I think: sod, fag, fαɢɢօt, and poofter. The autocorrect idea was implemented in a tiff after seeing yet another post with some slur or other, but I, like Rosarium, hate the idea of autocorrect that changes a word entirely rather than indicating a word (ex., using f*** for the F-word instead of changing the word to a different word entirely).

Whatever the case, I just wish people would seriously keep in mind that this place gets MILLIONS of pageviews a month -- and most aren't from members. People from all walks read this forum, some of them (most of them?) being folks who are interested in and investigating traditional Catholicism. The idea of having those folks turned off by imprudence scares the Hell out of me. Know that my hunch is that most of the few posters that do this sort of thing don't really intend any harm, are just (understandably) angry and are venting at the never-ending attacks on the traditional family, or are just joking around, trying to be funny or what not -- all fine and good at the right place and the right time. I have a gαy friend I've jokingly called a "crazy old fαɢɢօt," KWIM? But  it's one thing to use slang and even jokingly use slurs when you're hanging out with your pals over a few beers, or if you're posting at a different kind of site where souls aren't at stake, where what you post isn't seen as "what trads think" or indicative of "what trads are like."  I don't think anyone here is a hater of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs or anything (well, maybe one or two...) and I don't take the loose talk as proof of someone's being "a hater." But to not be careful at a site the purpose of which  is to bring folks around to seeing the "trad view" of things, to further the "cause" of Tradition, to bring souls to Christ, is just unnecessarily dangerous and, therefore, stupid. And frustrating for me.

She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.

P.S. I laughed at Rosarium's ban.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Rosarium was banned? For what? Being Traditional?

FE is a disgrace.

[Dellery]

Rosarium was banned? For what? Being Traditional?

FE is a disgrace.

Rosarium is a "conciliarist", or as most of us would say, modernist.
He was crazily talking about licensing his posts before she gave him the axe.

"But no, Rosarium, I won't stop re-typing subject lines that have been written in ALL CAPS. It's annoying, ugly, against the rules, and rude to type in ALL CAPS like that and I don't want that stuff on my front page and in RSS feeds. And doing so does nothing to any post's integrity.

It's been clear for a while that you don't like this place. You've been complaining about it pretty much non-stop for months. So I will undo the auto-replace of the four slurs that have you angered, thereby preserving the purity of whatever posts you have made that use those words, and I will delete your account, something I usually don't do (and the asking for which is also against the rules). "

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.

[Dellery]

Ah, sorry. I didn't know Rosarium was a conciliarist.

FWIW, modernists wouldn't be so successful if it was easy to immediately see their errors.

[Stubborn]

More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:

She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.

That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.

You are right too in saying it is a danger to the faith over there - especially for many sincere and those young people who are new to this conciliar mess.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

I just read that a stalwart Trad, College Catholic, was banned. He has started a new forum in response. Some of the fembots over at FE are none too happy that the URL was promoted.

I was on that forum for a little while, it's basically a FishEaters II.

They allow a Protestant to post a bunch of rubbish over there (in case you're wondering, yes, I am refering to VetusOrdo, the ex-Trad who used to post on FE). He was on some thread saying the woman can and should work outside the home if she wants and was suggesting the Church had "failed". I fired back, and then he hypocritically accused me of "heresy" (a Protestant accusing a Traditional Catholic of heresy, LOL). So as I defended myself and Church teaching, one of the four moderators there chimed in and told both of us to stop. I was angry that I was asked to "stop" defending Church teaching against this Protestant. I stood up to the mod and he responded with some smart-aleck remark.

Then Jaynek starts attacking me by criticizing me for "not showing respect for the moderators". Following the fight on that thread, College Catholic opened a subforum for complaining about the forum, and Jaynek started two threads there. In the first thread, she complained about people who "don't show respect for the forum's moderators" (obviously refering to me and a few others) and then started another thread complaining about the "personal attack" some users were launching at Vetus (again refering to me and a few others).

It gets worse. On the thread where I argued with Vetus, they were discussing whether or not the woman should get a degree, and they were nearly all for it. The feminism on that place is astonishing, no different from FE, really.

Not to mention that Erin is Nice is over there saying the man shouldn't be the head of the household.

Even FE didn't allow Vetus to spew heresy, but SD does. That place is hardly any better than FE, the only difference is Trads are not banned for no reason. Please stay away from that site.

[Spork]

JayneK is a sanctimonious pain in the behind. Is there a word that exists in the English lanugage that is of a higher degree to describe her, eh, sanctimony?
What I have noticed at FE and not at SD is the retention of some posters who are wickedly vile in there responses to those who call them out for being over zealous. I have alos seen blasphemy tolerated. Wicked place. Please pray for me bretheren, that I never go there again.

But I do enjoy SD. GMUA and a fews others make good posts with SSPX and types of news.

[Dellery]

More reasons why the Fisheaters forum is a danger to the Faith:

She's clearly "reconciled" Catholicism with the world, unfortunately, she prolifically enforces and spreads her disorientation with militant zeal.

That is the way it works when a forum wants it both ways, ie trad and socially acceptable. She wants FE to be a face book and a trad(?) forum - so she ends up with a forum over run by NOers who, just like the conciliar church, falsely label themselves as Traditional Catholics - not all of the posters there of course, but most of them.

You are right too in saying it is a danger to the faith over there - especially for many sincere and those young people who are new to this conciliar mess.

That's why I keep posting this FE crap on this forum. It's heartbreaking knowing those who are seeking out of the conciliar mess are being led right back into by a various pack of wolves. Fr. Z being another example of these disguised fiends.