Author Topic: FE Might Close - Or Jayne Might Become a Moderator There (Read 59472 times)

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #345 on:** October 26, 2013, 12:24:05 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Because allowing only anti SV posts is soooooo a debate.

If you step back, you will see that the debate is across the forums and across the internet.

2Vermont · « **Reply #346 on:** October 26, 2013, 12:30:11 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: 2Vermont
Because allowing only anti SV posts is soooooo a debate.

If you step back, you will see that the debate is across the forums and across the internet.

I understand your desire to keep snarky nasty gossipy ankle-biters off the forum. My suggestion then? Allow discussions of the schism of sedevacantism, so long as the discussions are against it. Do not allow pro-sedes to spread their pro-schismatic words. I mean, if being a sedevacantist is wrong, then surely it would not be wrong to ban pro-sede talk here and encourage anti-sede talk, would it? - Laramie Hirsch

There may be debate on the Internet, but that is not what you are advocating at FE.

::goes back to ignoring LH::

And Matthew, notice again a very clear judgment on LH's Part: "the schism of sedevacantism"; "pro-schismatic words"

Jaynek · « **Reply #347 on:** October 26, 2013, 12:48:11 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

And Matthew, notice again a very clear judgment on LH's Part: "the schism of sedevacantism"; "pro-schismatic words"

It isn't simply a judgment on SV as a theological position, there are negative assumptions about the character and behaviour of people who hold the position. I find that far more objectionable.

2Vermont · « **Reply #348 on:** October 26, 2013, 12:50:11 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

Quote from: 2Vermont

And Matthew, notice again a very clear judgment on LH's Part: "the schism of sedevacantism"; "pro-schismatic words"

It isn't simply a judgment on SV as a theological position, there are negative assumptions about the character and behaviour of people who hold the position. I find that far more objectionable.

Dogmatic sedevacantists are not allowed to spout that others are in schism or heretics, etc...they get banned here. Dogmatic sedeplenists should not be allowed to do the same.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #349 on:** October 26, 2013, 12:59:27 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Dogmatic sedevacantists are not allowed to spout that others are in schism or heretics, etc...they get banned here.

Lol! I've been called a schismatic all month! Not that I care.

It is no secret what I think, and it can be read in the Crisis subforu: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sedevacantism-is-schismatic

Two recommendations to you, 2Vermont.

1. Make your own blog if you don't feel like you're completely stating what you want here.

2. Click the red "HIDE" button if you are tired of listening to me.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #350 on:** October 26, 2013, 06:28:30 PM »

You're a funny guy, OHCA. Insightful, too. If we ever run into each other, drinks on me.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #351 on:** October 26, 2013, 10:06:50 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: 2Vermont
Because allowing only anti SV posts is soooooo a debate.

If you step back, you will see that the debate is across the forums and across the internet.

I understand your desire to keep snarky nasty gossipy ankle-biters . . . - Laramie Hirsch

"snarky nasty gossipy ankle-biters"

Sounds more like something a pillow-biter would say than an ankle-biter. Wasn't Hirsch speaking scoldingly of men being effeminate? Yet this gαy-speak is attributable to him...

Hirsch is simply a weasel. A weasel for wanting to gag sedes and bash them. A weasel for expressing something to the effect of being turned off by FE yet making his hare-brained forum rule-changing suggestion on FE. A weasel for his ass-kissing gαy-ass wording directed to Vox. A weasel for having a blog to talk about things that he knows as much about as a random homeless dude. I suggest he rename his blog from Hirsch Files to Rambling Amateur Musings of a German Jew.

Btw--I still laugh so hard that I fear hurting myself at the very thought of Hirsch having a blog.

Words from a holy man of God. :smile:

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #352 on:** October 27, 2013, 04:10:26 AM »

Okay. Back for a minute. So, we have this...

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: LaramieHirsch
Quote from: 2Vermont
Because allowing only anti SV posts is soooooo a debate.

If you step back, you will see that the debate is across the forums and across the internet.

I understand your desire to keep snarky nasty gossipy ankle-biters . . . - Laramie Hirsch

"snarky nasty gossipy ankle-biters"

Sounds more like something a pillow-biter would say than an ankle-biter. Wasn't Hirsch speaking scoldingly of men being effeminate? Yet this gαy-speak is attributable to him...

Hirsch is simply a weasel. A weasel for wanting to gag sedes and bash them. A weasel for expressing something to the effect of being turned off by FE yet making his hare-brained forum rule-changing suggestion on FE. A weasel for his ass-kissing gαy-ass wording directed to Vox. A weasel for having a blog to talk about things that he knows as much about as a random homeless dude. I suggest he rename his blog from Hirsch Files to Rambling Amateur Musings of a German Jew.

Btw--I still laugh so hard that I fear hurting myself at the very thought of Hirsch having a blog.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

You're a funny guy, OHCA. Insightful, too. If we ever run into each other, drinks on me.

Need I really say anything? I mean...calumny. Just observe it here. From the minds and through the fingertips and onto the keyboards of two sedevacantists. It's no wonder everyone avoids bothering with this tiny ignorable and insulting minority.

At this point, any kind of direct communication with OHCA and Mithry-the-Church-is-a-whore-land is impossible and useless. I am glad that my inquiries into sedevacantism have drawn them out, that they have exposed their nature for all to see. Of course, folks already knew they were rather unlikeable and nasty people, terrible examples of Catholics, and viciously blind to what others see in them. (Mith's banning from SD can be cited on that one.) But the last month has really put it on the table. I've enjoyed it.

In fact, perhaps the last month has been more about the character of sedevacantists, rather than their arguments.

Quote

I still laugh so hard that I fear hurting myself at the very thought of Hirsch having a blog.

:stare:

I also have the ability to text people.

Will the technological wonders of the 21st Century never cease?

2Vermont · « **Reply #353 on:** October 27, 2013, 07:39:50 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Anyway, wonder what provokes sedes to be such assholes? Could it be calling sedes schismatics? I even saw one empty-headed post by another genius on FE last night asserting that sedes are protestant. There is a general undertone by many who are not sede that sedes are simply wacky conspiracy theorists.

Truth. And what else is truth is I could have written so many of those same ignorant (and yes, hateful) posts at one time. Unfortunately, when you actually take the time to learn about the position and remove the bias from your heart, you actually start to see what it's really about. I've said it before: when I watch the debates here between sedeplenism and sedevacantism, SV seems to persuade me the most.

I think anyone who leans SV or is SV needs to work harder at not reacting to the SV hate (or ignore it completely when it's downright harassment). It is hard not to respond with personal, sarcastic attacks because the anti-SV folks really are just making personal attacks also. They just think they are justified in doing so. And to be fair, I think it happens because they just can't understand why anyone could possibly question the validity of a pope. I mean, he's the POPE! They think they are defending attacks against the POPE! Like I said, been there done that.

Jaynek · « **Reply #354 on:** October 27, 2013, 07:48:06 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

In fact, perhaps the last month has been more about the character of sedevacantists, rather than their arguments.

That is ridiculous. Sedevacantists don't all have the same character. Some are very knowledgeable and/or polite. Others are less so.

Drawing attention to the flaws of certain individuals, tells us nothing about the behaviour of SVs as a whole and even less about the truth of their position.

OHCA · « **Reply #355 on:** October 27, 2013, 10:09:39 AM »

Jayne just earned what is as best I can remember her first up-thumb from me.

OHCA · « **Reply #356 on:** October 27, 2013, 10:20:39 AM »

2Vermont,
I too was not initially accepting of the sede position. I don't remember venomously lashing out as I would characterize what Hirsch does and some at FE. But Myrna and Emerentia straightened me out with some of my questions that that in hindsight may have been somewhat lacking in politeness.

Btw-- where is Myrna?

2Vermont · « **Reply #357 on:** October 27, 2013, 12:30:41 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

2Vermont,
I too was not initially accepting of the sede position. I don't remember venomously lashing out as I would characterize what Hirsch does and some at FE. But Myrna and Emerentia straightened me out with some of my questions that that in hindsight may have been somewhat lacking in politeness.

Btw-- where is Myrna?

I don't think I was ever nasty towards sedevacantism (except in my reaction to the Dimond Brothers). However, I definitely thought it was a cult, crazy, home for conspiracy theorists, much like Protestantism, you name it I thought it or said it. But that was months before I joined CathInfo.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #358 on:** October 27, 2013, 02:46:20 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I don't think I was ever nasty towards sedevacantism.

I wouldn't say I've been nasty about sedevacantism. Only stridently, objectively, and vocally opposed to it.

Mabel · « **Reply #359 on:** October 27, 2013, 02:49:53 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: 2Vermont

I don't think I was ever nasty towards sedevacantism.

I wouldn't say I've been nasty about sedevacantism. Only stridently, objectively, and vocally opposed to it.

You have not been objective.