Author Topic: Habitual Ritual Message for my fisheater freinds. (Read 30336 times)

Jaynek · « **Reply #120 on:** October 02, 2012, 09:40:43 PM »

Quote from: Kaesekopf

I meant to say this earlier, but far as I can tell, JayneK has a lot more troubling about her than her Jєωιѕн past.

Exactly. It seems to me that my views on Jєωιѕн issues are within the normal range held here. I have other opinions that are much more controversial. For example, I am an "accordista". But I am not here to get into controversies. I think of Fish Eaters as my home forum where I can get into heated debates, but CathInfo is a forum where I am a guest and have to behave myself. There are some areas where I fit in better here than FE, like my views on modesty or television, so I focus on these. I didn't come here to fight with people.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #121 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

I guess FE could always shrug their shoulders and say "Hey, at least we're not Catholic Answers."

CAF is at least honest. They are Neo-Caths and make no apologies for it. FE is infested with Neo-Caths who claim to be Traditionalists. Much more dangerous.

Kaesekopf · « **Reply #122 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:04:58 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
I guess FE could always shrug their shoulders and say "Hey, at least we're not Catholic Answers."

CAF is at least honest. They are Neo-Caths and make no apologies for it. FE is infested with Neo-Caths who claim to be Traditionalists. Much more dangerous.

And yet it seems like so many posters from CathInfo regularly read and keep tabs on the goings-on at FishEaters....

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #123 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:06:54 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I remember when FE had a link attached to the word "modernism" every time that particular word was posted - not that that was worth much, but the effort to dissuade from posting anti-trad postings was at least noticeable

This reminds me of a funny story. One of the mods tried to call me out for using the word "modernist" to describe the views of a bishop. I then pointed out exactly how what the bishop supported was indeed textbook modernism and backed it up. No response.

I suppose some Traditionalists use the term "modernist" indiscriminately. On the flip side, reactionary Neo-Trads Neo-Caths automatically dismiss all claims of modernism as overreactions.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #124 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:10:48 PM »

Quote from: Kaesekopf

And yet it seems like so many posters from CathInfo regularly read and keep tabs on the goings-on at FishEaters....

If so, I think this is a good thing. Cath Info serves as the only direct counterbalance and remedy to FE ideas on the internet. A lot of the viewpoints on FE need to be publicly responded to and corrected. CI serves that role very well.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #125 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:28:32 PM »

FE seems to be a halfway house for Neo-Caths curious about Tradition.
My theory is that it is a transitory site, but not a destination site, at least for the theologically serious. The only posters who seem to stay there long term are posters who are attached to the social aspect of the site or personalities and non-theological subjects. The rest do one of two things:

1.) Eventually grow "scandalized" by the minority Traditional posters speaking the Truth about BXVI and VCII regime and/or grow scandalized by the juvenile posts and backbiting and go back to CAF, dismissing Tradition altogether.

2.) Start to see the wisdom of the minority Traditional posters and eventually reject Neo-Catholicism, at which point they typically get piled on by the cheerleaders at FE and eventually banned. Otherwise these posters move on to CI or other Traditional sites where they can explore their Traditional Faith and the Traditional view of the crisis without the FE gestapo stifling all conversation from leading to fruitful results.

Unfortunately the Traditional minority there has been becoming more and more of a minority. Most of these posters days are numbered and eventually end up here. See Matthew, Caminus, Tele, Alaric, etc. and we are glad to have them. Keep it up FE. We will take all of the true Traditionalists you give us. :cheers:

guitarplucker · « **Reply #126 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:37:19 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

The earlier posts do not represent my current views because I change my mind during the discussion.

If you're sincere and accept the statement "Jews are enemies of Catholics" then I think you should reevaluate your membership to Fisheaters. You have the excuse of naivete. What's VoxC's excuse?

See this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.90.html

Or the excuse of the majority of Fisheaters on that thread who joined in attacking Barbara K. (including CollegeCatholic/Kaesekopf, who offered no support to Barbara K., but just jumped in to leave stupid hipster replies).

Vox C. posted, "Barbara K was banned for anti-semitism and saying false things about Church teachings with regard to the Jєωιѕн people."

Several members asked Vox C. to point to something specific Barbara K. posted that warranted the banning. VoxC. offered no response. It's obvious that she had no evidence to make that charge, which is why she went AWOL. You didn't protest Barbara K's banning because, at the time, you believed the statement that Jews are enemies of Catholics was against Church teaching.

Your bone of contention with Barbara K. no longer exists, because you now accept that Jews are enemies of Catholics.

You owe it to yourself to break free from Fisheaters. Vox C. (and those other members who sided with her decision) has led you astray from the teachings of the Church.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #127 on:** October 02, 2012, 11:52:15 PM »

guitarplucker,

The problem is that you took the reason for Barbara's banning seriously. The reason may as well have been that Barbara K. doesn't like jelly donuts.

The irony of FE is that they spent time writing an elaborate and intricate set of forum rules. Thus posters think they have an implicit contract where if they keep up their end and don't violate a rule, the mods will keep up their end and not ban them. In the end it is all an elaborate ruse. If one day the FE mod wakes up and hasn't had their coffee and you use a preposition improperly you may find yourself perma-banned.

Even though many of the mods at AQ were hot tempered dictators, at least they advertised the fact they were on their forum and stated posters could be banned for whatever reason the mods wanted or no reason at all. A crappy way to run a forum as it leads to a bunch of sycophants praising the mods with no real discussion. However at least the AQ dictators didn't go through the trouble of creating a labyrinth of "forum rules" to make posters think there is some sort of due process in their completely arbitrary "banning" system.

The FE "forum rules" are actually pretty humorous if you read them with this in mind. It's like a bill of rights for citizens in Communist Russia. Completely for show.

Virgil the Roman · « **Reply #128 on:** October 03, 2012, 01:19:44 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I wouldn't disagree with many of the bans that have happened, and know little about all of them. I'll certainly miss HR. On CI people get banned because of the opinions they have, not because of how they express them. Those are two completely different methods of management. On the one hand, I think there is more of the vocal NO variety on FE because FE users are not allowed to insult and cast stones the same way that CI users are. Matthew doesn't have to ban people who attend the NO, because in very large part most of the crew here seems to handle that themselves. Of course, it's not just attending the NO around here that will get you banned. On FE, you can more or less hold any opinion you want (usual caveats, etc, etc) and it is the expression of them that will get you banned.

One thing I know about FE, is that there isn't a whole lot of CI bashing over there.

On FE, you can more or less hold any opinion you want (usual caveats, etc, etc) and it is the expression of them that will get you banned.

That's nonsense. Traditionalists and their message isn't welcome on FE. They might be grimly tolerated, but FE is a board about subverting what it means to be traditional.

cathinfo is a Catholic forum for Catholics. Which is the reason for bannings here.

That's funny and not true. You're saying this, because [it would seem that] you've your own ax to grind against FE. A trad Catholic may post in either forum comfortably. Although, I think that I see more heated rhetoric and posting over here; much more so, than on FE. FE has a few defenders of the NO; but by no means is all or even a majority of the members of the forum.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #129 on:** October 03, 2012, 01:21:45 AM »

Traditionalists get banned there for being traditionalist, and they get ganged up on by liberals who have the run of the house there.

That's FE.

Virgil the Roman · « **Reply #130 on:** October 03, 2012, 01:57:59 AM »

Bah, I don't think so! I post there often. And I neither defend nor attend the NO. Rather I dissuade attendance of such; especially as the New Order service is invalid and protestantised.

Virgil the Roman · « **Reply #131 on:** October 03, 2012, 02:03:58 AM »

FE is a benevolent absolute monarchy. Of which, Vox is the absolute sovereign. If you've a problem withe the forum: take it up with her. Just bashing FE all the time isn't going to solve one's perceived problems with it.

poche · « **Reply #132 on:** October 03, 2012, 05:10:46 AM »

what did you say? in any event we will miss you.

Jaynek · « **Reply #133 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:41:30 PM »

Quote from: guitarplucker

Quote from: Jaynek

The earlier posts do not represent my current views because I change my mind during the discussion.

If you're sincere and accept the statement "Jews are enemies of Catholics" then I think you should reevaluate your membership to Fisheaters. You have the excuse of naivete. What's VoxC's excuse?

See this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3452856.90.html

Or the excuse of the majority of Fisheaters on that thread who joined in attacking Barbara K. (including CollegeCatholic/Kaesekopf, who offered no support to Barbara K., but just jumped in to leave stupid hipster replies).

Vox C. posted, "Barbara K was banned for anti-semitism and saying false things about Church teachings with regard to the Jєωιѕн people."

Several members asked Vox C. to point to something specific Barbara K. posted that warranted the banning. VoxC. offered no response. It's obvious that she had no evidence to make that charge, which is why she went AWOL. You didn't protest Barbara K's banning because, at the time, you believed the statement that Jews are enemies of Catholics was against Church teaching.

Your bone of contention with Barbara K. no longer exists, because you now accept that Jews are enemies of Catholics.

You owe it to yourself to break free from Fisheaters. Vox C. (and those other members who sided with her decision) has led you astray from the teachings of the Church.

I myself have written that Jews are the enemy of Catholics, but in contexts where I felt that it was clear what I meant by that. My disagreement with Barbara in that thread was I did not think she said it in a clear context. Here is a comment I made in that thread which sums up my position:

Quote

The phrase, "the Jews are our enemies" has appeared in this thread without qualifier more than once. On its own, it is an unclear and misleading statement. It can even be said by people who believe something antithetical to Church teaching.

You seem to object to my concern with terminology and phrasing, but the language is a battlefield and these things are weapons of our enemies. Alaric already mentioned his idea about people deliberately fostering the confusion over what is meant by "Jew". I found it quite plausible Just look at how the word "antisemitism" keeps getting its meaning extended until now it includes such absurd things as protesting Israeli atrocities. This manipulation of language is a basic liberal tactic. We have creeping definitions of hot button words so that now some people think that "misogyny" includes recognizing that abortion is the murder of an unborn child and "homophobia" includes having a traditional, reasonable definition of marriage.

I dare say that you prefer bluntness and plain speaking and find my concern irritating, but I do not think it is a fault under the circuмstances. If some use manipulation of words to attack us, some of us need to think about how to defend ourselves from these attacks.

Personally, I did not have much problem with what Barbara actually said but more with the impression she gave that she did not care what the rules were. I figured that Vox banned her for her attitude and the antisemitism charge was more an excuse. But even if I disagreed with Vox's decision, I would not be posting about it here.

I have a thing about public criticism of moderators. I don't do it. Not to Vox. Not to Matthew. Not even to the CAF moderators. I believe that moderators have provided me with a valuable service and I show my appreciation by respecting their authority. That means I obey their rules and I do not criticize them publicly.

alaric · « **Reply #134 on:** October 03, 2012, 03:49:56 PM »

Quote from: guitarplucker

Quote from: alaric

But for the true Jєωιѕн convert, especially to Catholicism, they also have a lot to deal with in adversity and harrassment mostly from their own people. I would think converting from Judaism to Christianity has to be one of the hardest changes, especially from an Orthodox Jew to a Traditonal Catholic, two totally opposite sides of the religious spectrum.

I get your points, alaric, but I simply don't have any special sympathy for Jєωιѕн converts. All converts are expected to follow Church teaching and not spread error, no matter their origins. No special rules or allowances for former Jews. She spread an outright lie, and rejected correction. Not only rejected correction, but went on the offensive. This is a woman who is pretty much "second in command" on a forum that purports to be for traditional Catholics.

As far as the Jews being a race or not a race, I don't really care. I don't respect them either way. So that's a moot point.

I don't need to make any distinction about the Jews. If you call youself a Jew you're an enemy of the Church. Period.

Simple and true.

A Catholic should not have to be an expert on the Jews to state that they are enemies of the Church. I'm not an expert on all the various Muslim groups, yet no one ever pops up asking me to be careful and make distinctions.[/quote] Because "Muslim" is not a race, there's no where to go with that. And i'm not exactly an "expert" on Jews, but we should follow the practice of Knowing thy Enemy, this is a major problem amongst Christians, especially in America, they think "Jews are their friends" and fall for the deception and the next thing you know, you're fighting Israel's wars, putting up "h0Ɩ0cαųst" memorials all over your country while you can't so much as display a Crucifix or a Nativity Scene in public. This is the main problem in (formerly)Christendom today is their blissfull ignorance of Christanity's greatest enemy while they infiltrate and usurp their Churches and Doctrines so the followers of Christ cannot defend themsleves from the perfidious, Satanic spiritually blinded Jew.