Thank you for your response. I understand your position and thanks for the clarification.
However, in your original infraction you stated I could either PM you for clarification or else write to the forum administrator to appeal the infraction.
I chose to write the forum administrator so that an objective third party could rule on the appeal of the infraction.
Since I don't think there is any chance you would overrule your own infraction, I honestly don't see the point in the appeal process. I don't mean this to be smart, I just honestly don't understand.
I thought that I could PM you for an inquiry or explanation, and this is what you seem to have provided. But in order to have any chance of an appeal overturning a decision, wouldn't the evaluator have to be a third party?
I'm not sure I understand why I was given two options, PM you, or e-mail the forum administrator, if both options come to the same evaluation process.
I would like to request the opportunity at this time to appeal the infraction decision to an independent, objective, third party moderator.
I'd also like to know the rulings on other posters in the thread I and at least one other reported who posted insulting, rude, and defamatory comments towards me,
ChurchTorch posted, and I quote:
"Why do you talk in such an asinine manner? Out of pure ignorance or simply to offend others? "
"I'm not sure there is a single phrase in this post that isn't offensive, ignorant, and purposefully belligerent."
Another poster posted these:
"Oh please.There is no such thing as unintentional pornography- like the painting.intent is all.You are viewing a similcrum and reading way to much into it.YOU! You're viewing and then matrixing what you see-filling in the blanks , to make sense out of it."
I'm accused of the sin of calumny below as well as having a dirty mind that sees things that are not there...
"The original San Damiano cross, is over 700 years old.Lines and details fade over time.The original probably had much more in common with the newer one , when it itself was new.You assume the artist created a "pornographic"painting-because that's what you want to believe.It fits into your mindset of what an OF church is. What you are doing is creating the cross into the image and likeness of Steve's imagination.By assigning malicious intent to an artist,who probably has none is calumny."
And finally, I honestly found this above referenced post offensive:
"Your comment is very offensive.
It would take a very ignorant and hateful individual to label such a crucifix a "NO Crucifix." You should be ashamed of yourself.
Do you have any idea how making such a comment makes you look?
If you claim to be a "traditional Catholic", do you have any idea, do you have any idea how your comments would pollute "traditional Catholicism?"
With all due respect, I stated facts in reply. "Novus Ordo" is a term used to describe the New Mass. And "Novus Ordo" is a descriptor to distinguish those faithful who regularly attend the OF Mass and believe in the policy decisions of the Church since VCII. Traditionalists disagree with the direction and policy decisions of the Church since VCII which they are free to do. They also regularly attend the EF. I do not think "Novus Ordo" is a derogatory term, but rather a useful descriptive term.
In this context, I stated undeniable facts that the crucifix was created for a Novus Ordo parish, under direction of a Novus Ordo priest, where the Novus Ordo Mass was said. I was responding to someone who said it was not a Novus Ordo crucifix. I do think I have a right to state facts.
The poster then says I should be "ashamed" of myself, asks if I have any idea how the comments make me look (to her) and that I "pollute" traditional catholicism(!). Is this not rude defamatory or insulting?
Thank you for your time.