Well, to be fair to the naive, Matthew . . . you were fooled by QAnon and ggreg and many other things. You never suspected that VoxClamantis thought that "anti-Judaism has nothing in common with Catholicism."
I suppose we all have our little foibles.
Fooled by Qanon? I was interested in it, I was following it. I was giving it a fair hearing. I didn't dismiss it out of hand. Yes, in the end Qanon turned out to be garbage, so in that general sense I was "fooled by Qanon". But strictly speaking, you should
define "fooled by it". I wasn't up-ending my life. I didn't go to the capital and protest or something. I didn't donate any money. What is the difference between being "fooled" and just giving it the benefit of the doubt, or looking into it? Or indulging a *bit* of hope, based on the evidence you have *at the time*?
Hindsight is 20/20. Someone isn't "more right" than me because they got off the Qanon train sooner. They might have been *foolish* or *rash* for doing so, but turned out to be *accidentally* correct. That was luck, not skill.
As for ggreg and Vox Clamantis, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. How did either of them fool me? I allowed ggreg to stay on CathInfo a while, until I banned him, but how is that different from allowing all sorts of OTHER characters on CathInfo I don't personally like or get along well with? If I banned him the minute I disliked him, wouldn't I take 100X as much criticism for that? For being heavy-handed and running an echo chamber?
I was never fooled by Vox Clamantis. I was a fervent ex-seminarian spouting the truth about everything during the months I was on Fisheaters back in 2005-2006. I was banned for opposing some woman while she was trying to emote. On CathInfo, I exposed and criticized Vox for years -- while she was still relevant.
Don't even try to give me that "bad today? Was always bad." nonsense. People change. Forums change. Groups change. Movements change. The minute a person/group/etc crosses the line, that's when you leave.
But not a moment before.