Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on October 09, 2019, 10:51:03 AM
-
Idiot
Dishonest jackass
Liar
These are just a few of the insults hurled by the most prolific member in Cathinfo history.
As such, this sede-Feeneyite toxic personality has chased off nearly all the R&R members from active posting, and colored Cathinfo’s internet identity as a bitter, mud-slinging free for all.
This is the perception, and Ladislaus is singlehandedly responsible for more of that reality than anyone else on the forum.
In his allies, this kind of reprehensible behavior (which does not even hesitate to direct itself to women) is only occasional, but with a Ladislaus it is practically on display hourly.
It’s him or me.
I’m not going to keep rolling in the mud with this guy every time he sees something he doesn’t like.
I’ll come back when I see he is banned.
Absolutely toxic!
-
Bump.
-
DEPLATFORM ALL HATE SPEECH!
::)
-
Sean,
I’d miss you, and I’d miss him. Both of you add substance that makes this site worthwhile.
My own two cents, since you seem to be asking for member comment (by doing it this way rather than sending a personal IM to Matthew): Lad should not be banned. I think he could be more forgiving at times of what might be innocent misunderstandings or mistakes, but on the other hand I don’t think this site is immune from its share of “idiots, dishonest jackasses, and liars” - prescinding from whether Lad hit the nail on the head in his applications of those terms - including the time he called me one of those, or something similar. Lol :)
-
So, here it is again. You bail from the thread after getting argued into a corner, and now you call for banning. This has been your modus operandi. It's rather predictable. If Matthew decides not to take your advice, will you storm off the board again, only to re-emerge with a new account?
You could ban half of the most frequent posters here if "idiot" or "jackass" qualifies for banning, including Father Kramer. I'd be very surprised to find that you haven't used the term regularly yourself.
Are you calling to ban Meg also for attacking me on the grounds of being "unable" to complete Seminary ... since that is also an attacking against the forum's moderator?
-
Oh, you hypocrite, SeanJohnson.
I invite each reader of this thread who cares to do so to use the forum's Search feature to search for the term "idiot" in posts by member SeanJohnson. You're posts are riddled with use of this term.
-
I’ll come back when I see he is banned.
I thought you were leaving? But then you bumped your own thread less than an hour later. ?? Or do “bumps” not count as coming back?
.
Whenever you declare you’re leaving, you always come back, so why should we believe you this time? I wonder how many times your parents indulged this type of passive-aggressive manipulation when you were a child? It certainty is not adult behavior.
-
Just out of curiosity I did a search for "jackass" also by user SeanJohnson, and there are, not surprisingly, some results there too.
SeanJohnson:
At the end of the day, you are really just a loud-mouthed jackass, aren't you?
It means most people think you are a total jackass.
Now, there are a couple dozen occasions of SeanJohnson using the term "idiot" or "idiotic" (even after factoring out the ones where he was quoting ME calling HIM an idiot :))
-
My point exactly-
When I engage with rude and combative people, I tend to lock horns with them.
Since you are pretty much that way every single day, chances are your toxic personality is going to cause me to engage and sink to your level.
Normally, I come away from an interaction with you feeling dirty, and I’m tired of it.
One of us needs to go.
For now, I am volunteering to be that one, until/unless I see you are banned.
-
Sean,
I think that you are far more valuable a forum member than I; so I don't think you should leave. You are correct about him chasing away Resistance (R&R), but he isn't the only one.
However, if you are sure that you don't want to post unless he is banned, then I'll do the same (not post anymore unless he is banned).
We might be gone for a long time!
-
My point exactly-
When I engage with rude and combative people, I tend to lock horns with them.
Since you are pretty much that way every single day, chances are your toxic personality is going to cause me to engage and sink to your level.
Normally, I come away from an interaction with you feeling dirty, and I’m tired of it.
One of us needs to go.
For now, I am volunteering to be that one, until/unless I see you are banned.
Right, except that I'm not the only one you've hurled those terms at. In any case, if it's a ban-able offense, then lots of member have to be banned, including Father Kramer, and you, and me. You typically start the unwinding process when you get cornered by an argument you can't work your way out of. Then you pout and bail off the thread, and eventually end up demanding a banning.
I've had many polite disagreements with posters who do not see everything my way, but you and Meg and some others I could list ... rub me the wrong way, and the common denominator is that you are emotionally invested in your position so badly and so much grinding your ideological ax that you refuse to see any truth in any position other than the one you hold. I see truth on all sides, R&R, sedevacantists, Feeney-ites, non-Feeneyites. On both the SV/R&R issue and the Feeneyite issue, I have been attacked by BOTH sides because I am not in lock step with a particular camp or view point. It's similar on the political front, where if you disagree with stuff that Trump is doing, the diehard Republicans attack you for being a liberal.
-
Sean,
I’d miss you, and I’d miss him. Both of you add substance that makes this site worthwhile.
My own two cents, since you seem to be asking for member comment (by doing it this way rather than sending a personal IM to Matthew): Lad should not be banned. I think he could be more forgiving at times of what might be innocent misunderstandings or mistakes, but on the other hand I don’t think this site is immune from its share of “idiots, dishonest jackasses, and liars” - prescinding from whether Lad hit the nail on the head in his applications of those terms - including the time he called me one of those, or something similar. Lol :)
I would hate to see the use of the word "Liar" banned because ShiftySchiff is a CIA liar par excellence.
Did you see his most recent speech before his beloved CIA-controlled Main Stream Media?
Schiff was rolling his eyes left-right-left-right to avoid the fact that he was continually fabricating and creating one lie after another.
This type of diabolic liar is not visible on CathInfo. Thank God for His unfathomable mercy.
Because of his demonic possession, Schiff would not take one step into the realm of CathInfo. Anything good repels him.
On the other hand, Croix de fer and his reincarnations are saints compared with Schiff. At least Croix seems to be working out his salvation.
Sean Johnson and Ladislaus, even though they have different opinions, also appear to be striving for sanctity. Please patch up your differences, Sean and Ladislaus, and continue earnestly to fight the good fight against the demonic powers, which rejoice to see such division among Christians.
-
Sean, you started an entire thread where you demanded the banning of any who did not see it your way, and not just individuals who rubbed you the wrong way. You called for the banning of anyone who even had a "tolerance" for these alternative viewpoints. That would include Matthew himself, and even Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson. Father Chazal referred to himself as a sedeimpoundist, so I guess he would also get caught up in your dragnet. It's precisely your INTOLERANCE for other often reasonably-argued and reasonably-held opinions among Catholics that rubs me the wrong way.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/who-else-should-be-banned/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/who-else-should-be-banned/)
1) All sede-anything’s
2) All Feeneyites
3) Anyone lobbying for “tolerance” of either of these.
4) Anyone promoting an anti-Resistance agenda.
5) Pfeifferites.
The above sects should be allowed to view discussions, but not post.
-
Is this a joke or is this serious?
We've got more important fish to fry than Lad and his alleged insults.
Church Militant claims Francis denied the divinity of Our Lord.
-
Sean, you do not have to leave, just do respond or engage in the particular debate. You can use CathInfo as a bulletin board to pass along news and other information.
-
Sean, you do not have to leave, just do respond or engage in the particular debate. You can use CathInfo as a bulletin board to pass along news and other information.
CORRECTION: That should be "DO NOT respond or engage in the particular debate"
-
Interestingly, all of the charges made by SeanJohnson, except the Feeneyism, apply to the author himself.
-
However, if you are sure that you don't want to post unless he is banned, then I'll do the same (not post anymore unless he is banned).
A two-for-one? Is this Christmas? ...I'm kidding! I don't want anyone to leave; I just want people to get thicker skin. It's a war zone sometimes.
-
A two-for-one? Is this Christmas? ...I'm kidding! I don't want anyone to leave; I just want people to get thicker skin. It's a war zone sometimes.
If Sean wants to run for president, he had better get used to insults. ;)
-
If Sean wants to run for president, he had better get used to insults. ;)
See the other sede thread; I have no intention of leaving!
Ladislaus likes to get bold in his declarations of victory whenever he thinks the field is clear (usually beginning with an accusation of his opponents abandoning the thread because they got argued into a corner, but in reality because nobody without a pound of meth can possibly match the stamina of a sede-Feeneyite, and the fact that after 5-10 retorts, most normal people simply walk away, which is when he declares victory).
Nope.
I hustled him into admitting dogmatic facts are binding, and he must now show how a universally accepted pope is not a dogmatic fact.
Plan on me being here for the next 40 years.
-
As such, this sede-Feeneyite toxic personality has chased off nearly all the R&R members from active posting, and colored Cathinfo’s internet identity as a bitter, mud-slinging free for all.
This is the perception, and Ladislaus is singlehandedly responsible for more of that reality than anyone else on the forum.
Cathinfo's identity as a free-for-all reflects the moderation policy of its owner. Matthew deliberately minimizes his interventions in the forum. As I understand it, this is both a philosophical position and a practical matter of not having time to do it any other way.
A significant proportion of posters use the freedom created by this policy to engage in insults. It does not seem reasonable to blame it on any individual. Nor do I see any reason to associate it with any particular position on the Crisis or other theological views.
Singling out one person to ban for a behaviour engaged in by many does not seem just. Retroactively making insults an offense punishable by banning, without any warning, also seems unjust.
I acknowledge that Ladislaus is not very nice and has a tendency to make arguments personal and unpleasant, but there are many others that would need to be banned if those were the criteria.
I also note that Poche is one of the nicest posters on this forum. In my recollection, he is also the poster who has had the most people comment that he ought to be banned. Personally, although I appreciate his affability and even-temper, I would find banning him a far more reasonable choice than Ladislaus. Even so, I prefer that there be no public calls for banning. I prefer leaving the question of bans up to Matthew.
-
Cathinfo's identity as a free-for-all reflects the moderation policy of its owner. Matthew deliberately minimizes his interventions in the forum. As I understand it, this is both a philosophical position and a practical matter of not having time to do it any other way.
A significant proportion of posters use the freedom created by this policy to engage in insults. It does not seem reasonable to blame it on any individual. Nor do I see any reason to associate it with any particular position on the Crisis or other theological views.
Singling out one person to ban for a behaviour engaged in by many does not seem just. Retroactively making insults an offense punishable by banning, without any warning, also seems unjust.
I acknowledge that Ladislaus is not very nice and has a tendency to make arguments personal and unpleasant, but there are many others that would need to be banned if those were the criteria.
I also note that Poche is one of the nicest posters on this forum. In my recollection, he is also the poster who has had the most people comment that he ought to be banned. Personally, although I appreciate his affability and even-temper, I would find banning him a far more reasonable choice than Ladislaus. Even so, I prefer that there be no public calls for banning and leaving the question of bans up to Matthew.
Hi Jaynek-
I agree with the entirety of your post.
My banishment call was a debate tactic, and not sincere (though I must admit I would be quite happy had Matthew actually done it).
Notice Matthew didn’t even take me seriously?
Ladislaus smelled blood, where he should have smelled a rat, and like a dog locked in on a pheasant, got tunnel vision, and did not see where he was being led:
The papacy of Francis and the last 6 popes is a dogmatic fact which he is obliged to accept, or be a heretic (and schismatic).
If he wants to wiggle off the hook, he will need to show why the last 6 pontificates have not been dogmatic facts, despite the peaceable universal recognition of the Church, which is what makes them so.
Ps: And since Lefebvre himself sometimes quoted this same doctrine, it ought to have shown Ladislaus that he did not properly understand Lefebvre and Williamson (just as he did not understand Chazal), or does he wish to imply Lefebvre and Williamson are heretics for denying dogmatic facts?
-
The papacy of Francis and the last 6 popes is a dogmatic fact which he is obliged to accept, or be a heretic (and schismatic).
I credit Francis with single-handedly making me sympathetic to the sede position. While I have not been convinced by sede arguments, I wish they were right. It is very hard to understand how he could be the Pope.
-
I credit Francis with single-handedly making me sympathetic to the sede position. While I have not been convinced by sede arguments, I wish they were right. It is very hard to understand how he could be the Pope.
Jayne-
I understand and share your misgivings at the level of the emotions (as perhaps Lefebvre did).
Bishop Williamson even spoke about this emotional response in the introduction to my book.
But at the level of the intellect we are obliged to accept and assent to the Church’s teaching on dogmatic facts (according to which, it is impossible that Francis could NOT be pope, who has been universally accepted as such).
-
Pat, I mean Pakb-
If Menzingen wanted a book, you only had to ask.
Ps: I doubt your appeal to Matthew’s pride will create the division between us you were sent here to sow. You see, in real life we are actually quite good friends.
But like I said before your last ban, your presence signifies that the arrows have hit the mark (and not an hour goes by in which the eye of Sauron is watching).
-
LOL! You mean: A catalog of 101 cօռspιʀαcιҽs, counterfeits and corruptions...
You still haven’t grasped context yet have you... :o. As you know, there isn’t a single one that I can’t destroy...
:baby:
-
A two-for-one? Is this Christmas? ...I'm kidding! I don't want anyone to leave; I just want people to get thicker skin. It's a war zone sometimes.
Ha ha! I agree. It's the different personalities that make for an interesting discussion forum. It'd be a very boring forum if all the posters said and thought the same thing all the time, especially when it comes to what is typically the most highly debated subjects.
-
That’s what happened with Loeman’s forum, it became a wasteland after Johnston became the de facto admin; nobody could post anything without his approval. Fortunately, thetradforum sent him packing.
:baby:
-
(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif)
-
I'm locking this thread.
I will ban whoever I decide to, and ONLY who I decide to.
Banning users is MY business.