Anyone reading this thread should note that poster "Ben" (the one posting old quotes to make a case against me on that thread) is the same person as the one currently called "rum" on this forum.  

He is not some objective observer of "people's general view of Jaynek".  He was a key player in driving negative opinion of me in that thread.  That explains why he was able to remember a thread from so long ago.

The poster "rum" under various names on various forums makes a practice of dredging up old posts and old threads concerning me.  He either has an amazing memory or keeps a file on me.

Yep, that's me. I guess I should have mentioned it, since you're insinuating that I don't want people to know that. A good number of the people on this forum know that I was ben over there. I didn't follow you anywhere. I've been here long before you came. There were comments on this thread that preceded my posts that had an eerie resemblance to past complaints about you, which is why I chimed in. And complaints of this nature about you have been made on this forum before as well. It's not a trait you stopped exhibiting long ago.

So, you have a stalker,  now?

It may be more accurate to say your constant feelings of superiority stem from narcisisstic personality disorder.

I don't have "constant feelings of superiority."  I regret and am ashamed of many of the things I've said and done on trad forums.  These have made me very aware of just how NOT superior I am.  I do not mistake the sort of academic knowledge that I have for the prudence and wisdom that comes from good Catholic formation.  I look at people like that with admiration and, I admit, some envy, hoping to learn from their example.  

But I can often tell when people are making bogus claims about history, misunderstanding historical docuмents, and similar errors.  I don't think it is an especially valuable skill but it is the one I have so I try to use it responsibly.  When I point out the various mistakes that flat earthers make in the areas I know about, it does not come from thinking that I am a better person than they are.

While "rum" under various names does have a pattern of dragging up my past, I don't think that he actually follows me in order to do so. I did not intend to claim that he is a stalker and never used that word.  I do resent that, no matter how hard I try to do better and live down my past mistakes, he is ready to jump into threads linking to things that happened years ago.  

If you are truly concerned about my personality flaws, one thing I struggle with is an unhealthy attraction to being the center of attention.  You could help by talking about the issues rather than making it a thread about me.  My faults, past and present, have nothing to do with this.

And yet casual observers and newcomers might get the impression that Traditional Catholics in general promote wife-beating, believe that Jєωs run the world, think that Hitler was a misunderstood good guy, don't believe that the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened, despise ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and have racist attitudes.  So now that flat earthism isn't the "first impression" someone might get of Traditional Catholicism, any one of these other topics might be the new first impression.

* NB ... I do not necessarily disagree with everything in the list of topics above, just pointing out that they make us look bad to "casual observers and newcomers".

This wins for Post of the Day at CI.

Agreed. As much as I hate to admit it, that was a very good observation by Ladislaus. Except that he left out "sedevacantism" from the list of possible first impressions.  :)

While I myself lean sedevacantist (with my own nuances), I actually don't disagree that this creates a very bad first impression.  People think you're as nutty if you think that Francis isn't pope as if you go around talking about a flat earth.  I know some sedevacantist priests who refuse to directly answer the question of whether Francis is pope, and instead try talking around it, because they realize that it would scare people away due to this striking first impression.

Flat earthers don't really do that. We admit up-front what our views are. We don't care so much about what others think. Maybe that's where we are different. Nothing to hide.

I don't know.  Some might not be so open about it.

By way of example, I don't readily come out with my views regarding 9/11 ... until I have had a chance to feel someone out first and perhaps drop some trial balloons.  Much less would I just start openly and publicly talking about my views on the h0Ɩ0cαųst.  It wouldn't take much for somebody to call CPS on my family and my kids ... just out of spite.  I worked at NASA some years ago and nearly got fired for openly talking about being against the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11.  I have learned to pick my battles out here in the world.

And in my listing of subjects, I wasn't trying to single OTHER people out because I myself would be considered one of these "nutjobs" in the eyes of the world on the topics of:  Moon Landing, h0Ɩ0cαųst, 9/11, Khazar Control of Governments and Infiltration of the Church, Possible Sedevacantism, and Possible Flat Earth ... not to mention with regard to my views that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin against nature.  So much of my earlier list actually applies to me.

If we got rid of all the topics in which reasonable and nuanced positions might be mischaracterized as something that creates a bad impression there would be no forum.  

Right, but my point is that if we're going to hide flat earth due to the possible perception of casual newcomers and onlookers, then we should hide other topics as well.  What may seem "reasonable and nuanced" to you may not seem that way to someone else.  So, for instance, I don't consider flat earth theory to be unreasonable.  I don't agree with them that flat earth is a teaching of the Church, but scientifically I'm not unwilling to entertain the possibility ... and some of the evidence appears to be rather credible.

I don't know.  Some might not be so open about it.

By way of example, I don't readily come out with my views regarding 9/11 ... until I have had a chance to feel someone out first and perhaps drop some trial balloons.  Much less would I just start openly and publicly talking about my views on the h0Ɩ0cαųst.  It wouldn't take much for somebody to call CPS on my family and my kids ... just out of spite.  I worked at NASA and nearly got fired for openly talking about being against the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11.  I have learned to pick my battles out here in the world.

Well, yes, out in the real world we do have to be careful about what we talk about, especially 9/11 and the h0Ɩ0cαųst. But this forum provides a place to discuss controversial subjects. And other trad venues, such as the AKA Catholic blog, seems like it should be a place to admit of one's true beliefs, but that doesn't seem to be the case (for Verrecchio anyway).

It's possible that the subject of the flat earth is a relatively new one for trads, and as such, it's not being accepted as a legitimate thing to discuss. And it clashes with the scientific views that we all grew up with and accepted as being true.

We're used to the other controversial subjects, since they've been around for a long time now on trad venues. I realize that FE is a bit freaky for trads. But then so are other controversial subjects, as you have indicated.

When a man has to support a family, he has to be careful about what he says, as you indicated above with your job at NASA. Battles do have to be picked, I agree. 

By the way, most outsiders would consider Geocentrism to be NEARLY as crazy as Flat Earthism.  And for some time Geocentrist threads were very prominent among Recent Topics.

JayneK, would you want Geocentrism to go the way of Flat Earth and be hidden from view?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  If not, then what's the difference between Geocentrism and Flat Earthism that would justify treating them differently?

I think that (spherical earth) geocentrism is a reasonable position for traditional Catholics.  It is the traditional view of Catholics and was the concensus position of the Christian world for about a thousand years. Based on my meager grasp of science, I think the science support is better for it too.

Depending on what aspects were discusssed, I would not want it hidden.  Popular culture badly misunderstands what happened around the condemnation of Galileo, so it would be very helpful for people to be exposed to more accurate accounts of this.  My personal experience of proponents of this view is that they tend to be intelligent and articulate, so I have fewer concerns about the forum being embarrassed by them.  On the other hand, if there were a bunch of dogmatic geocentrists regularly pronouncing anathemas on those who disagreed with them, I would want that hidden.