Option 3: Comply by providing an alias.
Well, if people wanted to use their real first and last names, what's stopping them from providing them as a user name now?
Seeing as it is Sunday...I don't know that Sean Johnson is your real name. It would be helpful if you'd care to upload a pic of yourself with something recently dated and a pic of your driver's license.
Here are the reasons Bishop Williamson gives for posting in your own name (or not posting at all), beginning at 16:35
...
Until this time, I posted as "Seraphim."
The next day, I asked Matthew to attach my real name to all my posts.
As regards some of the reasons given for remaining anonymous (e.g., exposing yourself to harassment; etc), it is admittedly true.
But if you really believe what you are posting is the truth, then it seems to me that that is worth absorbing a bit of artillery for, and the willingness to do so would then be pleasing to God (the only thing that really matters).
There is a price to pay for being a public truth-teller (lost friendships, social alienation, seeing your name dragged through the mud by some of your opponents; etc.), but I should think myself very low if I were to compromise my integrity and not tell the truth for fear of those repercussions (or for fear of those repercussions, fail to attach my name to my own opinions).
Believe it or not, a District official once told me that he respected me for posting in my own name (while objecting to nearly everything I say).
No doubt, he found it convenient for tracking purposes.
But at the same time, all these years later, I have still not been banned from my SSPX chapel (i.e., to be respected by your adversary counts for something), for which I am grateful.
In any case, if Mossad hit squads were going to take me and Matthew out, they sure are taking their time.
Bishop Williamson nailed it: Either put your name to what you say, or don't say it at all.
Our Lord needs men willing to stand up against the rise of the tide.
Without that, not much is possible: God hates a coward.
As an afterthought, it occurs to me that all the writers I most respect attach their names to what they write.
Another idea would be to not moderate the anonymous subforum, as was the case when you first started it. Those wanting to post under their real names could have the forum and those of us not wanting to could use the anonymous subforum.The anonymous forum somewhat solves these concerns. At worst, those craving interaction for the sake of interaction still would have the anonymous forum. That may be good or it may be not be good. I couldn't say.
I don't know that Sean Johnson is your real name. It would be helpful if you'd care to upload a pic of yourself with something recently dated and a pic of your driver's license.We'd also like to see a pdf of your birth certificate, social security card, DD Form 214 (if you served in the armed forces), and your last three income tax returns. Please include other relevant information such as your mother's maiden name, bank account numbers, and your home address and phone number.
I've always skimmed over your posts (both as Sean Johnson and as Seraphim) so I can't confirm if you post stuff that might cause you harassment or worse.
Refuse and leave CathInfoHow about, Refuse, Leave Cathinfo... and Start-up another trad forum?
Bishop Williamson nailed it: Either put your name to what you say, or don't say it at all.
Without that, not much is possible: God hates a coward.
Matthew of all people should know what happens when (crazy) people who disagree with you also happen to have your full name and a tidbit or two to confirm who you are.Then why would he even consider this? Unless he really isn't considering this and is using this poll to make a point.
He's had someone attempt to get him fired and on the radar of every public official in our area. Fortunately, that person didn't know his last name. So, I can only presume those he contacted wrote him off as nuts.
Matthew of all people should know what happens when (crazy) people who disagree with you also happen to have your full name and a tidbit or two to confirm who you are.
He's had someone attempt to get him fired and on the radar of every public official in our area. Fortunately, that person didn't know his last name. So, I can only presume those he contacted wrote him off as nuts.
I don't know that Sean Johnson is your real name. It would be helpful if you'd care to upload a pic of yourself with something recently dated and a pic of your driver's license.Exactly.
Also, I don't see any reason (even from the perspective of the Sean Johnsons of the world) to make that full name GOOGLE SEARCHABLE, or in plain text. What would be the point of that, except to give future employers a chance to easily discover, and then have a problem with, some of your political/world views?You and the site might be able to make my name unsearchable, but once a debate starts, and people re-type my name 1,000x, everything will be searchable. I often search for catholic articles on google and this site comes up a lot, because the things we discuss (tradition and history) aren't discussed with accuracy anywhere else.
There are ways to generate an image out of a piece of text, so computers can't read it but people can. I think I would probably use some kind of tool like that to display the first/last name data, if it ever came to that.
And we're talking about a so-called Traditional Catholic, even if a sedevacantist one.Really Matthew? You had to include that? :facepalm:
Pretty sure I've posted my full name, pictures of myself and links to my blog and translations bearing my name. Nothing to hide.And think of all those who may sign YOUR name to THEIR posts...
That said, giving your full name would put an end to detractions and build the integrity of Cath Info. People would actually be responsible for what they say, which is how it should be anyway.
Imagine on judgement day how all the sins of the damned are revealed to all mankind. And then think of how some wouldn't even sign their name to an online comment.
Seeing as it is Sunday...
Here are the reasons Bishop Williamson gives for posting in your own name (or not posting at all), beginning at 16:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W43qm_g-jvk&t=1238s
Until this time, I posted as "Seraphim."
The next day, I asked Matthew to attach my real name to all my posts.
As regards some of the reasons given for remaining anonymous (e.g., exposing yourself to harassment; etc), it is admittedly true.
But if you really believe what you are posting is the truth, then it seems to me that that is worth absorbing a bit of artillery for, and the willingness to do so would then be pleasing to God (the only thing that really matters).
There is a price to pay for being a public truth-teller (lost friendships, social alienation, seeing your name dragged through the mud by some of your opponents; etc.), but I should think myself very low if I were to compromise my integrity and not tell the truth for fear of those repercussions (or for fear of those repercussions, fail to attach my name to my own opinions).
Believe it or not, a District official once told me that he respected me for posting in my own name (while objecting to nearly everything I say).
No doubt, he found it convenient for tracking purposes.
But at the same time, all these years later, I have still not been banned from my SSPX chapel (i.e., to be respected by your adversary counts for something), for which I am grateful.
In any case, if Mossad hit squads were going to take me and Matthew out, they sure are taking their time.
Bishop Williamson nailed it: Either put your name to what you say, or don't say it at all.
Our Lord needs men willing to stand up against the rise of the tide.
Without that, not much is possible: God hates a coward.
As an afterthought, it occurs to me that all the writers I most respect attach their names to what they write.
So was +W wrong in his reluctance to own up publicly in Sweden to what he had said in a conference in Canada because of the possible consequences? Or, would it have been better for the bishop to have not commented at all? (Without denial of course)My opinion was that it was a mistake for him to take that interview/answer that question at all.
Is it wise to, voluntarily, become a political prisoner? Doesn't seem prudent to me...
What detractions? Links please.Yeah man, my bad...I forgot that detractions never ever happen on the Internet or anonymous forums. Zero chance of that happening.
As much as I respect the opinions of +W and Mr Johnson on the subject of anonymity, a friendly reminder to a particular interview in Sweden of +W back in November of 2008. I can't seem to find the interview in it's entirety on YouTube anymore, seems to have been scrubbed... so I'll try to recollect it the best I can. +W was asked about the h0Ɩ0h0αx and the bishop requested that this interview not be made public, because it could mean jail (part of the interview is on YouTube after the bishop makes this comment about possible repercussions.) The interviewer was referring to a conference given in Canada years earlier. To me it seemed that +W was being coerced to validate something he said in another country so that he could be held criminally accountable in Sweden.
So was +W wrong in his reluctance to own up publicly in Sweden to what he had said in a conference in Canada because of the possible consequences? Or, would it have been better for the bishop to have not commented at all? (Without denial of course)
Is it wise to, voluntarily, become a political prisoner? Doesn't seem prudent to me...
If my last name was Smith, Williams, Jones, Johnson, Brown etc., I would probably not be so hesitant, but as things are these days, there are simply way too many good reasons to stay anonymous.In other words, since speaking openly about our decidedly non-PC opinions would get us in trouble at work if our bosses found out, many members would incline towards cowardice in that regard (take the PC position, take the mainstream position) which would scandalize many members and cause them to ACTUALLY BELIEVE and take the mainstream, worldly, liberal, PC position on many topics.
I haven't read anything in this thread about the other side of posting with real names - that of compromise. Where one's real name inclines them to wave both flags in order to be avoid any possible retaliation online or in real life so that they may be thought of as being completely "open minded" or luke warm.
I get having the courage of your convictions, I have always believed that as well and have a pro-life, peaceful "rap sheet" to prove it. But I think that we have to pick our battles wisely. Should a father of 10 risk his job for his anti-PC comments on a board like Cath-Info? Also should his opinions not be voiced or self-censored because of his traditional Catholic circuмstances in life? I don't think so. There will be a time (that is coming quickly ) that we will no doubt have to stand up and be willingly exposed for the Truth and suffer the terrible consequences as history has shown us will happen(This time in spades). No need to do it yourself ahead of time unless you need the prep.
many members would incline towards cowardice in that regard (take the PC position, take the mainstream position) which would scandalize many memberI would not compromise as explained above I would just not comment. I would become a reader if this forum only and eventually this forum would probably turn into an article posting exercise anyway, with article posted by journalists or other people who are already PC or ‘mainstream’.
I would not compromise as explained above I would just not comment. I would become a reader if this forum only and eventually this forum would probably turn into an article posting exercise anyway, with article posted by journalists or other people who are already PC or ‘mainstream’.In other words, CathInfo would become another Angelqueen.
And think of all those who may sign YOUR name to THEIR posts...On the day of judgement it wouldn't matter. God sees everything.
If the courts are trying to force everyone to use their real names on the Internet, then this is a sad day.Don't worry, the NSA knows who you are.
Already Google, Facebook, and YouTube have censored many by removing posts, videos, and banning people. Already Google and other email services can read all of your emails.
We have lost our freedoms.
The USA, ever since the election of Obama, has become a communist nation with the Military-Industrial-Pharmaceutical-Chemical-Agricultural Complex fully entrenched as the Deep State aka Secret Police.
In other words, CathInfo would become another Angelqueen.I don't think that would ever happen. Angelqueen is a "traditional " dupe that self -censors ("Bleeps" anyone ?) and has neochurch styled zionists as moderators....AND they also use nom-de-plumes. You can't tell the truth on that forum without having the zios gang up on you.
The totally unanonymous David L. Gray has come out to put down all you mean evil anonymous bloggers out there. He's telling all you people out there to either come out, or shut up! His reasoning? He'll argue "I'm out in the open, I can't get a job because of what I say. I'm a hero. You're anonymous, so you're a coward."
I couldn't disagree more. But before I state my reasons, let's read a little more of what he has to tell us:
"You know what it costs me? To have a blog and a website with my name on it? A Facebook page with my name on it? A Youtube channel with my name on it? A Twitter account with my name on it? And I'm not really all that radical. At least not as radical as I was a few years ago. Right? But you know what it costs me?
"It means that when someone doesn't like what I said on my website, or they didn't like a video that I posted on Youtube, they call my pastor. They call the parish. They call the rectory. Talk to a priest. True story. That's what it means. It means that, of all the jobs that I've ever interviewed for, that have in any way been associated with the Catholic Church--in all of them, in either the first interview or the second, or somewhere down the line, early on, in the process of working there (I'm speaking of one job in particular, called The Academy)--it wasn't mentioned in the first interview, but it came up later after one of the other teachers told the administrator of what I wrote, and I was called into a meeting.
"But in every interview, either my blog or my Youtube channel has come up. That's what it means to not be anonymous. It also means I don't get those jobs, either. In every one of those jobs, in which my blog or my Youtube videos came up in the interview process. I'm never getting those jobs. RCIA director, RCIA coordinator, high school theology teacher--hell, if I apply to be a janitor in a Catholic church, I'm assured my blog will come up in the interview. I mean, if they're dumb enough not to google me before they set up the interview, right?
How brave. How fantastic for you. Clearly, you are at peace with the decisions that you are making, in spite of the various temporal penalties that you are willing to unnecessarily endure."
Pure malarkey, all of it. Steve Skojec chimes in for the second half of this audio hour, but Gray messed up Skojec's audio portion. So it's likely we'll never know what, exactly, Skojec had to say. But I am aware that Skojec was in agreement with Gray.
We are in a culture war. And if it's one thing our side is really really great at, it's throwing ourselves on our own swords, taking unnecessary blows, shooting each other in the back of the head. Team Red is really great at losing, and I'm amazed we haven't been thrown in camps yet, we are so ignorant.
War, I said. Culture war.
I'm not buying anything that David L. Gray has said. If you feel compelled to rush out there with your bayonet and stab as many of the enemy as you can, wearing no armor whatsoever, you go right ahead. I'll do my best to snipe the bastards that come at you up until your last gasp.
In the meantime, since we're in a war, how about we read a professional. Ever hear of Sun Tzu?
-The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.
-Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.
-In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack – the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle – you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?
Our enemies are numerous, and we are a small force. If we have some shock troops who wanna go barreling into the fray naked, armed with only a spear, that's fine by me. It'll unnerve the opposition. But when you are a small force in war, it is your job to appear as a bigger force than you actually are. Sort of like how the Mongols would burn many campfires, so that their enemies thought that there were actually more of them than there actually were.
I defer to what Vox Day has to say on precisely this matter:
"But anonymity is an absolute necessity for every non-combatant who dares to stand in the way of the pinkshirts, which of course is why they are desperate to eliminate it in the belief that everyone will cower obediently before them once they are stripped naked and forced to choose between submission and being unable to make a living. They don't realize that there are millions who will embrace the ISIS model before submitting to them. Their triumphalism is not merely foolish, it is insanely suicidal."
I will let God judge me as to whether or not I've acted heroic in this life. I am disinterested in winning the acclaim of David L. Gray for being a hero. This is a war of attrition for both Team Red and Team Blue, and there are many roles for many different types of fighters. If a handful of us choose to become cannon fodder, then great. Diversion tactics always help.
As for the rest of us bloggers, combox denizens, and forum lurkers, we'll be just fine, thank you very much. We remember how Old Hickory and his Dirty Shirts blew the formations of the Redcoats to living hell in the swamps of New Orleans in 1812. Andrew Jackson and his men weren't standing there, waiting for their enemy in a neat set of boxed rows, guns pointed and ready. No. The Battle of New Orleans was won by a ragtag team of militia men, frontiersmen, slaves, Indians and pirates.
We are at the stage in our cultural decline that such battles are the brand of the day. Our cultural "leaders" have sold out. Our priests and bishops are silent. The laity, the everyman--we are all that is left, now. And we will not pretend that the Geneva Convention applies to us when it never did for the liberals who attack us.
Our ideas will stand for themselves.
I hope all of the stupid people in this country get what they want, so that we can experience two centuries of oppression and genocide. So that maybe, if there's anyone left on the other side of the nuclear winter of Leftism, they will never never be as stupid as we were ever again.I know what you're saying and it can be frustrating but our country (and the whole world) is blinded to evil and philosophical error because of sin. It's easy to say "let's watch society crash to the ground" but at what cost to the Faith would this cause? Instead, we must pray that as evil slowly surrounds and closes in, that people, through the suffering and pain caused by their former 'benefactors' will see their errors and convert to God. Thus our ranks will grow and evil will be defeated. This has happened all throughout history. As Our Lady said, She will triumph, but because the pope's consecration will "be late", that evil will spread everywhere. If all of us Trads made this the BEST lent we can possibly make, then maybe we can speed things up a bit?
My 2016 article: "Blogging Anonymity: It's A Good Thing""Our ideas will stand for themselves."
I and many others are glad that the Bishop said what he said and has had the gumption never to back down from it one iota. He exposed himself to great ridicule and more, but more importantly he helped to expose a great destructive lie. His answer was very admirable and if he rendered it in humility which I think he did it may be considered a good battle scar, a particular scar which seemingly very few in this world have the courage to incur.I agree with you.
h0Ɩ0cαųstianity with its sacred six million h0Ɩ0h0αx permeates society like a stench from hell. The promoters and enablers of the h0Ɩ0h0αx's false paradigm are working harder than ever to have it replace the theology of Calvary. Jesus Christ the victim is replaced by the "Sacred Six Million." Calvary is replaced with Auschwitz. The cross is replaced by the gas chambers. Those who deny the supposed 6 million h0Ɩ0cαųst are heretics who are tried by the MSM backed up by the high priests of the ADL and SPLC.
Subsequesnt to the Bp. Williamson interview Bp. Tissier de Mallerais was asked twice in the same interview by Der Spiegel what his opinion of the h0Ɩ0cαųst was. Both times he stated he had no opinion. I find it very hard to believe that he had then (or has now) no opinion on the h0Ɩ0cαųst. Nevertheless, I think His Excellency could very well have exercised a morally legitimate use of mental reservation in answering the way he did.
Bishop Fellay, on the other hand, said that Bp. Williamson's views on the h0Ɩ0cαųst were not those of the Society of St. Pius X. Say what?! Yes, that is what he said and as far as I know he has never backed down from that statement which at the very least implies that the SSPX has some sort of collective or formal view on that which commonly goes by the name of the h0Ɩ0cαųst. And in the context of all the flak at the time, the clear implication was that the SSPX' s view of the h0Ɩ0cαųst is that of the "official" Kosher Shoa $$$ Business approved Sacred Six Million Version. How shameful to give support to this most egregious ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan lie.
I agree with you.The Plot Against the Church is definitely a must read. It's a fair sized tome and gets a little repetitive, but it's eye-opening on many levels. I have no doubt the book would have otherwise been buried under pseudo-scandals linked to the authoring bishops, so anonymity was a necessity.
But, my intention was not to necessarily bring the content of the interview into question, but rather, the conditions set forth by +W, that is, this particular part of the interview would NOT be published. +W was keenly aware that on the soil of this decadent Nation, it was "against the law" to "deny" the h0Ɩ0h0αx. I believe that +W, to some degree, believed it to be unwise to be put publicly "on the record."
Surely the bishop knew that these dishonest rats conducting this interview, couldn't be trusted. But he chose to answer the question anyway... practicing the essence of one of his numerous quotes, "Let the chips fall where they may."
Hoping not to derail this thread, I'd like to make a couple of points...
I think this interview exposed something far more sinister, that is, the treachery taking place in Menzingan. Remember the Krah-Gate files? (Which disappeared mysteriously into the ether, never to be seen again.) There was sufficient evidence to support the idea that Menzingan was key in staging this interview, for the purpose of having +W "fall from grace," and to the eventual ousting of the bishop from the Fraternity. It was this whole debacle that was a severe warning sign of where things were going with the SSPX, 2012 was just the "nail in the coffin" for me.
Another point on anominity, I just finished revisiting one of the greatest books penned in the 20th century, The Plot Against the Church. The authors were hidden behind the pseudonym, Maurice Pinay. I believe the authors consisted of 12 cardinals. (A MUST read for all Catholics and non-Catholics alike)
The Plot Against the Church is definitely a must read. It's a fair sized tome and gets a little repetitive, but it's eye-opening on many levels. I have no doubt the book would have otherwise been buried under pseudo-scandals linked to the authoring bishops, so anonymity was a necessity.It was compiled under a restraint of time which didn't allow for necessary editing, it was compiled so that it could be distributed amongst all the cardinals at VII... unfortunately, as we can see today, the cardinals paid no heed to the books dire warnings.
I just finished revisiting one of the greatest books penned in the 20th century, The Plot Against the Church.
It was compiled under a restraint of time which didn't allow for necessary editing, it was compiled so that it could be distributed amongst all the cardinals at VII... unfortunately, as we can see today, the cardinals paid no heed to the books dire warnings.Indeed, a shame. Another problem is that the book can be quite expensive on the secondary market. I saw one on Amazon for $100. I think its available online to read, though some might find that inconvenient. The book is a shocking account of Catholic history because "Maurice Pinay" pinpoints the Church's enemies and their offenses against Her, revealing Our Lord's enemies are the same as they always were, and still intend to crucify Christ in His people.
Indeed, a shame. Another problem is that the book can be quite expensive on the secondary market. I saw one on Amazon for $100. I think its available online to read, though some might find that inconvenient. The book is a shocking account of Catholic history because "Maurice Pinay" pinpoints the Church's enemies and their offenses against Her, revealing Our Lord's enemies are the same as they always were, and still intend to crucify Christ in His people.
I vote for a third option. "Continue anyway". I mean, it's just a forum. I can't take it too seriously. Ticking a few boxes is nothing.There is no third option. For purposes of this poll, if you don't give your first & last name (that is, WITH or WITHOUT lying) then your account would be effectively disabled, and you would effectively be choosing to leave the forum (or read it only, which is close enough).
Awesome!
The book is listed at just $22.95 at one of the greatest Resistance websites going: http://ca-rc.com/books/the-plot-against-the-church (http://ca-rc.com/books/the-plot-against-the-church)
For purposes of this poll, if you don't give your first & last name (that is, WITH or WITHOUT lying) then your account would be effectively disabled, and you would effectively be choosing to leave the forum (or read it only, which is close enough).Hypothetically, if you made this change to force use of names, would you still allow the site to be viewed 'publically' (i.e. by those who have no account)? I don't know if there's a way to "lock out" those who don't have an account, but that would at least be some way to keep a small sliver of privacy.
Hypothetically, if you made this change to force use of names, would you still allow the site to be viewed 'publically' (i.e. by those who have no account)? I don't know if there's a way to "lock out" those who don't have an account, but that would at least be some way to keep a small sliver of privacy.All search robots especially those from Google would have to be denied access.
It was compiled under a restraint of time which didn't allow for necessary editing, it was compiled so that it could be distributed amongst all the cardinals at VII... unfortunately, as we can see today, the cardinals paid no heed to the books dire warnings.+Williamson said that happens. Nobody regards anonymous information sources.
There is no third option. For purposes of this poll, if you don't give your first & last name (that is, WITH or WITHOUT lying) then your account would be effectively disabled, and you would effectively be choosing to leave the forum (or read it only, which is close enough).
Please choose the CLOSEST option to what you would do.
Seeing as it is Sunday...This is bad advice.
Here are the reasons Bishop Williamson gives for posting in your own name (or not posting at all),
As much as I respect the opinions of +W and Mr Johnson on the subject of anonymity, a friendly reminder to a particular interview in Sweden of +W back in November of 2008. I can't seem to find the interview in it's entirety on YouTube anymore, seems to have been scrubbed... so I'll try to recollect it the best I can. +W was asked about the h0Ɩ0h0αx and the bishop requested that this interview not be made public, because it could mean jail (part of the interview is on YouTube after the bishop makes this comment about possible repercussions.) The interviewer was referring to a conference given in Canada years earlier. To me it seemed that +W was being coerced to validate something he said in another country so that he could be held criminally accountable in Sweden.Precisely.
So was +W wrong in his reluctance to own up publicly in Sweden to what he had said in a conference in Canada because of the possible consequences? Or, would it have been better for the bishop to have not commented at all? (Without denial of course)
Is it wise to, voluntarily, become a political prisoner? Doesn't seem prudent to me...
I wonder how many would show up to the first ever Cathinfo Gala? There would probably be as many guest speakers as guests because all the guests would try to speak.Ha ha ha!
I wonder how many would show up to the first ever Cathinfo Gala? There would probably be as many guest speakers as guests because all the guests would try to speak.? I don't get it.
? I don't get it.
I wonder how many would show up to the first ever Cathinfo Gala? There would probably be as many guest speakers as guests because all the guests would try to speak.I got it.
I wonder how many would show up to the first ever Cathinfo Gala? There would probably be as many guest speakers as guests because all the guests would try to speak.I don't know about that. I think there'd be a few sitting around reading.
Yeah, REAL incentives like lawsuites and new jobs.Well, I just meant like some sort of VIP status. Extra access. Maybe double thumbs down. The ability to down thumb the moderator, perhaps.
Well, I just meant like some sort of VIP status. Extra access. Maybe double thumbs down. The ability to down thumb the moderator, perhaps.Sorry I was just joking. The above is an interesting idea.
If names are used, it should only be used for commenting; but there should be an anonymous "tip line" so people can safely report news and other inside information.OH NO! Not more anonymous!
OH NO! Not more anonymous!Don't worry even anonymous tip line calls can be traced.
I know what you're saying and it can be frustrating but our country (and the whole world) is blinded to evil and philosophical error because of sin. It's easy to say "let's watch society crash to the ground" but at what cost to the Faith would this cause? Instead, we must pray that as evil slowly surrounds and closes in, that people, through the suffering and pain caused by their former 'benefactors' will see their errors and convert to God. Thus our ranks will grow and evil will be defeated. This has happened all throughout history. As Our Lady said, She will triumph, but because the pope's consecration will "be late", that evil will spread everywhere. If all of us Trads made this the BEST lent we can possibly make, then maybe we can speed things up a bit?.
I voted that I would leave. Our family was the target of stalker years ago. With the assistance of the district DA we vanished out of state. Given the psychopathy of a stalker, one must never let their guard down. Never..
Don't worry even anonymous tip line calls can be traced.I didn't have in mind the worry of being traced but of having to put up with more anonymous postings. There's already far too many unnecessarily anonymous postings.
CathInfo is more like a courtroom, where every word is recorded into the public record. CathInfo's audience transcends both space and time! There are no physical boundaries to where your words will reach, and they will be accessible as long as CathInfo exists online. And to add insult to injury, you have the world's most accessible searching method ("Google") helping you to sift through that mountain of information, so you can find whatever you're looking for.
[....]
On an Internet forum, everything is permanent, and indexed (searchable by keyword) on search engines forever.
Rum makes a good point, about the controversial and "against the world's grain" nature of CathInfo's discussion matter.Actually it's only the Jєω-related stuff that's dangerous. Race is a little dangerous, though less so if you're pro-Jєωιѕн, since you'll be protected by Jєωs. The Freemason, anti-feminism, anti-americanism, anti-Federal Reserve, flat earth, moon landing stuff isn't dangerous at all.
cօռspιʀαcιҽs, the Jєωs, Freemasons, anti-Feminism, anti-Americanism, anti-Federal Reserve...
...the list of non-PC and controversial topics piles up to the moon -- that celestial body which has never been visited by man. ;)
What would you do if CathInfo.com started requiring your true Christian and Surname (first and last name) as a new condition for continued membership on the forum?I don't think that would be a good idea. Maybe for some, it wouldn't be as consequential than others, but there's a whole different dynamic for each individual posting on here, who do so for various reasons. The Internet becomes a game-changer everyday in many aspects of freedom of thought and speech. I can remember the free flow of thoughts and ideas years ago when I first became attuned to the incredible oppourtunity to the access of the vast information and networking of like-minded individuals. But now, (((they))) are using this very same access and information to destroy the lives of anyone of whom (((they))) disagree with or step out of line. You see this happening everyday, they are literally using people's own personal information out there to publicly humliate and destroy their lives the best they can within the confines of the Constitution, which, (((they))) really have no regard for to begin with, but only obey when the govt or ruling party enforces it.
For purposes of this poll, let's assume that the first and last name you give would be displayed publicly next to each of your posts as an image (not text) so Google couldn't read it. It would be right below your username on each of your posts.
Furthermore, please assume that the HYPOTHETICAL new terms of service would require that you claim that the name you give is your true first and last name. You wouldn't be required to swear an oath, but you would be required to FORMALLY STATE that such is your true first and last name.
Free free to discuss as well. But please don't forget to vote in the poll!