And if I had a sister such as you I would be happy to be seperated, though it was always my understanding that it is fathers who prune the tree, you have caused and are continuing to cause a great deal of unrest over something which is of little importance, certainly it is not worth days of arguing which is now spreading to other none related posts mainly because of you.

Trinity what are you talking about?

I wish you were right, Mater, and Chant was the sole boss around here, but you need to read a few of these posts a little better and pick up how much bossiness is going on.  Here is just one:

John Stevens said:

I'll tell you flat out I will shed no tears about someone leaving who pushes the sedevacantist error in such a manner as to refer to JPII as an antipope and believes the election of a validly and licitly elected Pope, since the death of Pope Gregory XVII in 1989 hasn't happened yet. That's not even mainstream sedevacantism. That's a whole 'nother path that most sedes don't even take seriously from what I know of them. I will not apologize if the firmness of my post has kept such garbage from appearing in the future on a Catholic forum such as this. Sedevacantism is not Catholic, and no amount of posting from some yahoo with an internet connection who cuts & pastes and decided to pout, pick up his ball, and go home is going to convince me otherwise.

Opinions are good, even differing opinions, because in the process of offering up each other's opinions, light can be shed.  Sometimes it takes just a slight change in the turn of a phrase to turn that light bulb on.  But who are any among us to say what others may or may not do, may or may not say, may or may not have as an opinion.

Notice:

Above all, who is the Lord High Keeper of the Truth.

Does that sound like I want a "no opinions allowed" ruling?  Quite the opposite.

I repeat:

I will not apologize if the firmness of my post has kept such garbage from appearing in the future on a Catholic forum such as this.

That sounds a lot like "no opinions but mine allowed", doesn't it?  

Different strokes for different folks, Mater.  There is always that last straw and God alone knows the size of the straw stack we each carry.  

This does bother me greatly for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the malice aforethought.  I'm sure John would be ecstatic if he could do away with free speech as long as he or his clone were the ones dictating legitimate speech.  I've often thought about the people who think they are going to reign in hell, because I suspect that those who think they will be on the top of the pile, will, in fact, be on the bottom.  It will be the same for those who want to do away with free speech, too, I'm sure.  

The unmitigated arrogance of all these people who know what is best for the rest of us has rubbed me totally raw.  From the elite elites who think we should be grateful that they are running the world for us, to the local zoning officer who proudly dictates that our toilet lids must be down at all times.  They reek of sulpher till I can stand no more.

And I grieve the loss of Stephanos, who not only brought fresh material, but was willing to talk about it.  I don't know his past history, his weaknesses, what wounds may have been re-opened, or whatever it was that caused him to bolt.  I do know that we each have our story, each have a load limit.  And I can't find him.  How proud John and Mike are of their work, and how ashamed I am of it.  If these are Catholics, don't look for converts too soon or very often.  

They will not long remain proud of their behavior.  Those who exalt themselves will surely be humbled.

I am scorned.  You laughed.  Out of a man's mouth comes the uncleanness in his heart.  There is much contempt coming from your mouth.  Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.  Your thread on Vox' marriage ran for eight days and eight pages, but I'll bet that's different, isn't it?  

I'm laughing because the medium shouldn't permit such cries of wrong doing to the extent you are continuing and complaining.

I haven't even begun to catch up to your record, so that bologna won't fly.  I'm sure you would like me to shut up, for the same reason Vox wanted you to shut up.  Too bad for you you don't have the button.

I see you didn't even try to explain away the scorned part.  I gather you couldn't come up with anything slightly mitigating for that, and you might as well have left the laughing alone, too, because it rings as hollow as your heart.  Your post above spoke volumes about you, and stands as your witness.

I'm laughing because the medium shouldn't permit such cries of wrong doing to the extent you are continuing and complaining.

Oh, don't you?  Over two forums you did.  If you don't like something you leave.  You leave if they kick you off.

nor would I find it gestapo like tactics to move a thread at the sole discretion of the guy who pays the bill for his own website, and then cry foul about others because of what he did

Get your facts straight.  I never complained about moving the thread, nor blamed it on others.  I'm the one who suggested it be moved.  You like to call others irrational.  How rational is it to say people did things they didn't, like getting upset about moving threads or taking over the whole forum?  And what about the GREAT priest who turned out to be mediocre.  Could it be you tweak the truth somewhat?

I realize the insanity of your attempt to sneer me into silence.  I realize the futility of your attempt to deny guilt in this matter.  I realize your flight from the reality of your misbehvior, even though it is here in black and white.  But, no, I don't realize the insanity of my attempt (?).  

What, you're a guest now and therefore exempt from accusation?  You didn't use that expression when you rode your high horse about Vox.  Or when you blew the Fr. Berry thing all out of proportion, accused Stephanos of hi jacking the forum, etc, etc.  I do realize that Jesus told a story about an old woman who wouldn't shut up until the judge gave her justice.  I intend to follow in her footsteps.  

Just keep talking, Mike.  You are far better at convicting yourself than I am.  

The COMPLAINT may be about a "guy" whose thread was moved. But the COMPLAINING has not been about the moving of a guy's thread. The COMPLAINING has been about false charges of calumny and hijacking against a fellow member of a community, and exaggerated charges of carelessness as to his trusting and quoting certain websites.

It has already been stated that no fault is found with the moving of posts. It seems like a diversionary lawyer's trick to refer at this point to complaints about a guy whose thread was moved.

There is a guy. This guy has a name, by the way, and it was bandied about freely enough when he was being mocked and excoriated. Why not use it here and now? Because calling him a guy, some guy, makes him seem negligible, and makes those who care about justice in his case look melodramatic and silly? Why wasn't he called a guy when in turn a GUY might have said, "Look guy, I know you mean well, but you're all wet about Fr Berry?" Why wasn't THAT exchange placed and kept on a down-to-earth guy-to-guy level?

But no. We had to hear all about the alleged calumnies and thefts of a certain member with a certain Christian name: now that he is being defended we hear about some "guy." He should have been thought of by his accusers as just this guy BEFORE. They should have written in here, "Okay, it's not a question of a thief or a liar or a slanderer of the Great Ones of Old. It's just some GUY who is cutting and pasting carelessly and trusting his seddie sources too much."

People who make serious accusations are obliged to take what follows from their accusations seriously.

There is a guy. His thread was moved. There are complaints that have to do with that guy. But the complaints are NOT about the moving of his thread.