Interesting, Chief Accomplice, that you'd delete my rebuttal, but not delete Poche's lies.

I have a life.
I don't obsess over Poche. I actually give him surprisingly little thought.

Your angry tirade was right here, so yes I deleted it, but I don't keep a text file of Poche's novus ordo errors like you do. You are really obsessed.
I'm not going to search through all Poche's posts judging where his novus ordo nonsense "crosses the line". I'd have to kiss goodbye hours of this precious day off of work. I have way too many important things to do. Like I said -- I have a life.

Everyone knows poche is novus ordo and they take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. Poche hasn't, and won't, convert anybody to the novus ordo.

Would a regular metal file cabinet work as a Faraday cage?

Only if you use metallic tape to seal the openings.

Poche is a danger to visiters and newbies interested in the real Catholic Faith and holy tradition as they visit this site.

Mark79,

Poche lives in your head rent-free. You need to get that checked. NOBODY ELSE ON CATHINFO is similarly obsessed. Everyone else on CathInfo is content with the status quo. Are you saying that no one on CathInfo cares about the truth, the Faith, God's honor, etc.?

Get over yourself.

It's ironic because I completely side with you dogmatically, and I completely agree with you on the J**ish Question (JQ), but since you won't be at peace with my decision, I have no choice but to ban you.

At least until you cool off or accept my moderating decision on this matter.

I've looked back at those I've banned, and I realized that in almost every case, banning them wasn't even a choice. I was basically forced to. Whenever a person won't be at peace with the management and/or the majority of the membership here, they have to go. If you have the ability to "be at peace", your CathInfo membership is 99.5% secure.

Matthew,

Let it be known from the git go that this post of mine is being made without having consulted anyone before it being made.

I was really shocked to hear about your ban of Mark 79, surely one of the best and the brightest to ever brighten the pages of CathInfo.  To bury the ban in a thread like this and to add your insulting remarks about Mark 79 only makes it worse.  I  pray that this ban is extremely short lived and comes with a sincere apology.

In our modern society -- and this has been going on for some time -- our boys in school and our men at work are being feminized whether they realize it or not.  The boys can't play so rough and tumble as in years past and when they do play they are forced to play with the girls; even their language is excessively curtailed.  Often the men in the workplace are being forced directly and or indirectly to speak and act with great political correctness and many are on pins and needles around women in the workplace because they know that they can easily get charged (often falsely) with some sort of sɛҳuąƖ harassment or worse.  Surely, CathInfo is a step above our modern society.  Surely, its administrator can allow someone to stay on regardless of whether that someone is at peace or not with the administrator's decision.  Surely, the administrator is strong enough to take some counter criticism such as Mark's (and not delete it) from time to time, even if it is rather strong.

Isn't it a good thing if there is a tough minded boy in a public school who stands up and constantly verbally puts down the boy who likes coming to school every day with pink hair and earrings?  Isn't it a good thing for a man in the public workplace to take an ongoing Christian stand against the open sodomite and or otherwise anti-Catholic in his and his fellow workers' midst.  Why show tolerance to the deviant while punishing the strong among us who make a good example for us by always reminding us of the deviancy so that the rest of us don't more easily become complacent to the deviancy or in your own words, "content with the status quo."?  Please apply to what I'm saying here to the case of Mark 79.

Even if Mark 79 were obsessed (whatever that means) with Poche and I'm not saying he is, well so what!  Some of us are so sick of Poche that we are silently rooting Mark's responses on.  How do you know that Mark is not a sort of a proxy for many of us?!  In any event it is obvious that Mark's responses follow Poche's posts.  They are a reaction to Poche rather than some sort of preemptive action.  If Poche wants to post back in his defense let him do it.  Why does he need to have a "big brother" Matthew take a club and ban Mark 79 with it?

It is ironic that you say Mark 79 is obsessed with Poche when no doubt some of us wonder with no small reason whether or not you are obsessed with Mark's "obsession." 

How in the world can you state that, "Everyone else on CathInfo is content with the status quo."?  Do you live in each of our head's "rent free" to make such an assertion?!  There are hundreds (or is it thousands?) on CathInfo.  I am one of them and thus I am part of the "everyone" you refer to and I, for one, am definitely not content with your above referenced status quo?

For goodness sake Matthew please allow Mark 79 (Mark 7:9), the man whose words pack more punch than a trusty M-79 back on to CathInfo.  If even Novus Ordo Poche can at least stand up to Mark on his own why can't tradCat Matthew?  Finally, I would ask that if you insist on continuing your ban of Mark that you do a clear OP on the subject rather do it under the cover of darkness as it were by having the notice of the ban buried in the middle of this thread.

klasG4e

Mark79,

Everyone else on CathInfo is content with the status quo. 

Matthew, I would wager a bet that most are not "content" but "accept" it.  Two different things.

I basically agree with him about poche lying, falsifying Scripture and slandering St. Pius X.  I also agree with him about the Jєωs.

But the thing is ... Mark79 became obsessed with these two issues, to the point of becoming neurotic and unbalanced.  I think it's dangerous both spiritually and psychologically to become obsessed about any given issue.  He seemed to stalk poche all over the forum, and poche could post a fish sandwich recipe in the What's for Dinner thread ... and within seconds Mark79 would jump in and call him a liar.  There were a couple posters who came after me that way at one point.

Matthew...once upon a time you had posted rules for the forum.  I once PMed you about this, and I never received a response.  Perhaps now is the time to actually post rules to which we all have to adhere.