CathInfo.com

The amount of crazies on this sub actually beggars belief. 

What *really* seems crazy though is thinking you can "diagnose" a person via the internet, with no credentials to do so.


Any now, this poor man has been banished for wanting to evangelize.    What a world.

Are you one of his followers or a sock-puppet account?  He was not banned for "wanting to evangelize".  Of course, coming here to "evangelize" implies that he thinks that we require evangelization, i.e. that we're not Catholic.  He was here to troll and to attack.  When you join a forum solely for the purpose of "converting" the people on the forum, you're not there in good faith, and end up being a disruptive force.  If some Muslim had a forum, and I went on there with the sole purpose of converting them and attempting to undermine what they believed, I should not be surprised if they were to ban me ... and the reason for banning me could simply be that they wish to interact with fellow Muslims and they consider me to be disruptive of that aim.  Nishant got to a point that he made very other thread and every other post here, and the vast majority of them were attacking members of this forum.  Whether you agree with sedevacantism or not, a significant percentage of the forum's membership are sedevacantist.  But, as we've seen with him and other trolls before, they start that way simply as a divide-and-conquer technique, where they get the R&R types to dogpile on the SVs, but when people sniff him out, and strart calling him on this strategy, it becomes evident that he considers all Traditional Catholics to be schismatics.  Traditional Catholics don't come to this forum to deal with Conciliar Modernist trolls.  We get enough of that in our real lives.  We come here to interract with other Traditional Catholics and not to defend Traditional Catholicism.

As for "diagnosing" him, he's had a very long history of posting here, getting banned, posting again, etc.  He regularly makes comments that could only come from an abnormal mind.

And, as someone else has pointed out, you have diagnosed people as "crazies", so you're doing the same thing, but you try to defend the hypocrisy by claiming that your assessment is not a diagnosis but more colloquial ... as if anyone else here was delivering an official diagnosis when we too decided that Nishant is nuts.

Are you one of his followers or a sock-puppet account?  He was not banned for "wanting to evangelize".  Of course, coming here to "evangelize" implies that he thinks that we require evangelization, i.e. that we're not Catholic.  He was here to troll and to attack.  When you join a forum solely for the purpose of "converting" the people on the forum, you're not there in good faith, and end up being a disruptive force.  If some Muslim had a forum, and I went on there with the sole purpose of converting them and attempting to undermine what they believed, I should not be surprised if they were to ban me ... and the reason for banning me could simply be that they wish to interact with fellow Muslims and they consider me to be disruptive of that aim.  Nishant got to a point that he made very other thread and every other post here, and the vast majority of them were attacking members of this forum.  Whether you agree with sedevacantism or not, a significant percentage of the forum's membership are sedevacantist.  But, as we've seen with him and other trolls before, they start that way simply as a divide-and-conquer technique, where they get the R&R types to dogpile on the SVs, but when people sniff him out, and strart calling him on this strategy, it becomes evident that he considers all Traditional Catholics to be schismatics.  Traditional Catholics don't come to this forum to deal with Conciliar Modernist trolls.  We get enough of that in our real lives.  We come here to interract with other Traditional Catholics and not to defend Traditional Catholicism.

As for "diagnosing" him, he's had a very long history of posting here, getting banned, posting again, etc.  He regularly makes comments that could only come from an abnormal mind.

And, as someone else has pointed out, you have diagnosed people as "crazies", so you're doing the same thing, but you try to defend the hypocrisy by claiming that your assessment is not a diagnosis but more colloquial ... as if anyone else here was delivering an official diagnosis when we too decided that Nishant is nuts.

I responded to this -- perhaps you did not see it -- that colloquially referring to the bag of nuts that is this website  - and I inlucde myself in that -- versus categorizing, itemizing, psychologizing, and pathologizing a person in great detail (as was done for the other guy), with itemized lists, giving him an actual supposed "diagnosis"  ARE NOT THE SAME.

One is a friendly colloquialism.   

The other is an actual attempt to scapegoat and pigeonhole and pathologize a person until they are scrubbed from the website. 

Secondly, and again, the fact the folks here feel the knee-jerk need to castigate people they disagree with as trolls, followers, bi-polars, borderlines, sociopaths and the like  -- I am talking about giving far-too-specific titles, as if they are psychologists or authorities of some sort, based off interactions online -- is in and of itself not normal. 

It reeks of group-think and of a kind of purity-spiralling that often results in misunderstanding. 

If we can leave the diagnosis issue aside for a moment, I, for one, was concerned about Telling's wanting everyone here to "evangelize" the way that he does, and he tried to make us feel guilty because we weren't following his lead on that.

Also, he kept insinuating that we are in the wrong for not accepting VII and it's ecuмenical directives. Well, traditional Catholics here are not going to accept VII ecuмenism. He's gone on and on about that, and he never changes his tune, and even though it's clear that we are not going to accept it, he keeps coming back to harp on it.

Maybe you can address the above instead of the diagnosis problem?

I mean, isn't the guy allowed to his view on the issue?

My understanding -- and correct me if I am wrong -- is that the forum is for trads in general.   Not just sspx.

There are trads who believe V2 contains heresy outright.    There are trads who believe V2 is merely ambiguous and can be *interpreted* heretically, but is not in itself outright heresy.

This forum is supposed to allow space for both.