New Forum! For Okie Trads and Beyond

[Maximilian]

Impressive.

You're old comrade Laramie Hirsch registered today!

Of blessed memory. As I recall, after he left SD he wrote a long post on his own site about how crazy it was when I was unjustly banned a while ago. We need more people with that kind of spirit.

Like Erin, for that matter. Although we hardly ever agree on points of argument, she protested when I was unjustly banned one time.

[Mono no aware]

Bans are sometimes like Academy Awards.  It's not necessarily for the particular performance, but more for the cumulative body of work.  It's occasionally a case of "this guy had it coming."  Al Pacino didn't win for Best Actor until 1993.

[Mono no aware]

Disagreeing with a ban is acceptable.  But to say the forum is an echo chamber seems somewhat overblown and theatrical.  There are plenty of other people wailing, "I can't believe this is permitted to stand on a traditional Catholic forum!"  They want more moderation, not less.  They think traditional Catholicism is monolithic according to their own definition of traditional Catholicism; they liken certain discussions on the forum to Novus Ordoettes crashing a Latin Mass convivium, or neckbeard atheists overrunning a Knights of Columbus meeting.  They don't seem to think it's enough of an echo chamber.

[Chestertonian]

Maybe Der Kopf could do a jubilee every few years where all bans are forgiven even permabans.  although that could end up resembling the storming of the bastille

[The Curt Jester]

This is how it works:

Where there are two or more gathered together who disagree with you, there is an echo chamber.

[Kaesekopf]

Maybe Der Kopf could do a jubilee every few years where all bans are forgiven even permabans.  although that could end up resembling the storming of the bastille

I actually kicked that idea around with the staff before. 

[Gardener]

SJ? In what way am I remotely Jesuit?

Gardener, you are the voice of Jesuitical laxity.  And with all due respect, you are an able and formidable voice in this regard.  Sir, I take off my cap.

In what sense? You didn't answer the question but merely rephrased your original accusation. Talk about Jesuitical...

[Jayne]

SJ? In what way am I remotely Jesuit?

Gardener, you are the voice of Jesuitical laxity.  And with all due respect, you are an able and formidable voice in this regard.  Sir, I take off my cap.

In what sense? You didn't answer the question but merely rephrased your original accusation. Talk about Jesuitical...

It was an absurd comment.  You are one of the most sane, balanced, and articulate posters here.  I do not see how anyone could mistake this for laxity.

[Mono no aware]

In what sense? You didn't answer the question but merely rephrased your original accusation. Talk about Jesuitical...

Hmm.  I was hoping the word "laxity" in there would've made it more specific, to differentiate it from the clever casuistry which is traditionally associated with the Jesuits, or the fruity liberalism of modern Jesuits like Pope Francis and Fr. James Martin, or even (as certain Protestants allege) a role in the leadership of the Illuminati.  All I meant the "SJ" to mean was that you can always be relied upon to take the side of "allowing for a fair amount of worldliness" in the many discussions we have about what the criteria is for Christian discipline and behavior in this life.  It's just "Jesuit" in the "Jesuit or Jansenist" equation, and come to think of it, I think our best exchange was on a thread entitled Jansenism, where we argued about frequent reception of communion.  I hope it did not go unnoticed that I listed you as a valuable member of the forum.

[Mono no aware]

It was an absurd comment.  You are one of the most sane, balanced, and articulate posters here.  I do not see how anyone could mistake this for laxity.

I did not mean to imply that Gardener was "lax" in the sense of being stoned or lazy or discombobulated.  I think he's a very intelligent and, as you say, articulate person.  I only meant to say (if you'll read the preceding post) that he argues well for a side I disagree with, which I consider to be a lax stance when it comes to worldliness.  Let it be known: Gardener is an exceptionally good poster.  I enjoy discussing things with him.

[Jayne]

It was an absurd comment.  You are one of the most sane, balanced, and articulate posters here.  I do not see how anyone could mistake this for laxity.

I did not mean to imply that Gardener was "lax" in the sense of being stoned or lazy or discombobulated.  I think he's a very intelligent and, as you say, articulate person.  I only meant to say (if you'll read the preceding post) that he argues well for a side I disagree with, which I consider to be a lax stance when it comes to worldliness.  Let it be known: Gardener is an exceptionally good poster.  I enjoy discussing things with him.

I think you are making a false dichotomy in which people must choose a side between "Jesuitical" or "Jansenist".  While people at either of these extremes might see any disagreement with themselves as choosing the other side, I think there is a middle ground which ought to be our goal. 

Gardener is a proponent of this happy medium and this is one of the reasons he is such a valuable poster.  This is what I meant by calling him balanced.

[Maximilian]

SJ? In what way am I remotely Jesuit?

Gardener, you are the voice of Jesuitical laxity.  And with all due respect, you are an able and formidable voice in this regard.  Sir, I take off my cap.

In what sense? You didn't answer the question but merely rephrased your original accusation. Talk about Jesuitical...

It was an absurd comment.  You are one of the most sane, balanced, and articulate posters here.  I do not see how anyone could mistake this for laxity.

Jayne delurks -- in order to defend Gardener from the accusation of being "Jesuitical."
Well that is quite an honor!

[Jayne]

Jayne delurks -- in order to defend Gardener from the accusation of being "Jesuitical."
Well that is quite an honor!

Only because I just barely resisted the temptation to delurk to trash Erin. 

[Jacob]

Jayne delurks -- in order to defend Gardener from the accusation of being "Jesuitical."
Well that is quite an honor!

Only because I just barely resisted the temptation to delurk to trash Erin. 

Careful. 

[Mono no aware]

I think you are making a false dichotomy in which people must choose a side between "Jesuitical" or "Jansenist".  While people at either of these extremes might see any disagreement with themselves as choosing the other side, I think there is a middle ground which ought to be our goal. 

Gardener is a proponent of this happy medium and this is one of the reasons he is such a valuable poster.  This is what I meant by calling him balanced.

I suppose our disagreement hinges only on our own personal impressions of whether Gardener occupies a middle ground or a specific side.  As for me, I don't think I'd consider him "balanced" in this regard, but fortunately this isn't an echo chamber.

Also, just a minor correction, and this not aimed particularly at you, Jayne, but I might remind everyone that the lower-case "e" in erin is deliberate, and is not supposed to be capitalized.