What's some stuff you all would like to see happen around here to make it a livelier joint?
I've noticed activity has been slipping.
Open to ideas all across the board.
No personal attacks to me. :P
I have a suggestion. I'd like to see what others say before making it.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 30, 2018, 04:36:21 PM
What's some stuff you all would like to see happen around here to make it a livelier joint?
I've noticed activity has been slipping.
Yes, I've noticed too that activity has diminished greatly. I'm afraid there's nothing you can do unless you are secretly a cardinal with a vote in the conclave.
People are losing hope. It's like being in the bunker with Hitler. It's not much fun debating whether it will be 1 month or 2 months until the Russians show up in Berlin.
It has been demonstrated endlessly here on SD and elsewhere that the phoney pontificates of JPII and BXVI were an illusion. However, sometimes we need to cling to false hope when there isn't any other. Today with Francis, and the renewed scandal attacks on the Church, and the lack of any light on the horizon in any direction, there doesn't seem to be any hope at all.
Sometimes I long for those more innocent naive days when I still believed that JPII was going to restore the Church "any day now."
https://youtu.be/x7kRFQf_d8I
P.S. Even this video is much more depressing than I realized. I posted it here because the many dozens of times that I heard it on the radio I always thought that it said:
"Oh, what I would not give for false hope now."
but today I find out that the actual lyrics are:
"No, I would not give you false hope, no."
Kick out atheists. You know who I am talking about. Especially that insidious little culture ham.
Quote from: Heinrich on October 30, 2018, 08:42:12 PM
Kick out atheists. You know who I am talking about. Especially that insidious little culture ham.
The atheists have been very inactive the last ... what, couple of months?
And yet activity remains low. If anything, we can credit atheists with some forum activity. ;)
Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk
Ask Gregg and Jayne to put aside their differences and return to the forum. They've both made their point.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvu5YcmYhSQ[/yt]
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 31, 2018, 01:00:29 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on October 30, 2018, 08:42:12 PM
Kick out atheists. You know who I am talking about. Especially that insidious little culture ham.
The atheists have been very inactive the last ... what, couple of months?
And yet activity remains low.
Their work is complete. Yay!
QuoteIf anything, we can credit atheists with some forum activity. ;)
That's a good business model for a trad forum. :cheeseheadbeer:
I think it ebbs and flows based on whether major Church and world events are happening. Forum activity may temporarily seem to be down somewhat, but if something interesting happens, probably everyone will be posting and active again. And then it may be too much to handle!
Also, some traditionalists may be understandably battle-weary or just fatigued at bad news; maybe it is naivete, but I'm still hopeful. There are some good things happening. Let us all strive to fulfil the duties of our state and be apostles of prayer; other things will take care of themselves. I doubt there will be any permanent decline in forum activity.
Quote from: Xavier on October 31, 2018, 07:28:38 AM
I think it ebbs and flows based on whether major Church and world events are happening. Forum activity may temporarily seem to be down somewhat, but if something interesting happens, probably everyone will be posting and active again. And then it may be too much to handle!
Also, some traditionalists may be understandably battle-weary or just fatigued at bad news; maybe it is naivete, but I'm still hopeful. There are some good things happening. Let us all strive to fulfil the duties of our state and be apostles of prayer; other things will take care of themselves. I doubt there will be any permanent decline in forum activity.
So, how then, does this forum serve traditional Catholics to be boosted in their spiritual life? Is there anything like that to be done by a forum? Or is that proper to the church and only the church/spiritual writers/etc?
How can we make this place more interesting to come to when there isn't some drama or news about Rome or the chanceries?
Quote from: Lynne on October 31, 2018, 06:31:46 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 31, 2018, 01:00:29 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on October 30, 2018, 08:42:12 PM
Kick out atheists. You know who I am talking about. Especially that insidious little culture ham.
The atheists have been very inactive the last ... what, couple of months?
And yet activity remains low.
Their work is complete. Yay!
QuoteIf anything, we can credit atheists with some forum activity. ;)
That's a good business model for a trad forum. :cheeseheadbeer:
So, if I ban them, you all will post more?... :cheeseheadbeer:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 31, 2018, 07:33:47 AM
Quote from: Lynne on October 31, 2018, 06:31:46 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 31, 2018, 01:00:29 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on October 30, 2018, 08:42:12 PM
Kick out atheists. You know who I am talking about. Especially that insidious little culture ham.
The atheists have been very inactive the last ... what, couple of months?
And yet activity remains low.
Their work is complete. Yay!
QuoteIf anything, we can credit atheists with some forum activity. ;)
That's a good business model for a trad forum. :cheeseheadbeer:
So, if I ban them, you all will post more?... :cheeseheadbeer:
Who are "them"? You asked that prior.
To answer your question, probably. There seems to be a decided upon inclination for at least two of these goons to post antagonistic threads or replies. "What if Theistic Evolution were true?" F--that for a topic on a Catholic forum. Question may appear innocuous enough, but the ethos of the poster and "arguant" is the poison.
Quote from: red solo cup on October 31, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
Ask Gregg and Jayne to put aside their differences and return to the forum. They've both made their point.
This is my suggestion as well.
Quote from: Jacob on October 31, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on October 31, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
Ask Gregg and Jayne to put aside their differences and return to the forum. They've both made their point.
This is my suggestion as well.
Laus, Jovan, and Bonaventure are missed, too. Whatever happened to Walty?
Quote from: Heinrich on October 31, 2018, 10:57:00 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 31, 2018, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on October 31, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
Ask Gregg and Jayne to put aside their differences and return to the forum. They've both made their point.
This is my suggestion as well.
Laus, Jovan, and Bonaventure are missed, too. Whatever happened to Walty?
Laus is done posting on forums. Jovan runs a blog but was never super active here. Bonaventure is a hobo (:lol:) and Walty has life/family/work pulling him away from the Forum.
You want me to start a natural vs. medicated childbirth thread??? I will do it! ;D
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 30, 2018, 04:36:21 PM
What's some stuff you all would like to see happen around here to make it a livelier joint?
I've noticed activity has been slipping.
Open to ideas all across the board.
No personal attacks to me. :P
Well maybe if you didn't encourage blatant attacks on approved apparitions. I know some people have left the forum for that reason alone.
Quote from: mikemac on October 31, 2018, 06:16:25 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 30, 2018, 04:36:21 PM
What's some stuff you all would like to see happen around here to make it a livelier joint?
I've noticed activity has been slipping.
Open to ideas all across the board.
No personal attacks to me. :P
Well maybe if you didn't encourage blatant attacks on approved apparitions. I know some people have left the forum for that reason alone.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: MundaCorMeum on October 31, 2018, 12:46:30 PM
You want me to start a natural vs. medicated childbirth thread??? I will do it! ;D
It all depends on whether the woman is wearing pants.
Men like action. The forum could collectively take on a mission such as evangelization / apologetics through whatever means. Writing, youtubing, comboxing, blogging, Twittering, or even street evangelization on specific days (and then we share with each other here how it went). A small little organization targeted towards some goal.
Goal Examples:
- evangelization to Protestants
- evangelization to atheists
- evangelization to NO Catholics
- independent street evangelization (and share stories together here afterwards)
- writing campaigns to parishes to fix their liturgy
- writing campaigns to bishops to man up
I think the internal debates had on this forum are generally toxic. Part of that is the nature of the times and all of us trying to make sense of how this all holds together. But even as such, I think much of it ends up being scandalous. To me, at least, it is damaging to see so many with widely varying beliefs - Fatima is from God / from the devil, EENS is true / its a heresy, Francis is the Pope / he's the antipope, NO is licit / its not licit, VII was valid / its a robber council, etc etc.
The positives of the forum are the Q/A aspect of it, the advice threads, the news discussion and the friendly chats.
Don't forget prayer crusades. To me, that's the best aspect of this forum, that we can unite in prayer with many Traditional Catholics from around the globe. We should have specific purposes and express intentions to ask for, all for God's glory and for the Church's victory, and persevere in collective prayer till we see God's Triumph come in that area, which will always happen sooner or later.
We could have one specifically for the Tridentine Mass to return quickly to parishes worldwide. We could pray something like the Holy Wounds Chaplet round the clock for that intention. Or Litanies and offerings of the Precious Blood as St. Gertrude and St. Faustina have taught us obtain very much grace from God. Or we could have something like the Hours as they do in seminaries, convents and monasteries.
Starting this month and continuing indefinitely, we could have an indefinite prayer campaign to empty Purgatory forever. We have of course some things like that, but we should all support and participate in them with great zeal. Then we will see victories come thick and fast.
I agree with Davis about evangelism/apologetics. That's very important.
The advice threads, the prayer intentions forum, the traditional spirituality discussions, the liturgical and other devotions stuff are also great imo. We should have more of that.
Different Catholics I guess are attracted to one or more of the above. There'll be something for everybody.
Edit: And sorry, but allowing people to say publicly on the forum that Our Lady of Fatima is a deception of the devil is imho totally wrong and likely, as Mike says, a great discouragement to many Catholics who would otherwise participate more. We should not question sacred things which our ancestors held in esteem. No one began questioning Our Lady of Fatima till some few years ago. One of them has expressed doubt about basic Christian doctrines and the supernatural. That's what is likely to happen when we deny a public miracle that was a great grace from God and Our Lady to the One True Church. We should rather be praising God for this favor saying "He has not done in like manner for every nation" as the Psalmist says; it is a great grace of God to be guided by Our Lord and Our Lady in every generation. Given only to us Catholics.
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 01, 2018, 12:18:34 AM
Men like action. The forum could collectively take on a mission such as evangelization / apologetics through whatever means. Writing, youtubing, comboxing, blogging, Twittering, or even street evangelization on specific days (and then we share with each other here how it went). A small little organization targeted towards some goal.
Goal Examples:
- evangelization to Protestants
- evangelization to atheists
- evangelization to NO Catholics
- independent street evangelization (and share stories together here afterwards)
- writing campaigns to parishes to fix their liturgy
- writing campaigns to bishops to man up
I think the internal debates had on this forum are generally toxic. Part of that is the nature of the times and all of us trying to make sense of how this all holds together. But even as such, I think much of it ends up being scandalous. To me, at least, it is damaging to see so many with widely varying beliefs - Fatima is from God / from the devil, EENS is true / its a heresy, Francis is the Pope / he's the antipope, NO is licit / its not licit, VII was valid / its a robber council, etc etc.
The positives of the forum are the Q/A aspect of it, the advice threads, the news discussion and the friendly chats.
You're on the right track here. But I think it even needs a little, shall we say, testosterone.
That might mean getting in the face of prelates and trying to find ways to take the Church back from them before all the property gets sold off to pay lawsuits. Or at least find ways of protecting it.
St. Patrick took care of the snakes in Ireland. It's time for a saint to emerge, or a collective of men on the way to sainthood, to rid the Church of all the homosexuals. Which are the snakes of our day.
Voris, and jerkoffs like him, can't wait for RICO hearings to take away all the property. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your own face.
Constant threads about Marian apparitions are grating and toxic. Because most are BS.
I think an improvement could be the creation of a recent topics section. I liked using Cathinfo's recent topics function. But, I have never really liked using this forums type which is a "recent posts" function. Perhaps consider having both options for the forum. Or, if you only want to have only one "recent" function, ask the forum its thoughts on the matter/if a switch might be a good idea.
Another example mission would be to pass out liturgy info cards at parish carparks. I have in mind little postcard or prayer card size notes that we can slip under windshield wipers. These notes would be on individual liturgy-related matters, such as:
- Communion in the hand
- Eucharistic ministers
- Versus populum
- Altars
- Tabernacle location
- The sacrifice of the Mass
etc
Nothing combative, just information to show how the liturgy can be made more pious. The cards are cheap as chips to print up, the cost primarily comes from shipping and then the labor in having people go and plaster parish carparks on Sundays.
Anyways, I think rallying the forum around some actions to be taken is a good idea.
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 02, 2018, 08:34:11 AM
Another example mission would be to pass out liturgy info cards at parish carparks. I have in mind little postcard or prayer card size notes that we can slip under windshield wipers. These notes would be on individual liturgy-related matters, such as:
- Communion in the hand
- Eucharistic ministers
- Versus populum
- Altars
- Tabernacle location
- The sacrifice of the Mass
etc
This is not meant to be critical, but rather constructive. I haven't seen, in my experience, polemics succeed, such as written or oral material criticizing aspects of the N.O. -- especially from a distance. You say it's not "combative," but I'm afraid that those uninitiated to Tradition generally regard it as such, and react defensively or dismissively if they're laypeople, angrily if they're priests. They don't know anything else than what they've been doing (in most cases), so we are criticizing their experience and knowledge base if they have no context.
I try instead to be a "woman of action" myself by personally and gently inviting others to the Latin Mass. How/when do I do that? By occasionally attending a N.O. when I don't have to sacrifice the TLM to do so, such as a Saturday "vigil Mass." I just offer it up. I behave reverently. In my case that means I dress differently from all the other women there, and I pray my rosary ahead of time,etc. For a guy that could mean also dressing differently but especially behaving differently (not talking, not acting like you're at a spectator sport), bringing your missal, kneeling, maybe even visiting the confessional beforehand. It's a great witness.
Then I stay after Mass. First, of course, I greet the priest and start up a conversation about his background. Inevitably, he asks about mine, and notices that I'm "new to the parish." I explain I happen to be at this Mass today, but normally I'm at X Mass and thoroughly enjoy it; it has changed my life. The conversation never stops there. The priest is curious, wants to know more; wants the names of the priest or priests who celebrate there, etc. I openly invite him to join us.
This sometimes happens with lay people as well. And there's a particular N.O. parish near my work on Saturday. I sometimes hang out there (when I can) and do what I describe above. People are beginning to be more curious about me.
In addition, some apostolates have their own flyers/brochures/pamphlets about their Latin Mass. I sometimes leave a few in the pew, because again -- it's not a criticism of the N.O. or implied criticism of those attending. It's an invitation. When they accept the invitation, they will learn why CITH and Eucharistic Ministers are so wrong and it won't be a matter of logical argumentation.
:)
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 02, 2018, 10:39:52 AM
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 02, 2018, 08:34:11 AM
Another example mission would be to pass out liturgy info cards at parish carparks. I have in mind little postcard or prayer card size notes that we can slip under windshield wipers. These notes would be on individual liturgy-related matters, such as:
- Communion in the hand
- Eucharistic ministers
- Versus populum
- Altars
- Tabernacle location
- The sacrifice of the Mass
etc
This is not meant to be critical, but rather constructive. I haven't seen, in my experience, polemics succeed, such as written or oral material criticizing aspects of the N.O. -- especially from a distance. You say it's not "combative," but I'm afraid that those uninitiated to Tradition generally regard it as such, and react defensively or dismissively if they're laypeople, angrily if they're priests. They don't know anything else than what they've been doing (in most cases), so we are criticizing their experience and knowledge base if they have no context.
I try instead to be a "woman of action" myself by personally and gently inviting others to the Latin Mass. How/when do I do that? By occasionally attending a N.O. when I don't have to sacrifice the TLM to do so, such as a Saturday "vigil Mass." I just offer it up. I behave reverently. In my case that means I dress differently from all the other women there, and I pray my rosary ahead of time,etc. For a guy that could mean also dressing differently but especially behaving differently (not talking, not acting like you're at a spectator sport), bringing your missal, kneeling, maybe even visiting the confessional beforehand. It's a great witness.
Then I stay after Mass. First, of course, I greet the priest and start up a conversation about his background. Inevitably, he asks about mine, and notices that I'm "new to the parish." I explain I happen to be at this Mass today, but normally I'm at X Mass and thoroughly enjoy it; it has changed my life. The conversation never stops there. The priest is curious, wants to know more; wants the names of the priest or priests who celebrate there, etc. I openly invite him to join us.
This sometimes happens with lay people as well. And there's a particular N.O. parish near my work on Saturday. I sometimes hang out there (when I can) and do what I describe above. People are beginning to be more curious about me.
In addition, some apostolates have their own flyers/brochures/pamphlets about their Latin Mass. I sometimes leave a few in the pew, because again -- it's not a criticism of the N.O. or implied criticism of those attending. It's an invitation. When they accept the invitation, they will learn why CITH and Eucharistic Ministers are so wrong and it won't be a matter of logical argumentation.
:)
I got to experience this approach today.
We have an older woman on my team. So, as team lead I've been training her. We went up to the cafeteria today and I was looking around. Nothing which was Keto
and Friday friendly that struck my fancy. She got pepperoni pizza and some French fries. As she was checking out she asked why I didn't get pizza, as I'd mentioned maybe "cheating" on Keto today. Since they didn't have cheese pizza available, I said because it's Friday. She asked what I meant and I explained I don't eat meat on Fridays. She says, "Oh, we only do that in Lent. Is that part of your religion?" I affirmed and said that it's done in Catholicism. I had suspected she is Catholic as she is Irish to the hilt, but hadn't asked.
She looked shocked and said, "You're Catholic? I went to Catholic schools my whole life and I didn't know this!" (I'd have figured my St. Therese of Liseux brown scapular might have given it away prior, but oh well).
So I briefly explained that under 1983 code of canon law it's optional outside of Lent, but a penance
isn't optional. She was sort of upset and said, "Why didn't anyone ever tell me this!?" So I made a brief comment that the Bishops and Priests of the last 50 years have done a bang up job of not actually teaching these things.
When we got back to the room, I sent her an article explaining: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/meatless-fridays
She said thanks and proceeded to read it.
All the sudden she basically shouts, "I'm doing this from now on! I had no idea!"
Truth works, if you're not an ass about it and the person is disposed to it. We cannot control whether grace is given, nor can we control the other's disposition. But we
can control ourselves.
Both of you made great points and offered wonderful witnesses.
For Miriam and G.:
[yt]https://youtu.be/QS0pNPw958M[/yt]
How sweet, Heinrich. Thank you.
Quote from: Heinrich on November 03, 2018, 11:53:32 AM
For Miriam and G.:
[yt]https://youtu.be/QS0pNPw958M[/yt]
I love it, Heinrich :thumbsup: Thank you!
One suggestion: Put the "thanks" button at the bottom of a post so I don't have to scroll back up to thank it.
Definitely bring back Greg and Jayne. I miss them both.
Other than that -- a pants thread and perhaps a singing contest!
I thought Greg and Jayne left of mutual agreement?
Quote from: Gardener on November 06, 2018, 06:13:59 PM
I thought Greg and Jayne left of mutual agreement?
Sure, but Kaesekopf should somehow peacefully force them to come back ;D.
Maybe it will get better here in 2020, when Trump runs again. We had such fun in chat on election night 2016 (and a lot of debate before that)! It's election night 2018 right now, but it is just not the same.
Here is my imput. Two of the rules were a stumbling block for me when I discerned joining the forum(a month long process). And, the result for me was that I would just avoid those subjects. And, even if I didn't happen to avoid them, I was not going to expect much action/response, as a result of the rules and how they not only affect me but potentially others also. And, the two rules I am referring to regard trad bashing and sedevacantism. I love all of the other rules, but there is something not quite right in my opinion about those two rules. If they can be focused and improved, it may result in greater forum membership and activity.
Quote from: Philip G. on November 26, 2018, 10:02:46 PM
Here is my imput. Two of the rules were a stumbling block for me when I discerned joining the forum(a month long process). And, the result for me was that I would just avoid those subjects. And, even if I didn't happen to avoid them, I was not going to expect much action/response, as a result of the rules and how they not only affect me but potentially others also. And, the two rules I am referring to regard trad bashing and sedevacantism. I love all of the other rules, but there is something not quite right in my opinion about those two rules. If they can be focused and improved, it may result in greater forum membership and activity.
Any suggestions? I'm open to listening/alterations.
Rule - "Likewise, insinuating that certain trads or groups of trads are not really Catholic will not be tolerated"
Rule - "I do not say that the pope is not the pope... but I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope".
For one who does not believe that a pope can be a formal heretic, it is only natural to have a problem with these rules. And, I mean this in the sense that none can judge popes; hence no formal heresy and no loss of office, all of which are stops long before one reaches sedevacantism.
But, enough about me. It is your forum Kaesekopf. I am on the lookout though for some penance to do for it.
A separate sub-forum for Private Revelation. Therein can be contained the volumes of spam posting regarding that. More importantly, however, users would see that it is not mainstream Catholicism, nor doctrine, and thus does not rise to the level of mandated belief and universally recommended piety.
Users could post there to their heart's content and in keeping with their apparently enormous amount of time to do so.
The key for me is interesting topics.
Personally, I do not use any of the different topic areas. I just click on the "New Posts" link and see what comes up. I tend to read the threads where there is a lot of interaction even if it is contentious.
In the past few months there has just been thread after thread of endless religious screeds and mountains of detail. If I want a meditation there a plenty of places where I can just download one. It is overwhelmingly one person who posts these threads and I find them dull as dishwater.
TLDR;
There are other threads where another person (different person) seems to just reply to himself over and over again.
I want to hear about peoples lives. I have a stressful day at work and when I am reading the forum I want something funny to cheer me up. I do not want to read about the meditations of some obscure monk.
Greg was very good at this. He would regularly post opinions about stuff he saw in the news. He would get into fights and argue. I didn't agree with him alot of the time. Sometimes he really pissed me off but that is just Greg. Roses and thorns go together. It was bloody entertaining though.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/detail-red-rose-bloom-450w-247410484.jpg)
Chestertonian is interesting too. He talks about his hospital visits and various crisis and how much he is struggling. I like that. It is real life.
Personally, I think people are just losing hope. I know I am.
My way of dealing with the atheists is just to block them. Posters like Kirin just dont appear. Occasionally I will click on the link a read it and probably conclude "nope, he's still an asshole".
Maybe you should shut the forum down for six months. Absence makes the heart grow fonder they say.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/e1/59/90e159a47b7e0d1b14d7d129ad09542c.jpg)
Quote from: clau clau on March 22, 2019, 01:22:29 PM
Chestertonian is interesting too. He talks about his hospital visits and various crisis and how much he is struggling. I like that. It is real life.
I'm not the type to really share what's going on with me, but if you find that kind of thing edifying, I can post more.
I have found the forums to be less interesting in recent months, perhaps for a year or so. Christulsa left us and said he thinks the forum should be shut down, and that made me sad and reconsider my membership here as perhaps he is right and the forum is more bad than good. I don't know if it is bad. If it is bad, Cathinfo is worse and I have been posting there for nine years, so I am used to the poison, so I do not really agree with christulsa, though he may be right. I do not value my own opinion over his. Perhaps their time has come and gone. So I post less than I used to.
When I first started posting on forums years ago I would always be interested and I made about two posts a day on average to contribute. But lately I am posting less and less. My average on SD is less than a half a post a day for almost two years and in the last few months I rarely posted at all. I don't know why this is. Why do I find the Catholic forums less interesting than I used to? Perhaps I miss many of the old posters who no longer post. Perhaps I have heard everything about the Catholic faith discussed already and now it is boring because I have heard it all before. I do think traffic is down. I still read the forums, though not as much. It is not like I no longer care about the faith. I still believe and I still love going to the Latin Mass and I hope that never changes. I am not having a crisis of faith, or considering going Eastern Orthodox because of Francis or of deciding that Benedict is still really the pope.
What could make the forum better? I don't know. I would be interested in a thread where people share the stories they write and the art they create. Perhaps some of us write stories or paint pictures or even take photographs or sing songs. Not necessarily Catholic but artistic. I have been writing a lot but I am afraid to share my writings with other people. I am trying to write a trilogy of novellas in my free time. The public title will be The Daniela Trilogy, but they have a secret title which I will not reveal. It is something that gives a little meaning to my life. I have this kind of existential crisis going on where I think about the meaning of my own life. I tell myself that because I cannot have a wife and family that my life is meaningless. And then I think that with God there is meaning and one can be good and love God and find meaning even without a family. And then I think that without God my life would be meaningless. Yes, but I do believe in God. And if there is no God then my own life is meaningless. And if that is the case, then why would relationships with other people, a wife and children, give my own life meaning if their lives were as meaningless as my own? I cannot answer that so it all comes back to God.
But I am terrified of sharing my stories with other people. In fact the only person who I have shared them with is fellow SD poster Pon de Replay. I am afraid of sharing them because I fear first, that they are not very good, and second, that they reveal too much of my character and I fear they would scandalize people and make people hate me. But I think it would be interesting if we would share our art with each other on the forum. I know we can but I do not think there is a dedicated thread for that purpose. I would be willing to share some of my writing if such a thread would be established. I bet some of you have really interesting stories and I am sure many of them are holy and pious and some of them are irreverent. My own stories I believe show a true belief, but they are scarred by sin and contemplate doubt and despair. But if anyone does start such a thread I will contribute one of my stories and perhaps more, but I will not start the thread myself, I will wait for someone else to show enough interest to start it. I know Pon de Replay writes stories as I have read some of them and they are worth reading for the most part. I believe he used to post some of them on Te Deum before that forum kicked the bucket.
I have something going on in my life so please pray for me. It is important but I do not wish to reveal the details. Pray for Matthew's intention. I am happy but if this situation is resolved my life will be as good as I could ever expect considering my condition which some of you know about. It would really help myself and my family so very much so pray for me. Thank you. I really appreciate the ability to talk to you on this forum. It is nice to have fellow Catholics to talk to on the forum, and every time I have talked to any of you by PM it has been a good experience. For some reason christulsa has had bad experiences on the forum but for me it has all been good, at least on SD, except for one time when I was likened to a crack-head and got upset for a few minutes. So thank you KK for your work and your dedication, I am glad you keep SD online. Pax.
I also find the forum boring these days. As others have said, I've been in the Trad community for a long time, and I've already heard the usual debates on various theological and moral issues. I'm not interested in repeating those. I'm not saying that others should not engage in these discussions, only that I do not read them or participate.
As others have said, what I find interesting is the minutiae of people's lives. I'm a stay-at-home mother with few Catholic friends, and I just like to come here to connect with other people like me. I like to know what people are reading or cooking or growing in their gardens. I like to hear the funny things that toddlers did today or learn that a new baby is on the way. I haven't posted much for a while, because these are the things I tend to talk about, and I feel like I'm boring people and not contributing anything sufficiently "Catholic" to the forum.
I'm not sure what my point is in saying this. I'm just chiming in, as the previous posts have resonated with me.
Maybe I'm in a minority of one, but I wish we could have more discussion not just with non-Catholics and among traditionalists (sedevacantiism or no?) but also with non-traditionalist and even anti-traditionalist Catholics. E.g. I sometimes have email arguments concerning Amoris Laetitia and other big issues in the "Conciliar Church" with a relative who thinks the Church is getting better and better, and traditionalists are just "rigourists". I would also like to see more arguments with good-willed Catholics who think Vatican II makes sense.
It's so hard to have one forum for all traditionalist purposes; family issues are infinitely interesting and important for our salvation, and "what is in the news" is interesting and pertinent, but Catholicism (and the defense of traditional Catholicism) also has infinite room for moral, philosophical, and theological issues. If we've "heard it all" already it's not because these things are limited but because we are limited. I wish somehow new expertise and excellence could be infused into the forum, and that it would attract more "big names" (and big intellects, perhaps) in the Church.
And I do admit to a fondness for the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and wish he could be as central to this forum as he once was to the Church (according to its Popes).
What do people see on other forums that might be added here? Are there sites out there that DO meet people's needs better than SD now?
I wish Kaesekopf would show up here more often.... Still praying for you K. :pray2:
But - let's remember - it's Lent and things will look better at Easter!!
This forum is predestined to die and there's nothing you can do about it.
We're all dust and to dust we return. End of story.
You want a ton of visits to this forum just post a ton of Catholic news on here and people will discover this place as a news hub. People like to comment on the news. Learn how to use aggregators or hire someone and dump tons of articles on here.
Then add ads on here so it pays for itself if you need to hire someone. Maybe links to purchase things on Amazon.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on April 02, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
You want a ton of visits to this forum just post a ton of Catholic news on here and people will discover this place as a news hub. People like to comment on the news. Learn how to use aggregators or hire someone and dump tons of articles on here.
Then add ads on here so it pays for itself if you need to hire someone. Maybe links to purchase things on Amazon.
::)
Maybe Kaesekopf should just shut the forum down. The utter ignorance of some posters, ( See thread: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22703.msg482488#new ) and the "my form of Catholicism is the only true form of Catholicism" attitude of many posters, gives scandal to others, both inside and outside of the Faith.
It certainly does not reflect the beauty of the traditional Catholic Faith.
Or he should just start banning people. :shrug:
It seems like the spark has gone out of Suscipe Domine. It's dull.
Quote from: dymphnaw on November 21, 2019, 08:38:00 AM
It seems like the spark has gone out of Suscipe Domine. It's dull.
This is the winter of our dissed content.
This forum has some very "hot" discussions at times and not so much at others. We can't expect fireworks every day.
I did particularly enjoy all the threads on "grace" that took place here, it helped me find Fr. Most's book and clear up my ideas about the Banezian system, thanks to Gardener.
Online book club. I personally love a book club. Have mods to pick the books, political, historical, witty, fun, religious, theological (within reason), etc. Anyone who wants to can discuss. Unlike real life book clubs, people won't feel pressured to read every one, they can do the ones they want and skip others. I would advice that you don't pick any grossly irreligious books, because even though discussing these can be good apologetic practice, it would turn some people off as a "focus." Also, (hence the mods) no books with blasphemy, overt sexual content, etc. The nice thing about this as well is that the book would be introduced, a timeline for reading would be issued, and a discussion begun. After so long you shut it down and start the next book. No dusty threads.
I've tried, but no one ever wants to read what I want to read. :( My picks are just too dorky.
Quote from: Jacob on November 21, 2019, 08:25:00 PM
I've tried, but no one ever wants to read what I want to read. :( My picks are just too dorky.
Well now I'm curious. Hit me with your top ten.
spend most of my freetime on catholic websites commenting on taylor marshall's YouTube videos. I am sure greg does to, because someone of the same christian name is posting in the comment's on half of the videos... does make me lmao sometimes with his chalenging comments....must be the same dude.
with bishops fellay in hibernation and williamson retired and the other two bishops not speaking any English there really is no spokesperson for SSPX and right-of-center FSSP trads. This means TM, voris and lifesite news are really getting most of the discussion valume today and controling the narrative.
probably a good idea to set up topics discussing the same pachamamma, vigano, etcetera topics and then post this forums urls in the comments section of TM, lifesite news, etcetera. I would think that would bring in some new posters and fiery discussions.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 22, 2019, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 21, 2019, 08:25:00 PM
I've tried, but no one ever wants to read what I want to read. :( My picks are just too dorky.
Well now I'm curious. Hit me with your top ten.
I wouldn't mind discussing the book I just finished,
Laurus, by Evgeny Vodolazkin.
In the past, I've wanted to discuss
The Rise and Fall of Triumph, a nonfiction book about the fortunes of a Catholic magazine founded in the 60s that presaged in many ways Trad thinking.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2019, 01:01:19 PM
In the past, I've wanted to discuss The Rise and Fall of Triumph, a nonfiction book about the fortunes of a Catholic magazine founded in the 60s that presaged in many ways Trad thinking.
I read that when you posted a link some time ago.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 26, 2019, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2019, 01:01:19 PM
In the past, I've wanted to discuss The Rise and Fall of Triumph, a nonfiction book about the fortunes of a Catholic magazine founded in the 60s that presaged in many ways Trad thinking.
I read that when you posted a link some time ago.
Cool. Did you get anything out of it?
Quote from: dymphnaw on November 21, 2019, 08:38:00 AM
It seems like the spark has gone out of Suscipe Domine. It's dull.
Pants vs Skirts debate
There you go.....
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2019, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 26, 2019, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2019, 01:01:19 PM
In the past, I've wanted to discuss The Rise and Fall of Triumph, a nonfiction book about the fortunes of a Catholic magazine founded in the 60s that presaged in many ways Trad thinking.
I read that when you posted a link some time ago.
Cool. Did you get anything out of it?
In general I enjoyed the read and found it quite informative about that time period.
What struck me the most strongly was sympathy for the characters as they were betrayed first by their country and then by their church. Their heartfelt faith in America as the shining light that would bring freedom to the world was destroyed by the realization that we were actually working hand-in-glove with the communists.
At the time when they were suffering from loss of faith in the USA, they believed they could always fall back upon the Church, but then that exploded in their faces as well.
It reminds me of the author of "Canticle for Leibowitz" who just months prior to Vatican II published a book with the theme that nations might come and go but the Church would always be there. Eventually Walter Miller committed suicide.
Ultimately at the end, despite all the vicissitudes they had suffered, they were not able to shake their early formation. It was too much to ask that they come to see the pope as not Catholic, the conciliar church as a false church, etc.
In all fairness, Walter Miller was pretty messed up as a person. But man, Canticle... was a masterpiece.
A few ideas: a conspiracy theory discussion thread, a "Shakespeare"* discussion thread. I am digging me some history plays and a refound interest in Othello and King Lear.
One problem I have is with the various areas. The Chat Room, Coffee and Donuts ... whatever.
My portal to the forum is basically to click on the "Show unread since last visit". Whatever appears I tend to look down the list and contribute to the ones that I am interested in. I am not really focused on which area/room I am in just in the thread topic.
If I see that the topic has been introduced/replied to by certain members I am more likely to contribute to it. Contrariwise if the person is on my banned list or somebody who posts incessantly with walls of text I am unlikely to read the topic.
I even have links which link to certain posters to see what they have been posting and to look at their recent posts. If they have said something interesting "anywhere" on "any" thread I will jump into the thread at that point and read the comment in context and then maybe contribute to the thread. Sometimes these threads are several day/weeks/months and even years old. It must seem a bit strange when one of these thread comes back from the dead and reappears in the latest posts.
It seems to me inevitable that there will be "stars" on any forum. That is just Pareto distribution, it's everywhere. Trying to fight against it is like trying to hold back the tide. On the other hand stars need to be managed or they can easily destroy the forum. It's a bit like herding cats.
Pareto distribution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
Pareto principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Quote from: Heinrich on December 07, 2019, 09:00:00 AM
A few ideas: a conspiracy theory discussion thread, a "Shakespeare"* discussion thread. I am digging me some history plays and a refound interest in Othello and King Lear.
A fitness; wweightlifting; healthy died section.
Quote from: clau clau on December 07, 2019, 04:28:00 PM
My portal to the forum is basically to click on the "Show unread since last visit". Whatever appears I tend to look down the list and contribute to the ones that I am interested in. I am not really focused on which area/room I am in just in the thread topic.
This is me as well. It can be time consuming going back to find a thread with a new post that I opened and checked out, but didn't have time to reply in before closing it.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 07, 2019, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on December 07, 2019, 09:00:00 AM
A few ideas: a conspiracy theory discussion thread, a "Shakespeare"* discussion thread. I am digging me some history plays and a refound interest in Othello and King Lear.
A fitness; wweightlifting; healthy died section.
Healthy died section?
Quote from: Heinrich on December 07, 2019, 08:59:14 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 07, 2019, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on December 07, 2019, 09:00:00 AM
A few ideas: a conspiracy theory discussion thread, a "Shakespeare"* discussion thread. I am digging me some history plays and a refound interest in Othello and King Lear.
A fitness; wweightlifting; healthy died section.
Healthy died section?
Solely devoted to Jack LaLanne
Healthy diet: how many people eat nothing but junk all day long; when I worked at a convenience store of a Gas station, I saw people come in and buy soda pop; candy bars; & other snacks; they were all sugar addicts. Many people don't know how to eat healthy.
Quote from: clau clau on December 07, 2019, 04:28:00 PM
My portal to the forum is basically to click on the "Show unread since last visit". Whatever appears I tend to look down the list and contribute to the ones that I am interested in. I am not really focused on which area/room I am in just in the thread topic.
If I see that the topic has been introduced/replied to by certain members I am more likely to contribute to it. Contrariwise if the person is on my banned list or somebody who posts incessantly with walls of text I am unlikely to read the topic.
I even have links which link to certain posters to see what they have been posting and to look at their recent posts. If they have said something interesting "anywhere" on "any" thread I will jump into the thread at that point and read the comment in context and then maybe contribute to the thread. Sometimes these threads are several day/weeks/months and even years old. It must seem a bit strange when one of these thread comes back from the dead and reappears in the latest posts.
Unfortunately, the "Show last unread" link doesn't really show you everything. I find that I also have to click on the link below it too...
THIS:
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 07, 2019, 07:02:05 PM
A fitness, weightlifting, healthy diet section. [Your friendly proofreader. ;D ]
Re-posted in enthusiastic assent.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 08, 2019, 10:03:46 AM
Healthy diet: how many people eat nothing but junk all day long; when I worked at a convenience store of a Gas station, I saw people come in and buy soda pop; candy bars; & other snacks; they were all sugar addicts. Many people don't know how to eat healthy.
[yt]https://youtu.be/Va2nGWTchBk[/yt]
Spinach is toxic.
Quote from: Lynne on December 18, 2019, 04:47:17 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 16, 2019, 02:26:19 PM
Spinach is toxic.
Raw, yes. It's okay when cooked, though?
Boiling spinach, a lot, and discarding the water afterwards, will get rid of some of the toxic oxalates that spinach is loaded with. So a tiny bit of boiled spinach now and then probably won't cause too much harm. Of course this depends on how much other high oxalate foods you're eating. It's the daily accumulation of toxins that eventually poisons.
Many of the foods touted as healthy by governments agencies and medical professionals contain high levels of antinutrients of which oxalates are just one type. Low oxalate vegetables like cabbage are an alternative, although cabbage is high in goitrogens which attack the thyroid. So it's swings and roundabouts really.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2019, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Lynne on December 18, 2019, 04:47:17 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 16, 2019, 02:26:19 PM
Spinach is toxic.
Raw, yes. It's okay when cooked, though?
Boiling spinach, a lot, and discarding the water afterwards, will get rid of some of the toxic oxalates that spinach is loaded with. So a tiny bit of boiled spinach now and then probably won't cause too much harm. Of course this depends on how much other high oxalate foods you're eating. It's the daily accumulation of toxins that eventually poisons.
Many of the foods touted as healthy by governments agencies and medical professionals contain high levels of antinutrients of which oxalates are just one type. Low oxalate vegetables like cabbage are an alternative, although cabbage is high in goitrogens which attack the thyroid. So it's swings and roundabouts really.
Sigh... I can see now why some like the carnivore diet...
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wayofcats.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2Fwhat-part-of-carnivore-confuses-you.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Quote from: Lynne on December 25, 2019, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2019, 07:56:14 AM
Quote from: Lynne on December 18, 2019, 04:47:17 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 16, 2019, 02:26:19 PM
Spinach is toxic.
Raw, yes. It's okay when cooked, though?
Boiling spinach, a lot, and discarding the water afterwards, will get rid of some of the toxic oxalates that spinach is loaded with. So a tiny bit of boiled spinach now and then probably won't cause too much harm. Of course this depends on how much other high oxalate foods you're eating. It's the daily accumulation of toxins that eventually poisons.
Many of the foods touted as healthy by governments agencies and medical professionals contain high levels of antinutrients of which oxalates are just one type. Low oxalate vegetables like cabbage are an alternative, although cabbage is high in goitrogens which attack the thyroid. So it's swings and roundabouts really.
Sigh... I can see now why some like the carnivore diet...
This is obviously not really the thread but...spinach is loaded with chlorophyll which is wonderful for your heart. It reduces/eliminates plaque, etc. However, it can contribute to kidney stone formation and it sucks iodine out of your body which can then cause thyroid issues. In order to combat this you can drink a ton of water to safeguard your kidneys, and take iodine supplements. This thing with ALL food, is that it will be good for some things, and not so great for others depending on your body.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on January 01, 2020, 04:23:49 PM
This is obviously not really the thread but...spinach is loaded with chlorophyll which is wonderful for your heart. It reduces/eliminates plaque, etc. However, it can contribute to kidney stone formation and it sucks iodine out of your body which can then cause thyroid issues. In order to combat this you can drink a ton of water to safeguard your kidneys, and take iodine supplements. This thing with ALL food, is that it will be good for some things, and not so great for others depending on your body.
It isn't, but I can't resist adding to the thread that isn't the thread, given the damage that high oxalate foods like spinach can cause. Besides, all green vegetables contain chlorophyll and some are low in oxalates.
It's the oxalic acid in spinach and the oxalates it forms which are so damaging to the body. Spinach is particularly high in these toxins and a serving of raw spinach contains 750 mg of oxalates which is phenomenally high. Beet greens are almost as bad as are almonds, raspberries and lots of other 'healthy foods'.
Oxalic acid doesn't just rob the body of iodine. Plants contain oxalic acid because it binds so readily to minerals like calcium, potassium, iron, zinc etc and pulls them out of the soil forming oxalates which the plant stores as nutrients. So when you eat spinach, the oxalic acid literally pulls these minerals out of your body and forms oxalates. Calcium oxalate is the big baddie here because it forms insoluble crystals which the body has to get rid of via the kidneys. If your intake of high oxalate food is too much, this can lead to calcium oxalate crystals - hence kidney stones.
But oxalates, particularly calcium oxalate crystals can do far more damage than causing kidney stones. Too much build up from too many high oxalate foods and the body will store calcium oxalate crystals just about everywhere, in the brain, in the eyes, in the thyroid, in heart muscle, in breast tissue, in the joints, bones and teeth.
My own problems with oxalates were caused through diet, basically. Train loads of 'healthy' foods even for decades, including lots of spinach and other greens, berries, nuts, wholegrains brought me to my knees earlier this year. Since April, when I went low oxalate by eliminating such foods from my diet, I've had unbelievable evidence of massive oxalate dumping.
I stopped counting after around 300 hundred, off-white, hard as glass 'bits' came out of my eyes. That was about a month ago and they're still coming. According to nutritionist campaigner Sally K Norton, this can happen as calcium oxalate stored in the brain, eyes and sinuses is discharged by the body. I even had them dropping into my mouth. I'm assuming they're calcium oxalate crystals and have saved some to have them tested.
Unbelievable? I would have thought so once. And I would never have believed that high oxalate foods like spinach actually DEPLETE your body of minerals. But it seems they do.
Popeye lied.
https://sallyknorton.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ZKUM7qb9E
awkwardcustomer, are you advising everyone to stop eating spinach and other foods high in oxalates? For some people there seems to be another side. This article seems to cover your points but doesn't end with the identical conclusion: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/oxalate-good-or-bad.
I apologize if I've misunderstood you.
Quote from: Non Nobis on January 03, 2020, 06:08:16 PM
awkwardcustomer, are you advising everyone to stop eating spinach and other foods high in oxalates? For some people there seems to be another side. This article seems to cover your points but doesn't end with the identical conclusion: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/oxalate-good-or-bad.
I apologize if I've misunderstood you.
Yes, unless your Greek friend's mother offers you one of those delicious pies made from feta, spinach and filo pastry and you don't want to be rude.
The author of the article you linked to, Franziska Spritzler, advocates a low carb diet and is linked to 'Diet Doctor' an organisation which promotes the Keto diet. As Sally K Norton points out in the above video, the Keto diet contains high oxalate foods. Since there is so little awareness of the oxalate problem, unless linked to kidney stones, diets like the Keto, Paleo, GAPS, can contain too many high oxalate foods and many of Sally Norton's clients have come to her with oxalate problems after having been on these diets.
But it's not just spinach and the other high oxalate greens like beet greens and Swiss chard that are the problem. Peanuts and potatoes are high in oxalates so it pays to be careful with peanut butter and fries. Chocolate is high, especially dark chocolate.
I would advise a low to moderate oxalate diet. Currently I'm at around 100 mg per day which is moderate, but considering I was consuming around 5-600 mg per day when I wasn't eating spinach or beet greens and over 1000 mg when I was which was often, that's been enough of a reduction to prompt a massive detox of what I believe are calcium oxalate crystals which I must have been LOADED with.
Which nutrients in high oxalate foods cannot be found in low oxalate foods? And if high oxalate foods were only eaten seasonally, or occasionally, that would give the body time to get rid of any accumulations. It's the constant daily intake that causes the build-up.
(edit) KK, have you been busy? I know several of us several times have been notifying you about a certain person, trolling the forum instigating daily quarrels against traditional Catholics for their faith, promoting one heretical view after another across the forum, and making a habit of insulting, putting down, vilifying, and tearing down as morons and idiots anyone who disagrees with him, especially faithful Catholics. He was reported just the other day by I think Mikemac for a bigoted statement against Asians. Are you busy?
More peaceful now, the forum is. :toth:
I'm thinking it would be good to have some guidelines around how we speak of Fatima. For some people, it is an important part of their devotion to Our Lady and they have every right to do this since it is an approved apparition. Other people do not believe which they have a right to do since it is not a dogmatic teaching.
But the people who question or disbelieve ought to do it in a way that respects the feelings of those who believe. This is a traditional Catholic forum and we should not have to deal with attacks on our faith here. We are on the defensive in the world but it should not be that way here. I know of several people who left or considered leaving the forum because of this issue.
I really am not sure about what specifically these guidelines should be and I hope that people can make suggestions. Of course, ultimately KK would decide what to implement, if anything, but a public discussion might give him some useful ideas.
I believe that we should have a thread for "Conversion Stories"; it doesn't just have to be conversion stories of our members, it could also be of saints or of famous people.
Secondly, a thread where singles could post about themselves and their desire to meet another trad Catholic; that way their post are not lost and forgotten in the "Coffee and Donuts" section.
I'm not sure there is much more you can do to improve it, to be honest. It's roughly the best it could be. The broader problem r.e. traffic is that forums in general are just not as popular as they once were, say a decade ago. Young people of a right-wing persuasion tend to use Reddit, social media, Discord, and imageboards like 4chan these days. There are still a number of us forum loyalists who retain our preference for this format, however, despite the prevailing winds. All us users can probably do is remain friendly and courteous, and keep on keeping on. :beer:
Quote from: Francisco Suárez on May 01, 2020, 01:40:39 PM
The broader problem r.e. traffic is that forums in general are just not as popular as they once were, say a decade ago.
Yes, this is a general trend.
Forums are slowly dying out and there's little one can do about it. Social media has decisively taken over.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on May 03, 2020, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: Francisco Suárez on May 01, 2020, 01:40:39 PM
The broader problem r.e. traffic is that forums in general are just not as popular as they once were, say a decade ago.
Yes, this is a general trend.
Forums are slowly dying out and there's little one can do about it. Social media has decisively taken over.
More's the pity. Social Media = Mob Rule.
Quote from: clau clau on May 03, 2020, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on May 03, 2020, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: Francisco Suárez on May 01, 2020, 01:40:39 PM
The broader problem r.e. traffic is that forums in general are just not as popular as they once were, say a decade ago.
Yes, this is a general trend.
Forums are slowly dying out and there's little one can do about it. Social media has decisively taken over.
More's the pity. Social Media = Mob Rule.
Whereas forums aren't?
I think that Kreuzritter's ban should be lifted.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on May 31, 2020, 10:54:21 AM
I think that Kreuzritter's ban should be lifted.
Kaese probably did Kreuzritter a favor by banning him; it was apparent that he wasn't deriving any spiritual benefit from posting here; probably the opposite.
I think that encrypted vulgarities should be forbidden just as properly spelled vulgarities are. It is becoming very common on the forum, and I don't think it is doing us any good.
Quote from: Philip G. on September 03, 2020, 10:59:16 PM
I think that encrypted vulgarities should be forbidden just as properly spelled vulgarities are. It is becoming very common on the forum, and I don't think it is doing us any good.
I agree. But what will that accomplish when the rule we already have against vulgarities isn't enforced?
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 04, 2020, 08:32:32 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 03, 2020, 10:59:16 PM
I think that encrypted vulgarities should be forbidden just as properly spelled vulgarities are. It is becoming very common on the forum, and I don't think it is doing us any good.
I agree. But what will that accomplish when the rule we already have against vulgarities isn't enforced?
Indeed. What we actually need on the forum is consistent moderation.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 04, 2020, 08:32:32 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 03, 2020, 10:59:16 PM
I think that encrypted vulgarities should be forbidden just as properly spelled vulgarities are. It is becoming very common on the forum, and I don't think it is doing us any good.
I agree. But what will that accomplish when the rule we already have against vulgarities isn't enforced?
Encrypted vulgarities in my opinion have paved the way for the open vulgarities we are currently seeing. The open vulgarities are not as common, and as a result can be managed easier by moderator notification than encrypted vulgarities. However, if a rule is established against encrypted vulgarities, I think that broad measure is suited for that more broad problem. People of good will try to follow rules. Make a new rule.
I do not know what "encrypted" vulgarities mean, but any literate person recognizes a published vulgarity when he or she reads or hears it. I do not believe that gross language belongs in a traditional Catholic discussion forum. When we use gutter language, we bring ourselves down to the gutter. And if the person being criticized does himself use gutter (toilet or sexual) language, why imitate him, if he is so despicable?
Quote from: Miriam_M on September 04, 2020, 01:00:54 PM
I do not know what "encrypted" vulgarities mean, but any literate person recognizes a published vulgarity when he or she reads or hears it. I do not believe that gross language belongs in a traditional Catholic discussion forum. When we use gutter language, we bring ourselves down to the gutter. And if the person being criticized does himself use gutter (toilet or sexual) language, why imitate him, if he is so despicable?
The "F" word seems to be a favorite encrypted vulgarity. Instead of spelling out the word properly, they will use stars to spell out part of the word, or they will spell it the way it sounds. There are numerous ways to incorporate these vulgarities without breaking the letter of the law. And, either way, within the context, we all know what they are saying; which, is why it is being done. And, again, it is paving the way for the open vulgarities that are becoming more common. It really ruins the conversation on multiple levels in my opinion.
Quote from: MundaCorMeum on September 04, 2020, 08:57:34 AM
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on September 04, 2020, 08:32:32 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 03, 2020, 10:59:16 PM
I think that encrypted vulgarities should be forbidden just as properly spelled vulgarities are. It is becoming very common on the forum, and I don't think it is doing us any good.
I agree. But what will that accomplish when the rule we already have against vulgarities isn't enforced?
Indeed. What we actually need on the forum is consistent moderation.
If you want to become a forum watchdog and notify the moderator every time vulgarities occur, God bless you. But, I am of the type that likes to stop a problem before it occurs. And, that means avoiding/preventing near occasions. Encrypted vulgarities are near occasions. And, us, as salt of the earth can easily prevent this by follow the rules. All we need now is a rule.
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
Quote from: MundaCorMeum on September 04, 2020, 08:57:34 AM
Indeed. What we actually need on the forum is consistent moderation.
This forum was founded with a team of moderators and the rules were made with an assumption that multiple people would be available to enforce them. We have since lost all the moderators, other than the forum owner KK who obviously does not have the time to do that work.
He did have plans to appoint some new moderators but, for some reason, has been unable to carry them out. I can understand that they would be difficult to recruit. Being a forum moderator tends to be a thankless and time-consuming job. Also, I have noticed that the people who want to be moderators are often people whom I consider ineligible for the task.
In any event, the solution to having members who regular flout the existing rules against profanity is clearly not having stricter rules against profanity.
Quote from: red solo cup on September 05, 2020, 05:44:45 AM
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
This rule is:
QuoteVulgarities are forbidden on this forum. You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.
This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased. At first, the rule was to avoid profanity. Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed.
As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum. Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.
Quote from: Jayne on September 05, 2020, 06:17:34 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on September 05, 2020, 05:44:45 AM
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
This rule is: QuoteVulgarities are forbidden on this forum. You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.
This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased. At first, the rule was to avoid profanity. Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed.
As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum. Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.
Oh fuck off.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on September 05, 2020, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 05, 2020, 06:17:34 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on September 05, 2020, 05:44:45 AM
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
This rule is: QuoteVulgarities are forbidden on this forum. You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.
This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased. At first, the rule was to avoid profanity. Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed.
As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum. Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.
Oh fuck off.
What a disgrace. I have tougher friends than you that never curse. But somehow its a badge of honour to swear on this forum.
Quote from: Sempronius on September 05, 2020, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on September 05, 2020, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 05, 2020, 06:17:34 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on September 05, 2020, 05:44:45 AM
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
This rule is: QuoteVulgarities are forbidden on this forum. You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.
This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased. At first, the rule was to avoid profanity. Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed.
As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum. Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.
Oh fuck off.
What a disgrace. I have tougher friends than you that never curse. But somehow its a badge of honour to swear on this forum.
For a forum where something like 75% of ya claim to be Irish, to one degree or another, there sure is a lot of pushback on the language.
And swearing rarely has to do with being 'tough'
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on September 05, 2020, 01:30:13 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on September 05, 2020, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on September 05, 2020, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 05, 2020, 06:17:34 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on September 05, 2020, 05:44:45 AM
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
This rule is: QuoteVulgarities are forbidden on this forum. You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.
This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased. At first, the rule was to avoid profanity. Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed.
As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum. Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.
Oh fuck off.
What a disgrace. I have tougher friends than you that never curse. But somehow its a badge of honour to swear on this forum.
For a forum where something like 75% of ya claim to be Irish, to one degree or another, there sure is a lot of pushback on the language.
And swearing rarely has to do with being 'tough'
Exactly.
Swearing has nothing to do with toughness and everything to do with a darkened heart.
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols. For which things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief, in which you also walked some time, when you lived in them. But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth. (Col. 3:5-8)
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on September 05, 2020, 03:42:30 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on September 05, 2020, 01:30:13 PM
Quote from: Sempronius on September 05, 2020, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on September 05, 2020, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Jayne on September 05, 2020, 06:17:34 AM
Quote from: red solo cup on September 05, 2020, 05:44:45 AM
Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.
This rule is: QuoteVulgarities are forbidden on this forum. You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.
This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased. At first, the rule was to avoid profanity. Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed.
As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum. Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.
Oh fuck off.
What a disgrace. I have tougher friends than you that never curse. But somehow its a badge of honour to swear on this forum.
For a forum where something like 75% of ya claim to be Irish, to one degree or another, there sure is a lot of pushback on the language.
And swearing rarely has to do with being 'tough'
Exactly.
Swearing has nothing to do with toughness and everything to do with a darkened heart.
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols. For which things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief, in which you also walked some time, when you lived in them. But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth. (Col. 3:5-8)
Check mate Irish.
Thanks Vetus. Sorry Diaduit.
Pontificating from you has about as much clout as a raghead giving me tips on how to cook my next porchetta.
"Thy rod and thy staff, they give me comfort". If Kaesekopf does not want to use the rod, let him over compensate with the staff.
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
Examples?
Quote from: Heinrich on September 26, 2020, 08:55:37 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
Examples?
He may be talking about this, Heinrich:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24547.msg513217#msg513217
I'd like to see a child board of "Traditional Catholic Discussion" titled "Discussion of outside the Church there is no salvation (EENS)" for debates on the necessity for water baptism for salvation (to include infants/fetuses), Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD).
What does everyone think about this idea?
I think Kaesekopf added a new rule to the forum. Am I correct?
7) Private, personal information about any member which may be deemed as sensitive in nature by the moderating staff is to remain private unless it is willfully offered by the relevant party or parties in a thread. Sensitive personal information revealed in an alternate thread should remain there if it is not again freely offered by the party or parties involved. If you feel it is necessary to resurrect some personal information from a previous thread, do so via private message.
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
I agree. Just yesterday, a poster insinuated with no basis that I was a homosexual and also said that I had Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It was wildly inappropriate and my ass is still chapped about it to the point that I'm considering leaving this place.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
I agree. Just yesterday, a poster insinuated with not basis that I was a homosexual and also said that I had Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It was wildly inappropriate and my ass is still chapped about it to the point that I'm considering leaving this place.
Stick around. Said poster was most likely projecting.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 11, 2020, 05:15:45 PM
I'd like to see a child board of "Traditional Catholic Discussion" titled "Discussion of outside the Church there is no salvation (EENS)" for debates on the necessity for water baptism for salvation (to include infants/fetuses), Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD).
What does everyone think about this idea?
From the "Forum Rules":
QuoteA Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors: a misrepresentation of the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation." These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation. While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism. Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
I agree. Just yesterday, a poster insinuated with no basis that I was a homosexual and also said that I had Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It was wildly inappropriate and my ass is still chapped about it to the point that I'm considering leaving this place.
Oh brother. ::) Ok, let me explain, one Gift of God. Two apologies don't seem to be enough for you. I said I "wondered" if you deal with homosexuality -- since you were talking on and on like you hate women. Don't be butt hurt. Stay around. I always enjoy a good re-hashing of the errors of Feeneyism (which Feeney himself did not believe).
Quote from: Heinrich on November 13, 2020, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
I agree. Just yesterday, a poster insinuated with not basis that I was a homosexual and also said that I had Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It was wildly inappropriate and my ass is still chapped about it to the point that I'm considering leaving this place.
Stick around. Said poster was most likely projecting. You might also want to be a bit more judicious in word choice.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 13, 2020, 02:29:55 PM
From the "Forum Rules":
QuoteA Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation. While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism. Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.
[/quote]
I know that, which is why I am asking for a specific sub-fora. Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
What does not make sense is IF you knew the Rule in the first place, THEN why would you ask to make an exception for you? You just joined here.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
I know that, which is why I am asking for a specific sub-fora. Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
I made a nonCatholic discussion subforum and people get upset nonCatholic stuff is talked about over there.
So, no.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 13, 2020, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
I know that, which is why I am asking for a specific sub-fora. Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
I made a nonCatholic discussion subforum and people get upset nonCatholic stuff is talked about over there.
So, no.
Can Feeneyism be discussed in the non-Catholic forum?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on September 16, 2015, 06:11:50 PM
A Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm): a misrepresentation of the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation." These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation. While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism. Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.
This is pretty clear.
No.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 13, 2020, 05:26:32 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on September 16, 2015, 06:11:50 PM
A Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm): a misrepresentation of the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation." These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation. While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism. Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.
This is pretty clear.
No.
Why did you not take that stance against Vetus Ordo and his Islamaphilia?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 13, 2020, 05:26:32 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on September 16, 2015, 06:11:50 PM
A Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm): a misrepresentation of the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation." These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation. While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism. Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.
This is pretty clear.
No.
So just because the Holy Office condemned Feeneyism, it's not able to be discussed on this forum? What about heliocentrism? That too was condemned by the Holy Office. I have noticed quite a few pro-"Orthodox" posts. That has been dogmatically condemned by Councils (which is higher than the Holy Office; the Holy Office is not infallible). Why is that permitted on this forum but not Feeneyism? Feeneyism has not been dogmatically condemned and there is actually Holy Scripture and Dogma to back it up.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 06:50:09 PM
So just because the Holy Office condemned Feeneyism, it's not able to be discussed on this forum? What about heliocentrism? That too was condemned by the Holy Office. I have noticed quite a few pro-"Orthodox" posts. That has been dogmatically condemned by Councils (which is higher than the Holy Office; the Holy Office is not infallible). Why is that permitted on this forum but not Feeneyism? Feeneyism has not been dogmatically condemned and there is actually Holy Scripture and Dogma to back it up.
Feeneyites, like geocentrists, typically come out, and then flood the posts with their favorite copypasta of whatever argument, and it goes on and on, and then one side is declared heretics thanks to some obscure, long-lost decree by some bishop or pope, and we just argue in circles.
QuoteFrom the "Forum Rules": A Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors:[...], that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation." These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
"Feeneyism" doesn't teach that baptism of desire and blood is optional. It categorically rejects it.
Regarding
desire mentioned in the Council of Trent, the book,
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent , is the actual Council of Trent - not a catechism based on it - but the actual written decrees, the actual record.
- Original text with English translation by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., from Refuge of Sinners Publishing
It explains that "baptism of desire" takes effect at the pouring of the water - at the sacrament itself.
Priest: "N., do you wish to be baptized?"
N.: "I do"
(or the Godparents for an infant)
- the catechumen has to indicate the will or wish to be baptized, then the sacrament's form and matter follow.
'mother love bone' 'gift of God'.....dubious names!!
troll alert
Quote from: Heinrich on November 13, 2020, 03:31:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on November 13, 2020, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 12:27:27 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on September 25, 2020, 12:51:06 PM
I think there needs to be a rule against attacking another's "mental" state/character. In an age of feminism, I guess there is no sting to being called cold hearted and the like, so trolls don't seem to attack in this way. But, there is an endless number of attacks on the mental state. Basically, I am in favor of forbidding the accusation that another member is "mentally ill" explicit(and maybe implicit). It is getting very tired, but it still seems to be the go-to insult. It just another behavior to add to the list of bad behaviors that are common place here on SD. How are we going to attract quality members when cursing and slander is the norm?
I agree. Just yesterday, a poster insinuated with not basis that I was a homosexual and also said that I had Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It was wildly inappropriate and my ass is still chapped about it to the point that I'm considering leaving this place.
Stick around. Said poster was most likely projecting. You might also want to be a bit more judicious in word choice.
I wonder if those chaps are buttless.
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2020, 05:00:11 AM
'mother love bone' 'gift of God'.....dubious names!!
Just because "God be with you." is in a near-extinct language doesn't make it less dubious.
C.O.G. If you are really interested in debating about Feeneyism etc. You can join Catholicinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php
they have a whole section just dedicated to this topic here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
C.O.G. If you are really interested in debating about Feeneyism etc. You can join Catholicinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php
they have a whole section just dedicated to this topic here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/
Thanks but I already know about that and mentioned it in this thread.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2020, 05:00:11 AM
'mother love bone' 'gift of God'.....dubious names!!
troll alert
Ad hominem fallacy. Try refuting my argument. Here it is, again:
"Feeneyism" doesn't teach that baptism of desire and blood is optional. It categorically rejects it.
Regarding desire mentioned in the Council of Trent, the book, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent , is the actual Council of Trent - not a catechism based on it - but the actual written decrees, the actual record.
- Original text with English translation by Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., from Refuge of Sinners Publishing
It explains that "baptism of desire" takes effect at the pouring of the water - at the sacrament itself.
Priest: "N., do you wish to be baptized?"
N.: "I do"
(or the Godparents for an infant)
- the catechumen has to indicate the will or wish to be baptized, then the sacrament's form and matter follow.
To make clear, the Feeneyite Question for this Forum has been definitively settled for over 5 years now.
Quote from: red solo cup on November 14, 2020, 06:34:59 AM
Quote from: Heinrich on November 13, 2020, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 12:27:27 PM
I agree. Just yesterday, a poster insinuated with not basis that I was a homosexual and also said that I had Antisocial Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It was wildly inappropriate and my ass is still chapped about it to the point that I'm considering leaving this place.
Stick around. Said poster was most likely projecting. You might also want to be a bit more judicious in word choice.
I wonder if those chaps are buttless.
I had to look that up.
Your mind is in the gutter. Perhaps you've been hanging around the wrong crowd or the wrong web sites...
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 14, 2020, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
C.O.G. If you are really interested in debating about Feeneyism etc. You can join Catholicinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php
they have a whole section just dedicated to this topic here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/
Thanks but I already know about that and mentioned it in this thread.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
So what? They can call it what they want; you want an argument? Go argue over there. (Not that you are not welcome here).
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 09:04:16 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 14, 2020, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
C.O.G. If you are really interested in debating about Feeneyism etc. You can join Catholicinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php
they have a whole section just dedicated to this topic here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/
Thanks but I already know about that and mentioned it in this thread.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
So what? They can call it what they want; you want an argument? Go argue over there. (Not that you are not welcome here).
I have no issue with the name of their sub-forum. I mentioned it in my pitch to this forum's admin as an example of what he could do with this forum.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 09:04:16 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 14, 2020, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
C.O.G. If you are really interested in debating about Feeneyism etc. You can join Catholicinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php
they have a whole section just dedicated to this topic here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/
Thanks but I already know about that and mentioned it in this thread.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
So what? They can call it what they want; you want an argument? Go argue over there. (Not that you are not welcome here).
Good Lord, you've even rattled the forum gent GoG
I'm fine, I just don't see the logic here; he wants to argue about Feeneyism; its not allowed on this forum, but there is another forum where he can argue to his hearts content; and he doesn't want to argue over there; he wants to argue over here.
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2020, 10:48:30 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 09:04:16 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 14, 2020, 01:15:35 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 14, 2020, 01:01:15 PM
C.O.G. If you are really interested in debating about Feeneyism etc. You can join Catholicinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php
they have a whole section just dedicated to this topic here: https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/
Thanks but I already know about that and mentioned it in this thread.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 13, 2020, 04:28:47 PM
Another trad forum calls theirs the "Feeneyism Ghetto".
So what? They can call it what they want; you want an argument? Go argue over there. (Not that you are not welcome here).
Good Lord, you've even rattled the forum gent GoG
You consider that "rattled"? lol
Yes. MW is like granite.
Btw, are you coming to Christmas supper, Uncle Eb? ;)
Quote from: christulsa on November 15, 2020, 01:56:54 PM
Yes. MW is like granite.
Oh, I think you meant to say that he was rattled
by me. You said that I was rattled.
Actually, I've always observed MW to have an unusual ability to keep his emotions subordinated to his will, practicing charity. It only rarely takes unusually obnoxious behavior to rattle him even a little, which Diaduit observed in this case.
So I'll set a place at the Christmas supper table for you. Hope you like venison.
Quote from: christulsa on November 15, 2020, 04:20:10 PM
Actually, I've always observed MW to have an unusual ability to keep his emotions subordinated to his will, practicing charity. It only rarely takes unusually obnoxious behavior to rattle him even a little, which Diaduit observed in this case.
So I'll set a place at the Christmas supper table for you. Hope you like venison.
You're not making sense. Are you saying that me explaining my self calmly is "rattled"? Or that MW telling me off is "rattled"?
Quote from: GiftOfGod on November 15, 2020, 04:24:27 PM
Quote from: christulsa on November 15, 2020, 04:20:10 PM
Actually, I've always observed MW to have an unusual ability to keep his emotions subordinated to his will, practicing charity. It only rarely takes unusually obnoxious behavior to rattle him even a little, which Diaduit observed in this case.
So I'll set a place at the Christmas supper table for you. Hope you like venison.
You're not making sense. Are you saying that me explaining my self calmly is "rattled"? Or that MW telling me off is "rattled"?
You know well what was said. You're just egging on for enjoyment.
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2020, 10:48:30 PM
Good Lord, you've even rattled the forum gent GoG
If we all wrote in Latin, it would have been clear from the case whether "GoG" were a vocative or a noun in apposition. GOG seems to have taken it as noun in apposition, interpreting this as saying that he is the "forum gent" and has been rattled. However those of us who have been here longer realize that Michael Wilson is the "forum gent" and that diaduit is claiming that he has been rattled while addressing her comment to GOG.
The English is ambiguous in this sentence and requires context in order to understand it. As a new poster GOG lacked the necessary context and misunderstood.
Now that I have explained what everybody meant , you may all resume not talking about Feeneyism as per the forum rules.
Quote from: Jayne on November 15, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2020, 10:48:30 PM
Good Lord, you've even rattled the forum gent GoG
If we all wrote in Latin, it would have been clear from the case whether "GoG" were a vocative or a noun in apposition. GOG seems to have taken it as noun in apposition, interpreting this as saying that he is the "forum gent" and has been rattled. However those of us who have been here longer realize the Michael Wilson is the "forum gent" and that diaduit is claiming that he has been rattled while addressing her comment to GOG.
The English is ambiguous in this sentence and requires context in order to understand it. As a new poster GOG lacked the necessary context and misunderstood.
Now that I have explained what everybody meant , you may all resume not talking about Feeneyism as per the forum rules.
I think I understand it. She was being sarcastic, which could have been easily detectible if she used a comma and rearranged the sentence. For example:
"Good Lord, GoG, you've even rattled the forum gent."
GiftOfGod, to whom or to what are you referring by "Gift" in your username? :huh:
Quote from: christulsa on November 15, 2020, 05:02:31 PM
GiftOfGod, to whom or to what are you referring by "Gift" in your username? :huh:
The names "Jonathan" and "Nathaniel" mean "gift of God" coming from the Hebrew and so do the names "Theodore" and "Dorothy" coming from the Greek and "Adeodatus" from Latin. I suspect that most languages would have a variant of this name since it is typical for parents to see their children as a gift from God.
..
.
Quote from: Heinrich on November 15, 2020, 06:37:20 PM
.
Heinrich is doing an excellent job of not talking about Feeneyism (or anything at all). He is a model for us all. :)
:pray3:
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 15, 2020, 09:02:23 AM
I'm fine, I just don't see the logic here; he wants to argue about Feeneyism; its not allowed on this forum, but there is another forum where he can argue to his hearts content; and he doesn't want to argue over there; he wants to argue over here.
Don't most of us prefer arguing over here to arguing on cathinfo, on any topic? It flatters SD. Maybe we have better arguers. (I haven't verified this scientifically!)
And you all know that we HAVE argued on this topic over here, even in recent months, when Kaesekopf was away...
I understand the Catholic and anti-forever-arguments/reasons for banning the topic on SD. I believe with St. Thomas and *I BELIEVE* the Church that Baptism of Desire is never an option man can choose, but may be God's prerogative for a man. I just wanted to say where I stand, not argue further.
Some people (not me) think that Sedevacantism is just as heretical as others think BOD/or BOD-denial is heretical. So Sedevacantism is put on a private sub-forum ("sedevacantsm ghetto" if you like)
Kaesekopf, you are the moderator and I agree with your reasons for banning the topic even from a private isolated sub-forum, but it is nevertheless a tempting subject for many well-intentioned Catholics to discuss. If the Church had taken Archbishop Lefebvre's views so many Catholics would not have gone overboard and fallen for Fr. Feeney as a phony answer to modernism.
I'm probably not going to post very much on this topic, but I guess if we were voting I would vote for a private sub-forum. But the reality is that you are the boss Kaesekopf!
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 14, 2020, 02:43:10 PM
To make clear, the Feeneyite Question for this Forum has been definitively settled for over 5 years now.
OK, well I brought it up one more time but I'll shut up now :)
There's no such thing as "Feeneyism."
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 19, 2020, 05:21:17 PM
There's no such thing as "Feeneyism."
Is there such thing as a "Feeneyite"?
I would like to see a thread dedicated to "Conversion Stories"; I love to read about these.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 10, 2020, 08:18:19 PM
I would like to see a thread dedicated to "Conversion Stories"; I love to read about these.
I agree but it would be a ghost town. Unless you allow conversion stories for NO to FSSP, FSSP to SSPX, SSPX to Resistance, etc., and all of the above to SV. Then that forum would fill up.
I've tried to convert atheists, pagans, and Protestants but to no avail. It's like pulling a bait and switch because I start talking with them about Catholicism but when they inquire for further details I have to divulge "Well, forget the Pope and 99% of 'Catholics'." It's far easier to make conservative NOers into trads.
Idea for an improvement: merge with cathinfo.
But seriously - who/what is a typical reader/audience here?
In case, this place is shut down - would it be possible to open source the archive of this, so a lot if interesting discussions of past are not lost?
Quote from: andy on December 10, 2020, 10:33:24 PM
Idea for an improvement: merge with cathinfo.
But seriously - who/what is a typical reader/audience here?
In case, this place is shut down - would it be possible to open source the archive of this, so a lot if interesting discussions of past are not lost?
SD could never merge with CI because the boogeyman of "Feeneyism" can be debated there. Regarding an archive, just use archive.org
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 10, 2020, 10:56:07 PM
Regarding an archive, just use archive.org
I just checked. Archive.org has an archive of the main page but not the topics/threads unfortunately. Last year I played around with creating an archive via python but didn't get very far.
Way Back machine from archive will not work well.
BTW, sharing the backup of the forum is less than optimal too, as some personal info, I guess mainly email and IP addresses would be exposed.
Quote from: Lynne on December 11, 2020, 05:12:41 AM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 10, 2020, 10:56:07 PM
Regarding an archive, just use archive.org
I just checked. Archive.org has an archive of the main page but not the topics/threads unfortunately. Last year I played around with creating an archive via python but didn't get very far.
Quote from: andy on December 11, 2020, 04:46:10 PM
Way Back machine from archive will not work well.
BTW, sharing the backup of the forum is less than optimal too, as some personal info, I guess mainly email and IP addresses would be exposed.
You're right; it is not automatically saved. But you can have it manually saved. I did it for the first page of this thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201212030917/http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21059 You can only save one page at a time.
I used to use another archive website (archive.is) but they are commercial and have only been around for 4 years. I trust that Internet Archive, a nonprofit started in 1996, will exist for eternity, save a nuclear war. From now on I will only be using the Internet Archive.
For the record, I have no intention of shutting this place down.
And, if I WERE to want to shut it down (which I don't), I'd be more inclined to hand it off to someone than to shut it down. I like this place too much. :)
Just, for the record.
I wonder if a few nearly disused or very lightly used forums be closed. It might help to give a greater sense of activity in the other sections. Maybe.
Quote from: Prayerful on December 12, 2020, 05:50:46 PM
I wonder if a few nearly disused or very lightly used forums be closed. It might help to give a greater sense of activity in the other sections. Maybe.
Merging is a good idea. Keeps it simple and will encourage more activity.
Merging is a terrible idea. CI is the total opposite of this place. It states it was founded on the idea that theoretically no discussion is off limits. However, that is not accurate. It should be characterized as no "popular" discussion is off limits. Unpopular forbidden opinions/discussion, even if they are arguable/reasonable, have been moderated with severity over there. What has the result of the free for all been? Sedevacantists and feeneyites have overrun the joint. CI has no rules, and the cult of the moderator grows as he over extends himself in its regards. Is that by design? One wonders.
On this forum, there are rules. As a result, it seems to me that Kaesekopf does not have to moderate to an unreasonable extent. Some people complain about it. But, I like it.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 12, 2020, 11:17:12 PM
Merging is a terrible idea. CI is the total opposite of this place.
I'm not positive, but I
think what they mean is deleting or merging some of the sub-forums on SD (because of low activity).
Quote from: Philip G. on December 12, 2020, 11:17:12 PM
Merging is a terrible idea. CI is the total opposite of this place. It states it was founded on the idea that theoretically no discussion is off limits. However, that is not accurate. It should be characterized as no "popular" discussion is off limits. Unpopular forbidden opinions/discussion, even if they are arguable/reasonable, have been moderated with severity over there. What has the result of the free for all been? Sedevacantists and feeneyites have overrun the joint. CI has no rules, and the cult of the moderator grows as he over extends himself in its regards. Is that by design? One wonders.
On this forum, there are rules. As a result, it seems to me that Kaesekopf does not have to moderate to an unreasonable extent. Some people complain about it. But, I like it.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Nobody is recommending that SD merge with CI.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 01:39:19 AM
Quote from: Philip G. on December 12, 2020, 11:17:12 PM
Merging is a terrible idea. CI is the total opposite of this place. It states it was founded on the idea that theoretically no discussion is off limits. However, that is not accurate. It should be characterized as no "popular" discussion is off limits. Unpopular forbidden opinions/discussion, even if they are arguable/reasonable, have been moderated with severity over there. What has the result of the free for all been? Sedevacantists and feeneyites have overrun the joint. CI has no rules, and the cult of the moderator grows as he over extends himself in its regards. Is that by design? One wonders.
On this forum, there are rules. As a result, it seems to me that Kaesekopf does not have to moderate to an unreasonable extent. Some people complain about it. But, I like it.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Nobody is recommending that SD merge with CI.
Who said I was responding to you? Mind your own business.
Quote from: andy on December 10, 2020, 10:33:24 PM
Idea for an improvement: merge with cathinfo.
But seriously - who/what is a typical reader/audience here?
In case, this place is shut down - would it be possible to open source the archive of this, so a lot if interesting discussions of past are not lost?
Quote from: Philip G. on December 12, 2020, 11:17:12 PM
Merging is a terrible idea. CI is the total opposite of this place. It states it was founded on the idea that theoretically no discussion is off limits. However, that is not accurate. It should be characterized as no "popular" discussion is off limits. Unpopular forbidden opinions/discussion, even if they are arguable/reasonable, have been moderated with severity over there. What has the result of the free for all been? Sedevacantists and feeneyites have overrun the joint. CI has no rules, and the cult of the moderator grows as he over extends himself in its regards. Is that by design? One wonders.
On this forum, there are rules. As a result, it seems to me that Kaesekopf does not have to moderate to an unreasonable extent. Some people complain about it. But, I like it.
Edit: I didn't suggest a forum merger, Andy did, just that some sections could be combined. I know the phrase 'useless duplication' is ominous for Catholics, but maybe archiving some sections
ad experimentum, maybe.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 12, 2020, 08:41:29 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on December 12, 2020, 05:50:46 PM
I wonder if a few nearly disused or very lightly used forums be closed. It might help to give a greater sense of activity in the other sections. Maybe.
Merging is a good idea. Keeps it simple and will encourage more activity.
I should have said
forum sections.
Matthew probably has more sections, most of which aren't too active. The poor hearers of Fr Leonard Feeney SJ and later MICM are exiled to a little room, that is Feeneyite Gheeto (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/) there. Otherwise Matthew bans few save those who prove annoying. I see no great excess of sedes there. At least some places could get attention. For instance +Williamson does post his newsletter. I'm offering no dogmatic suggestion, but I think some disused sections could be archived.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 13, 2020, 11:49:29 AM
Who said I was responding to you? Mind your own business.
You should be quoting the post you are responding to the first time, not after you stir the pot and create confusion.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 01:39:19 AM
Nobody is recommending that SD merge with CI.
As a mostly reader, of both CI, SD and few other sources - I wish that Catholics (those who pronounce faith in Catholic dogmas, reject V2 and agree with the oath agains modernism) have a single place to exchange knowledge and thoughts. Obviously, I do not except them to agree on every single point, but at least to agree to disagree on still open issues.
Would specifically merging SD with CI achieve that goal? I am not sure.
BTW, what is the typical catholic denomination of SD audience? SSPX, (SSPX resistance I assume not), FSSP, conservative NO, TM fanclub?
Quote from: Prayerful on December 12, 2020, 05:50:46 PM
I wonder if a few nearly disused or very lightly used forums be closed. It might help to give a greater sense of activity in the other sections. Maybe.
Yes, this is a plan I have - merging and condensing the subforums down.
If anyone has suggestions on how that would be done best, post 'em here or PM me!
Quote from: andy on December 13, 2020, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 13, 2020, 01:39:19 AM
Nobody is recommending that SD merge with CI.
As a mostly reader, of both CI, SD and few other sources - I wish that Catholics (those who pronounce faith in Catholic dogmas, reject V2 and agree with the oath agains modernism) have a single place to exchange knowledge and thoughts. Obviously, I do not except them to agree on every single point, but at least to agree to disagree on still open issues.
Would specifically merging SD with CI achieve that goal? I am not sure.
BTW, what is the typical catholic denomination of SD audience? SSPX, (SSPX resistance I assume not), FSSP, conservative NO, TM fanclub?
From being a long time member here, the impression I get is that the majority of the members are SSPX.
Suggested Forum Improvement:
Longer time allowed for the initial modification of a post. It must be something like 15 seconds, LOL.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 17, 2021, 02:48:19 PM
Should I just make an arguments only, anything goes, members-only sub forum dedicated to fighting with each other?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't agree with establishing an "anything goes" subforum, as this will only serve to bring out the worst of users.
But I do have a recommendation:
An anonymous subform. A competing trad forum website has this and it does inspire a lot of posts with one caveat: it does require moderation. Otherwise, it does turn into "anything goes". The biggest problem with it is people starting anonymous threads threads that don't have any reason to be anonymous, so on that other website the anonymous subforum is the most active subforum on the entire forum. Another personal pet peeve is when people post anonymously and then immediately make another post under their user name apologizing for being anonymous.
If this idea is pursued, I would also recommend three related "child boards" in addition to the main anonymous subforum: one under the "Prayer Intentions" subforum, one under the "St. Joseph's Workbench" subforum, and one under "Mary's Garden" subforum.
Quote from: Miriam_M on March 22, 2019, 11:18:22 AM
A separate sub-forum for Private Revelation. Therein can be contained the volumes of spam posting regarding that. More importantly, however, users would see that it is not mainstream Catholicism, nor doctrine, and thus does not rise to the level of mandated belief and universally recommended piety.
Users could post there to their heart's content and in keeping with their apparently enormous amount of time to do so.
This is a great idea. I wish KK would do this as it would clean up a lot of sub forums.
Is it feasible for us to set up some sort of system in which people who are concerned about not having people to pray for their souls at death, could have the forum informed so that we could pray about it here? Perhaps in some sort of child board of the Prayer subforum?
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Is it feasible for us to set up some sort of system in which people who are concerned about not having people to pray for their souls at death, could have the forum informed so that we could pray about it here? Perhaps in some sort of child board of the Prayer subforum?
I don't understand the bold. Are you referring to SD users?
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 21, 2021, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Is it feasible for us to set up some sort of system in which people who are concerned about not having people to pray for their souls at death, could have the forum informed so that we could pray about it here? Perhaps in some sort of child board of the Prayer subforum?
I don't understand the bold. Are you referring to SD users?
Yes. A situation of this sort came up in the Prayer subforum recently. A forum member mentioned concerns about not having people to pray for his soul at death. So I am wondering if there could be a way to use the forum for this.
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 21, 2021, 12:55:22 PM
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Is it feasible for us to set up some sort of system in which people who are concerned about not having people to pray for their souls at death, could have the forum informed so that we could pray about it here? Perhaps in some sort of child board of the Prayer subforum?
I don't understand the bold. Are you referring to SD users?
Yes. A situation of this sort came up in the Prayer subforum recently. A forum member mentioned concerns about not having people to pray for his soul at death. So I am wondering if there could be a way to use the forum for this.
I would suggest that he makes friends or babies. Or perhaps bequeath an endowment to a traditional monastery/convent for the purposes of saying prayers for his soul.
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Is it feasible for us to set up some sort of system in which people who are concerned about not having people to pray for their souls at death, could have the forum informed so that we could pray about it here? Perhaps in some sort of child board of the Prayer subforum?
The only hard part is informing the internet about your death, I suppose ?
I'm willing to add such a system, if it requires little work from me! ;)
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 21, 2021, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 12:38:49 PM
Is it feasible for us to set up some sort of system in which people who are concerned about not having people to pray for their souls at death, could have the forum informed so that we could pray about it here? Perhaps in some sort of child board of the Prayer subforum?
The only hard part is informing the internet about your death, I suppose ?
I'm willing to add such a system, if it requires little work from me! ;)
Normally, one should have an executor for one's will. One could leave instructions for the executor (or anyone trustworthy, I suppose) to send an email to you in the event of one's death. Then you could inform the forum and perhaps include some links to appropriate prayers for the dead.
I sure hope that there are not so many people dying that this makes a lot of work for you. :o
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 03:37:53 PMNormally, one should have an executor for one's will. One could leave instructions for the executor (or anyone trustworthy, I suppose) to send an email to you in the event of one's death. Then you could inform the forum and perhaps include some links to appropriate prayers for the dead.
Wouldn't it be easier for the executor to get the login credentials and make a post on their client's behalf?
That wouldn't create any work for anybody besides the ones who are already dealing with it.
The forum prayer group could also have their own general prayers for the departed as well. It is not necessary to pray for individuals by name.
Quote
I sure hope that there are not so many people dying that this makes a lot of work for you.
The number of people on this forum is equal to the number of future dead people who used this forum.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 21, 2021, 03:48:03 PM
The number of people on this forum is equal to the number of future dead people who used this forum.
Well
momento mori to you too.
Basically what you're suggesting is a form of a Purgatorial Confraternity, nést pas?
I like it, and it's hugely beneficial.
We could make a sticky post referring people to Rorate Caeli's Purgatorial Society (though I think they only accept names of deceased...hard to submit your name once yer toast) and the Purgatorial Society from Papa Stronsay (which is totally awesome)
The vast majority of today's traditional Catholics represent a minority of believers or practitioners within their own families. I don't think it's particularly logical to assume that those who pray for us after our deaths will issue from our own birth families. It certainly won't be true for me and for most of those on this forum I have corresponded with.
People who pray for the deceased are devout Catholics with a regular prayer life. It's much more about that than about personal relationships, although the latter is helpful as an extra incentive for those who typically pray for the poor souls anyway.
Also, for those of us who were raised trad, we were taught to pray for all the suffering souls, and particularly for those who have no one to pray for them. Thus -- again -- devout Catholics all over the world pray for suffering souls. A way to ensure or hope for a more personal level of commitment is to get known in one's chapel or parish. By getting known I simply mean attending and sharing your name, especially with the priest. Priests regularly remind parishioners to pray for deceased parishioners, by name, and they do so in bulletins as well as from the pulpit.
Forum improvement suggestion: work required from admin: moderate effort.
I suggest that a new membergroup be made for those who explicitly agree to hold themselves to a high standard of posting for access to The Sacred Sciences board and read only access be given to all others.
Violation of those standards (the basic description of the board) would result in exclusion from that membergroup.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 21, 2021, 04:34:08 PM
Forum improvement suggestion: work required from admin: moderate effort.
I suggest that a new membergroup be made for those who explicitly agree to hold themselves to a high standard of posting for access to The Sacred Sciences board and read only access be given to all others.
Violation of those standards (the basic description of the board) would result in exclusion from that membergroup.
People got upset over this idea a few months ago [emoji38]
But the continued misuse of the subforum DOES need resolution
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 21, 2021, 04:35:47 PM
People got upset over this idea a few months ago [emoji38]
I saw. I've been reading mostly for the time.
But, people who lack self-awareness to just post without restraint should not complain that they are not allowed to post. It isn't like they are banned or their posts are removed or edited.
QuoteBut the continued misuse of the subforum DOES need resolution
Board specific moderator appointed who has shown care in not abusing the forum and which would respect the original intent of the board when it was first created and who tries to use it as intended?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 21, 2021, 04:35:47 PM
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 21, 2021, 04:34:08 PM
Forum improvement suggestion: work required from admin: moderate effort.
I suggest that a new membergroup be made for those who explicitly agree to hold themselves to a high standard of posting for access to The Sacred Sciences board and read only access be given to all others.
Violation of those standards (the basic description of the board) would result in exclusion from that membergroup.
People got upset over this idea a few months ago [emoji38]
But the continued misuse of the subforum DOES need resolution
I think this way of doing it addresses much of the objections. People seemed especially upset at the idea that someone was going to judge their "worthiness" to be a member of the subforum. This avoids that by making it up to posters to make the necessary agreement.
Quote from: Jayne on December 21, 2021, 04:40:52 PM
I think this way of doing it addresses much of the objections. People seemed especially upset at the idea that someone was going to judge their "worthiness" to be a member of the subforum. This avoids that by making it up to posters to make the necessary agreement.
And they can appeal the decisions, by showing how their posts were semi-scholarly. The latest one would be a good candidate...exactly how does that kind of post align with the board's description?
I'd be interested in seeing those people defend themselves.
What bothers me the most is the endless baiting. It takes effort to compile citations, check drafts, and then avoid compromising one's own position, but not responding to the rampant inanity and off topic posting takes even more effort sometimes.
I'd rather look through Aristotle manually trying to find a citation than have to deal with posts that are just inviting pithy retorts.
I'm not naturally serious. That was something that took effort and practice. I'm naturally quite impish.
Why don't we just retitle the subforum "Aristotle Answers". You won't hear a peep from me.
On the contrary, when I think of "sacred sciences", I think the semi scholarly argument should be founded on the "sacred scriptures".
Quote from: Philip G. on December 21, 2021, 08:37:34 PM
On the contrary, when I think of "sacred sciences", I think the semi scholarly argument should be founded on the "sacred scriptures".
Where do you think the great Doctors of the Church derived their works?
You can read all all about it the beginning (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm).
Maybe you have been exposed to higher level subjects prematurely and have been confused by them. You have to start at the foundations and work up, otherwise, it is indeed nonsensical and seems superfluous.
But we've had thousands of years of people far learned than any of us developing the Sacred Sciences based on the Sacred Scriptures.
And remember, any time you derive any argument or position from the Sacred Scriptures, you are doing what others have long been doing, yet, you are starting at the beginning and thinking yourself advanced.
Maybe, you are just walking askew on the same path that has been properly mapped out already, whose work you have derided.
There is more than St. Thomas, and you can cite those too, but rejecting it all and picking up a translation of Scripture is not at all scholarly.
It is reminiscent of something else.
Also, natural ethics, logic, etc, don't need appeals to Sacred Scripture. We don't need Divine Revelation to reveal what is within our natural faculties already.
Another improvement, which I know has been discussed, but I hope my suggestion is more concrete than the previous discussions I've read.
Issue: Too Many Boards Underused
Solution: Consolidation and closure of unused boards
There is a "more work solution" and a "less work solution" here.
The current structure is too deep and has too many underused boards. The current structure (to the extent that this post addresses, the moderation board and other hidden boards are not addressed obviously):
- The Church Courtyard
- General Catholic Discussion
- Ask a Traditionalist
- Traditional Catholic Discussion
- Eleison Comments Collection
- Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum
- The Sedevacantist Thesis
- Catholic Liturgical Life
- The Sacred Sciences
- The Shrine
- Prayer Intentions
- The Bookstore
- Devotional Group
- General News and Discussion
- The Parish Hall
- The Coffee Pot
- Arts and Leisure
- Family Life
- The History Subforum
- The Natural Sciences
- The Gaming Corner
- Job Postings
- Bye/Sell/Trade
- The Geek Forum
A structure more like this might be easier to navigate and cleaner:
- Merge "Ask a Traditionalist" and "Traditional Catholic Discussion" because they are poorly differentiated in practice
- Move "Eleison Comments Collection" to "The Bookstore" where it is better situated as an Archive.
- Remove the defunct Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum from public view or repurpose it, perhaps to make it an Apologetics board (note: I would remove it, but repurposing it might be more appealing to others)
- Create a new Category for "Catholic Liturgical Life" and "The Sacred Sciences" which requires all posters to adhere to a higher standard, similar to the previous discussion on The Sacred Sciences. Imagine if people posted such things in the Catholic Liturgical Life as they did there. Both require a higher standard than a typical board
- "General News and Discussion" is poorly differentiated from "The Coffee Pot" and "General Catholic Discussion" and its own child board, "Plagues and Pestilence". I'd flatten that out.
- Make "Suscipe Singles Subforum" a chld of "Family Life" and remove its "Subforum" title.
- Merge the Sciences and History boards into one
- Remove "The Gaming Corner". People aren't using it the way we would have almost a decade ago now...everybody grew up it seems.
- Remove "Job Postings"
- Merge the Geek Forum with the aforementioned Sciences and History board, perhaps calling it the "Sciences, Technology, and History" board.
The forum would look more like:
- The Church Courtyard
- General Catholic Discussion and News
- Traditional Catholic Discussion
- The Sedevacantist Thesis
- Serious Catholic Discussions
- Catholic Liturgical Life
- The Sacred Sciences
- The Shrine
- Prayer Intentions
- The Bookstore
- Eleison Comments Collection
- Devotional Group
- The Parish Hall
- The Coffee Pot
- Arts and Leisure
- Family Life
- Natural Sciences, Technology, and History
- Bye/Sell/Trade
I do realize that this is a lot of work and there are details such as "what to do with all the old posts that slowly accumulated?" and other things...but as long as it was discussed before, this is my 2 cents. I didn't actually look deeply into boards that I never really look at, so I didn't make any suggestions about them.
My solution for the old posts is to dump them into a read only archive board or something if they don't fit in their new homes.
The categories are merely members of the list because the nested lists formatting is tedious to type out and I want to see what I'm doing.
The lower effort solution is to move a few boards around, and rename a few rather than merging, removing, or creating anything new. That might be a good step to cleaning it up.
- Rename Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum to "Catholic Apologetics" and focus it on heresies and other errors (and then reopen it)
- Move Eleison Comments Collection to The Bookstore
- Making the Gaming Corner a child of Arts and Leisure and make it about games and video games...nobody seems to know what a forum game is anymore.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 21, 2021, 11:01:17 PM
Another improvement, which I know has been discussed, but I hope my suggestion is more concrete than the previous discussions I've read.
Issue: Too Many Boards Underused
Solution: Consolidation and closure of unused boards
There is a "more work solution" and a "less work solution" here.
The current structure is too deep and has too many underused boards. The current structure (to the extent that this post addresses, the moderation board and other hidden boards are not addressed obviously):
- The Church Courtyard
- General Catholic Discussion
- Ask a Traditionalist
- Traditional Catholic Discussion
- Eleison Comments Collection
- Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum
- The Sedevacantist Thesis
- Catholic Liturgical Life
- The Sacred Sciences
- The Shrine
- Prayer Intentions
- The Bookstore
- Devotional Group
- General News and Discussion
- The Parish Hall
- The Coffee Pot
- Arts and Leisure
- Family Life
- The History Subforum
- The Natural Sciences
- The Gaming Corner
- Job Postings
- Bye/Sell/Trade
- The Geek Forum
A structure more like this might be easier to navigate and cleaner:
- Merge "Ask a Traditionalist" and "Traditional Catholic Discussion" because they are poorly differentiated in practice
- Move "Eleison Comments Collection" to "The Bookstore" where it is better situated as an Archive.
- Remove the defunct Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum from public view or repurpose it, perhaps to make it an Apologetics board (note: I would remove it, but repurposing it might be more appealing to others)
- Create a new Category for "Catholic Liturgical Life" and "The Sacred Sciences" which requires all posters to adhere to a higher standard, similar to the previous discussion on The Sacred Sciences. Imagine if people posted such things in the Catholic Liturgical Life as they did there. Both require a higher standard than a typical board
- "General News and Discussion" is poorly differentiated from "The Coffee Pot" and "General Catholic Discussion" and its own child board, "Plagues and Pestilence". I'd flatten that out.
- Make "Suscipe Singles Subforum" a chld of "Family Life" and remove its "Subforum" title.
- Merge the Sciences and History boards into one
- Remove "The Gaming Corner". People aren't using it the way we would have almost a decade ago now...everybody grew up it seems.
- Remove "Job Postings"
- Merge the Geek Forum with the aforementioned Sciences and History board, perhaps calling it the "Sciences, Technology, and History" board.
The forum would look more like:
- The Church Courtyard
- General Catholic Discussion and News
- Traditional Catholic Discussion
- The Sedevacantist Thesis
- Serious Catholic Discussions
- Catholic Liturgical Life
- The Sacred Sciences
- The Shrine
- Prayer Intentions
- The Bookstore
- Eleison Comments Collection
- Devotional Group
- The Parish Hall
- The Coffee Pot
- Arts and Leisure
- Family Life
- Natural Sciences, Technology, and History
- Bye/Sell/Trade
I do realize that this is a lot of work and there are details such as "what to do with all the old posts that slowly accumulated?" and other things...but as long as it was discussed before, this is my 2 cents. I didn't actually look deeply into boards that I never really look at, so I didn't make any suggestions about them.
My solution for the old posts is to dump them into a read only archive board or something if they don't fit in their new homes.
The categories are merely members of the list because the nested lists formatting is tedious to type out and I want to see what I'm doing.
The lower effort solution is to move a few boards around, and rename a few rather than merging, removing, or creating anything new. That might be a good step to cleaning it up.
- Rename Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum to "Catholic Apologetics" and focus it on heresies and other errors (and then reopen it)
- Move Eleison Comments Collection to The Bookstore
- Making the Gaming Corner a child of Arts and Leisure and make it about games and video games...nobody seems to know what a forum game is anymore.
I mostly agree and previously made a similar suggestion to consolidate but I have the following reservations: Although the jobs board is heavily underused, I think it has changed some people's lives and has the potential for that in the future. Jobs are important and I think trads need to network more in that area. Also, if there is an Apologetics board created, there should be a board rule that R&R/SVism are not heresies for the purposes of that board. I might even suggest a subforum for apologetics against Conciliarism (NOers versus trads), leaving the rest of the board dedicated to defense against the arguments of atheists, pagans, Jews, Muslims, Prots, and EOs.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 21, 2021, 11:58:33 PM
I mostly agree and previously made a similar suggestion to consolidate but I have the following reservations: Although the jobs board is heavily underused, I think it has changed some people's lives and has the potential for that in the future. Jobs are important and I think trads need to network more in that area.
That is a good point. If it has been fruitful over time, it would be worth keeping as it is. I never really checked it, aside from the most recent new posts, which were not real job postings.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 01:08:56 AM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 21, 2021, 11:58:33 PM
I mostly agree and previously made a similar suggestion to consolidate but I have the following reservations: Although the jobs board is heavily underused, I think it has changed some people's lives and has the potential for that in the future. Jobs are important and I think trads need to network more in that area.
That is a good point. If it has been fruitful over time, it would be worth keeping as it is. I never really checked it, aside from the most recent new posts, which were not real job postings.
I don't even know of it has been fruitful...KK might not even know. The only way to know is by PMing every OP in that board to ask if they found a trad via that board.
One Improvement: Minor adjustment to the "Sacred Sciences" board.
It requires little work.
- Rename it Philosophical and Sacred Sciences because its current title is...not scholarly
- Have someone who has extra time and some citations on hand to write a post to be made a sticky which explains briefly what the Philosophical and Sacred sciences actually are, so those who are tempted to post in ignorance realize that actual knowledge is required, not opinions, because that is what "science" means. Maybe they'll refrain once they realize it is actually a "technical" board.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 21, 2021, 08:37:34 PM
Why don't we just retitle the subforum "Aristotle Answers". You won't hear a peep from me.
On the contrary, when I think of "sacred sciences", I think the semi scholarly argument should be founded on the "sacred scriptures".
Here you go (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=26988.0).
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 01:54:19 PM
One Improvement: Minor adjustment to the "Sacred Sciences" board.
It requires little work.
- Rename it Philosophical and Sacred Sciences because its current title is...not scholarly
- Have someone who has extra time and some citations on hand to write a post to be made a sticky which explains briefly what the Philosophical and Sacred sciences actually are, so those who are tempted to post in ignorance realize that actual knowledge is required, not opinions, because that is what "science" means. Maybe they'll refrain once they realize it is actually a "technical" board.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 21, 2021, 08:37:34 PM
Why don't we just retitle the subforum "Aristotle Answers". You won't hear a peep from me.
On the contrary, when I think of "sacred sciences", I think the semi scholarly argument should be founded on the "sacred scriptures".
Here you go (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=26988.0).
Perhaps a red warning text before posting "This board is intended for semi-serious philosophical and theological discussions, etc."
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 22, 2021, 01:59:08 PM
Perhaps a red warning text before posting "This board is intended for semi-serious philosophical and theological discussions, etc."
People on that board will respond to posts stating the board's purpose with personal insults.
You'd be surprised at what people will ignore.
I mean, this is a forum where a thread is specifically requesting female responses, and men respond as if they didn't realize they were possibly admitting something about themselves!
What we need are the class clowns to be send to the principals office to think about what they've done and maybe bang some erasers clean. But that takes some supervision, so perhaps making the board less enticing to those people might work.
Nobody seems to do that kind of thing in the Liturgical Life or Prayer boards.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 02:02:41 PM
Nobody seems to do that kind of thing in the Liturgical Life or Prayer boards.
Actually I've gotten into debate on the prayer boards a few times (and once had to be moderated) because I didn't know that I was in the prayer board.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 02:02:41 PM
Nobody seems to do that kind of thing in the Liturgical Life or Prayer boards.
Over the years there has been off-topic and inappropriate posting on the prayer subforum. It required some moderator enforcement to control.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 22, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Actually I've gotten into debate on the prayer boards a few times (and once had to be moderated) because I didn't know that I was in the prayer board.
Were you skimming the page of the "Most Recent Posts" link and reading the posts in isolation?
You do seem to post debates on odd posts sometimes (well, oftentimes). That might explain why.
Quote from: Jayne on December 22, 2021, 02:08:05 PM
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 02:02:41 PM
Nobody seems to do that kind of thing in the Liturgical Life or Prayer boards.
Over the years there has been off-topic and inappropriate posting on the prayer subforum. It required some moderator enforcement to control.
I know. But we'd have to look for those instances...not expect them on every new thread made.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 22, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Actually I've gotten into debate on the prayer boards a few times (and once had to be moderated) because I didn't know that I was in the prayer board.
Were you skimming the page of the "Most Recent Posts" link and reading the posts in isolation?
You do seem to post debates on odd posts sometimes (well, oftentimes). That might explain why.
I sometimes read the forum that way and have the impression that it is fairly common. If that is so, some sort of warning like the one Gift suggests could be helpful.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 02:02:41 PM
What we need are the class clowns to ... bang some erasers clean.
Whoa, was that a punishment in some schools? That job was pure prestige when I was a kid.
Quote from: queen.saints on December 22, 2021, 02:19:08 PM
Whoa, was that a punishment in some schools? That job was pure prestige when I was a kid.
If one were to leave class and do it, it would be a reward.
But in schools that had a lot of erasers, they may make it an after-school chore for the miscreants.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 22, 2021, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 22, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
Actually I've gotten into debate on the prayer boards a few times (and once had to be moderated) because I didn't know that I was in the prayer board.
Were you skimming the page of the "Most Recent Posts" link and reading the posts in isolation?
You do seem to post debates on odd posts sometimes (well, oftentimes). That might explain why.
The only posts I read in isolation are very old posts that I trawl in chronological order from the beginning of the forum (and I don't post in those due to their age).
Quote from: Jayne on December 22, 2021, 02:12:53 PM
I sometimes read the forum that way and have the impression that it is fairly common. If that is so, some sort of warning like the one Gift suggests could be helpful.
I don't know how it would be done specifically actually. It isn't a board option as far as I know. I made a "very big effort" improvement suggestion recently, and this one is a "just add
Philosophical and in the board title in the board settings and eventually set a post sticky someone else wrote" suggestion. I don't want to be a "big ideas" man around here with constant grand schemes on total reorganization efforts.
Also, the most recent posts page does have the board name right by the title of the post, so one can see it. That is why I wrote "skimming", because it was there the entire time before one would post.
We don't want to get into "
Cutting Edge Is Sharp" and "
Contents Might Be Flammable" warning territory (lighter fluid containers say "contents might be flammable"). That would be patronizing.
Suggestion: Enable editing of one's posts in Buy/Sell/Trade to make it easier to browse, more clear about what is available.
The board would need to be modified with a different permission profile.
EDIT: Added bonus: excess image uploads could be removed after the item was otherwise not available, saving storage on the server.
Someone, even myself could copy paste the Bp Williamson Eleison Comments into that. A bit too conspiracy minded, but Bp Williamson has great gifts.
Quote from: Prayerful on December 24, 2021, 07:00:19 PM
Someone, even myself could copy paste the Bp Williamson Eleison Comments into that. A bit too conspiracy minded, but Bp Williamson has great gifts.
Eleison Comments doesn't need to be its own child board. It could just be a sticky with links to other websites that host Eleison Comments. I understand that KK likes them (I do too) but Eleison Comments are not going to disappear off the Internet. Even if +Williamson's web site goes down, the Internet Archive won't. If someone really wants to, they can copy and paste every one of the Eleison Comments in the sticky.
Here is a forum improvement that many have at the very least commented about. Disable the ability to change a thread title mid thread at the very least by one who is not the OP.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Here is a forum improvement that many have at the very least commented about. Disable the ability to change a thread title mid thread at the very least by one who is not the OP.
Can you explain why you think that would be an improvement. In general, it is considered a good thing to change the subject line to reflect changes in the discussion. I imagine this is why the feature exists.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Here is a forum improvement that many have at the very least commented about. Disable the ability to change a thread title mid thread at the very least by one who is not the OP.
It changes the Post Subject, not the thread title. It is part of the post as far as SMF is concerned.
And this would not improve the forum when there are people who spread anti-Catholic nonsense and personal views on any thread which they target.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Here is a forum improvement that many have at the very least commented about. Disable the ability to change a thread title mid thread at the very least by one who is not the OP.
What is the point of even allowing it to be changed? And why do people change it?
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 25, 2021, 02:07:34 PM
What is the point of even allowing it to be changed?
Post subjects, message icons, and the post itself can all be edited.
It is part of the post and how SMF works.
It is not "allowing it to be changed" any more than it is "allowing members to post comments and make new threads".
Quote
And why do people change it?
Because it is part of the post and editable. In other words, because we can.
But "why" beyond that:
- Some subjects are objectionable (blasphemous, heretical, vulgar, etc) and one may not want it on one's post
- Some subjects are malformed, either too long, inaccurate, or poorly formatted and one wants a correct subject
- The newest post on a thread will show up on the front page as the newest post along with the subject. And creating a subject that allows it to be read in full can be helpful.
You will see that I (in particular) try to make it so that what would be visible from the front page is descriptive, even if the subject is longer than would could be displayed.
For example, the thread on the front page in Ask a Traditionalist says:
Quote from: Front Page
Last post by GiftOfGod
in Re: Has anyone ever conv...
is not descriptive. It is about Jews, but no one could ever see that without going deeper.
Now, if it were titled "Converting Jews?" or something, people would have an immediate idea of what it was without ever clicking on anything.
There is also no profile permissions option to disable that as part of the ability to post a new comment or topic. It is part of the ability to post (or edit).
It creates confusion because via some search methods it makes finding responses to the thread difficult as a result of a new title. Sure, if I directly go into the subforum, and click on the thread it is not a problem. But, you may be looking for responses in "most recent posts on the forum", or other shortcuts the forum has constructed, which will show he renamed title, as opposed to the title that one is specifically looking for.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 02:21:00 PM
It is confusing because via some search methods it makes finding responses to the thread difficult as a result of a new title. Sure, if I directly go into the subforum, and click on the thread it is not a problem. But, you may be looking for responses in "most recent posts on the forum", or other shortcuts the forum has constructed, which will show he renamed title, as opposed to the title that one is specifically looking for.
Alter your approach to searching. Scanning "recent posts" is very limited, as you noticed. It shows the posts in isolation, along with the board they are in.
That is just what "recent posts" are: the posts.
It lacks a lot of context beyond just the subject of other posts on the thread.
error
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 02:23:14 PM
error
One of many, to be sure. It is not your most grievous though.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 25, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 02:21:00 PM
It is confusing because via some search methods it makes finding responses to the thread difficult as a result of a new title. Sure, if I directly go into the subforum, and click on the thread it is not a problem. But, you may be looking for responses in "most recent posts on the forum", or other shortcuts the forum has constructed, which will show he renamed title, as opposed to the title that one is specifically looking for.
Alter your approach to searching. Scanning "recent posts" is very limited, as you noticed. It shows the posts in isolation, along with the board they are in.
That is just what "recent posts" are: the posts.
It lacks a lot of context beyond just the subject of other posts on the thread.
No thanks, I recon the majority of users make use of the forum as I do. You are the only one on the forum who I know of who habitually alters thread titles.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 25, 2021, 02:07:34 PM
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Here is a forum improvement that many have at the very least commented about. Disable the ability to change a thread title mid thread at the very least by one who is not the OP.
What is the point of even allowing it to be changed? And why do people change it?
Here is an example of a malformed title that the poster didn't realize when originally posting and what it looks like.
Do you think that looks good or is descriptive to people reading?
The input sanitation by SMF can really ruin titles that are otherwise fine.
Quote from: Philip G. on December 25, 2021, 02:25:45 PM
No thanks, I recon the majority of users make use of the forum as I do. You are the only one on the forum who I know of who habitually alters thread titles.
It is not a habit.
I can post a lot or not at all. Neither are habits.
Others have done so.
And I'm not going to pretend I don't know the forum features just because most people don't.
You'll just have to deal with it. Or you can learn more as you use it and fully use the features available to you, not that I want to encourage you to post more.
Improvement suggestion: moderate those who post nonsensical, poorly worded, or malformed subjects on their posts.
It is ridiculous to say "I don't know how to use the forum features that are enabled by default therefore, other people shouldn't use them."
I don't use smileys, but I don't complain about those who do.
I don't use underlining for emphasize, but I don't complain about those who do (even though it is very bad to do that on the Internet).
I don't embed animated gifs, but I don't complain about those who do (with a tiny exception of acknowledgement that it is indeed often annoying).
I'm not special. I'm a regular forum user. It makes no sense that other forum users think otherwise. They have the same tools before them that I do.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 24, 2021, 07:50:17 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on December 24, 2021, 07:00:19 PM
Someone, even myself could copy paste the Bp Williamson Eleison Comments into that. A bit too conspiracy minded, but Bp Williamson has great gifts.
Eleison Comments doesn't need to be its own child board. It could just be a sticky with links to other websites that host Eleison Comments. I understand that KK likes them (I do too) but Eleison Comments are not going to disappear off the Internet. Even if +Williamson's web site goes down, the Internet Archive won't. If someone really wants to, they can copy and paste every one of the Eleison Comments in the sticky.
We started the subforum, I think, before he had them all easily accessible online at the St Marcel Initiative (I think) and they were just hosted at a blogspot blog by some random.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 25, 2021, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 24, 2021, 07:50:17 PM
Quote from: Prayerful on December 24, 2021, 07:00:19 PM
Someone, even myself could copy paste the Bp Williamson Eleison Comments into that. A bit too conspiracy minded, but Bp Williamson has great gifts.
Eleison Comments doesn't need to be its own child board. It could just be a sticky with links to other websites that host Eleison Comments. I understand that KK likes them (I do too) but Eleison Comments are not going to disappear off the Internet. Even if +Williamson's web site goes down, the Internet Archive won't. If someone really wants to, they can copy and paste every one of the Eleison Comments in the sticky.
We started the subforum, I think, before he had them all easily accessible online at the St Marcel Initiative (I think) and they were just hosted at a blogspot blog by some random.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
In that case, it was a good idea at the time.
How about a child board under General Catholic Discussion or Traditional Catholic Discussion titled "Traditionis custodes Implementation Discussion".
I'd say that there's already about 15 threads on the subject and with the CDW's Responsa ad Dubia that just came out, I expect to see new ones weekly for all of 2022 since most dioceses in the world will restrict the TLM and other Old Rite Sacraments, as Tc gives them the authority to do.
Not only would this free up other subforums of Tc-related threads but it would serve as a single place where people can easily see and track the developments in the inplementation of Tc.
The problem with discussion boards that are so specific is that once it dies down, the board is useless.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 27, 2021, 09:56:30 PM
How about a child board under General Catholic Discussion or Traditional Catholic Discussion titled "Traditionis custodes Implementation Discussion".
We agree on something!
Yes, please put this topic in its own place. Maybe even put in with the other Plagues without creating a new child.
QuoteI'd say that there's already about 15 threads on the subject and with the CDW's Responsa ad Dubia that just came out, I expect to see new ones weekly for all of 2022 since most dioceses in the world will restrict the TLM and other Old Rite Sacraments, as Tc gives them the authority to do.
It has seeped onto random threads as well. It is on people's minds and it shows. We need a quarantine.
QuoteNot only would this free up other subforums of Tc-related threads but it would serve as a single place where people can easily see and track the developments in the implementation of Tc.
100%.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on December 27, 2021, 09:57:31 PM
The problem with discussion boards that are so specific is that once it dies down, the board is useless.
That is a problem for tomorrow. The evil of today suffices.
(Yes, I agree that board proliferation is a problem, and there is a need for a cutback, but if it gets this topic off every other board, I would support making that problem a little worse.)
Quote from: The Curt Jester on December 27, 2021, 09:57:31 PM
The problem with discussion boards that are so specific is that once it dies down, the board is useless.
So? Then the child board can be moved to a (yet to be created) archive board; the graveyard of the forum.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 27, 2021, 09:58:37 PMWe need a quarantine.
I don't think we need that but a dedicated child board does create a line in the sand that most people will not cross. When people see a basketball court at the park, you don't need to tell them they can't play basketball in other places.
I suggest: enable the option to Remove nested quotes when quoting (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=admin;area=postsettings;sa=posts;).
Reason: To stop things like this (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27039.msg560058#msg560058). EDIT: He trimmed it after this was posted. But you know what I am talking about. Take this one (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27043.msg560059#msg560059) then.
It is just two clicks away.
This is not a user specific issue, but that was the most recent post when I posted this and which inspired me to write it. People complained my posts were long, but even short posts are longer if they keep nesting quotes like that. A forum thread full of page after page of nested quotes makes it very tedious to read, or at least, prematurely wearing out my mouse wheel.
Suggestion: A Moral Theology subforum, a place where users can post questions about sin and others can give their opinions. Perhaps there should be a new rule stating replies in that sub forum must include a citation from an approved pre-V2 moral theology book or a certification by the replying user that a traditional priest told them this information.
C.O.G. Check this book out, only $20.00 & worth every penny.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Complete-Aquinas-Authorities/dp/1500332275
Quote
Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities Paperback – June 26, 2014
by John A. McHugh O.P. (Author), Charles J. Callan O.P. (Author), Edward P. Farrell O.P. (Editor), & 1 more
4.7 out of 5 stars 10 ratings
See all formats and editions
Paperback
$19.09
2 New from $19.09
Mass Market Paperback
from $54.27
2 Used from $54.27
The purpose of the present work is to give a complete and comprehensive treatise on Catholic Moral Theology, that is, on that branch of sacred learning which treats of the regulation of human conduct in the light of reason and revealed truth. This new work strives to deal with the subject as a systematic and orderly whole, and is based throughout on the principles, teaching and method of St. Thomas Aquinas, while supplementing that great Doctor of the Church from the best modern authorities. Needless to say, there are many questions and problems connected with modern life that did not exist when the great classic works on Moral Theology were written, and to these naturally special attention has been given in the treatment that follows.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 29, 2021, 08:15:17 PM
Check this book out, only $20.00 & worth every penny.
That is a CreateSpace publication, which means it is printed on demand and a self-published work. It also might only be one volume of two, as the first volume is also listed (for $16.05 for some reason).
I would recommend this edition (https://www.traditionalcatholicpublishing.com/moral-theology-a-complete-course.html) and that company over a self-published print on demand version on Amazon. This is what I have.
The text is also online at: Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35354).
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 29, 2021, 06:36:17 PM
Suggestion: A Moral Theology subforum, a place where users can post questions about sin and others can give their opinions. Perhaps there should be a new rule stating replies in that sub forum must include a citation from an approved pre-V2 moral theology book or a certification by the replying user that a traditional priest told them this information.
How would this differ from the expectations of Sacred Sciences?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 29, 2021, 09:30:08 PM
How would this differ from the expectations of Sacred Sciences?
People who could not properly cite their sources for their statements would be visited by Bob the Dinosaur (https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-09-22).
Or something.
But seriously, it would be very poorly differentiated and the number of people who could conduct themselves properly in such a board would be low, especially since it would be a narrower subject than The Sacred Sciences as it is. I just like the idea of being able to cite claims being enforced though.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 29, 2021, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 29, 2021, 06:36:17 PM
Suggestion: A Moral Theology subforum, a place where users can post questions about sin and others can give their opinions. Perhaps there should be a new rule stating replies in that sub forum must include a citation from an approved pre-V2 moral theology book or a certification by the replying user that a traditional priest told them this information.
How would this differ from the expectations of Sacred Sciences?
If someone wanted to ask, for example, "Is it a Sin Crying to Heaven For Vengeance (oppression of the poor) to destroy homeless people's tents?", I wouldn't call it a "serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy." You said that Peneto's responses in that subforum are what you're looking for. Most users on SD can't or won't do that. I'll admit that such a subforum could be abused by users with scruples (like Daniel) but I don't know which existing subforum moral theology questions should be asked in. Perhaps make it anonymous, too, so people can freely ask without fear of embarrassment.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 29, 2021, 09:55:46 PM
If someone wanted to ask, for example, "Is it a Sin Crying to Heaven For Vengeance (oppression of the poor) to destroy a homeless people's tents?", I wouldn't call it a "serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy."
Historically, a question there is not scholarly in itself, but is seeking higher quality answers. The questions would be fine, but as you noted:
QuoteYou said that Paeniteo's responses in that subforum are what you're looking for. Most users on SD can't or won't do that.
Not all posts are long. It just so happens that the topics discussed are broader. It could be that an answer could be very succinct and properly cited.
That question though would have a longish answer because it cannot be answered simply and it would address that.
QuoteI'll admit that such a subforum could be abused by users with scruples (like Daniel) but I don't know which existing subforum moral theology questions should be asked in. Perhaps make it anonymous, too, so people can freely ask without fear of embarrassment.
I would support a change in the wording from this:
The Sacred SciencesHere is the place to have serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy. To this:
Philosophical and the Sacred SciencesSerious, semi-scholarly discussions and questions on theology and philosophy, including dogmatic and moral theologyI would also add a sticky which briefly covered the topics and the expectations of the board's usage. I could write the sticky...if I haven't prepared one already.
Problem: Guilt by association
Solution: Make political commentary visible only to people logged in so guests cannot see it and spiders and crawlers won't index (or archive) it.
A new board dedicated for non-Sedevacantist posters only, so topics that are offensive to Sedevacantists can be protected from derailment.
This would allow people who want to discuss a topic without the assumption of non-Catholicity being present in the responses to do so.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 30, 2021, 05:46:04 PM
A new board dedicated for non-Sedevacantist posters only, so topics that are offensive to Sedevacantists can be protected from derailment.
This would allow people who want to discuss a topic without the assumption of non-Catholicity being present in the responses to do so.
Or you could go to a trad forum where SVism is restricted to one board only. It's called FE.
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 30, 2021, 07:01:12 PM
Or you could go to a trad forum where SVism is restricted to one board only. It's called FE.
Suscipedomine.com (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=3891.0) it is called:
Quote from: The Rules Here
Sedevacantism:
1) Suscipe Domine recognizes Pope Francis as the Supreme Pontiff. Sedevacantists are invited and welcome to join and post. The forum's policy towards sedevacantists is taken from Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, "I do not say that the pope is not the pope... But I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope."
2) It is necessary for every poster, including sedevacantists, to use a pope's regnal name when posting. Even anti-popes are afforded this respect. Immature name-calling will not be tolerated.
And there is a single board for that discussion:
Quote
The Sedevacantist Thesis (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0)
This is the place for any sedeplenist vs sedevacantist debates and discussion.
Quote from: Pæniteo on December 30, 2021, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: GiftOfGod on December 30, 2021, 07:01:12 PM
Or you could go to a trad forum where SVism is restricted to one board only. It's called FE.
Suscipedomine.com (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=3891.0) it is called:
Quote from: The Rules Here
Sedevacantism:
1) Suscipe Domine recognizes Pope Francis as the Supreme Pontiff. Sedevacantists are invited and welcome to join and post. The forum's policy towards sedevacantists is taken from Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, "I do not say that the pope is not the pope... But I do not say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope."
2) It is necessary for every poster, including sedevacantists, to use a pope's regnal name when posting. Even anti-popes are afforded this respect. Immature name-calling will not be tolerated.
And there is a single board for that discussion:
Quote
The Sedevacantist Thesis (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0)
This is the place for any sedeplenist vs sedevacantist debates and discussion.
That doesn't restrict it to that board.
Catholics should be able to ask simple Catholic questions here (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27096.0).
That was an approved prayer for quite a while now, and it has been thoroughly examined.
Whether people pray it or not is up to them. I only asked about the beads myself because I make chaplets and it seemed like a plausible question I could have for this purpose.
But it was really a test to see how scandalous being Catholic would be, and I got misleading answers and then some.
This kind of forum dynamic creates a feedback loop which encourages more radicalization.
My annual suggestion: A section for conversion stories.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 02, 2022, 01:11:14 PM
My annual suggestion: A section for conversion stories.
Maybe the non-Catholic closed board could be repurposed for this.
(Steps for admin: move all posts from it to an archive board, visible or not, and then rename it and give it a new description.)
I would like a stop to people giving medical advice on this forum. In the past week I've seen a recommendation to take aspirin and another to take zinc. These are things that can cause serious consequences when taken in wrong quantities or when not needed.
Just to be clear, if banning medical advice were a thing on this forum (and I highly doubt KK would do something like that), it should also apply to advising people to take a "vaccine" for which there is very little data available. At least with the medications/supplements people have proposed taking, a person can do research on it, ask a [trustworthy] doctor about it, etc. With the "vaccine", it's untested and has been out for a year. How bad side effects are, or how many there are, or how long-lasting they will be, among other things -- all of those things are yet to be determined.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on January 06, 2022, 08:26:16 PM
Just to be clear, if banning medical advice were a thing on this forum (and I highly doubt KK would do something like that),
If? A hypothetical addressed at last, plus speculating on what someone might do in such a contingency!
But I agree that such a rule would be a minefield and that is even without the virus or vaccines. It would make baby talk and other related family discussions tricky, not that I take usually part in those.
The spiritual advice on this forum is probably more important to keep in line.
Maybe a little disclaimer in the rules:
All users are expected to exercise their own judgement and not use any forum interaction as legal, medical, or spiritual advice.Or something like that if liability is a concern.
But I think almost everybody who did or did not get vaccinated did so on their own anyway already.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on January 06, 2022, 08:26:16 PM
Just to be clear, if banning medical advice were a thing on this forum (and I highly doubt KK would do something like that), it should also apply to advising people to take a "vaccine" for which there is very little data available. At least with the medications/supplements people have proposed taking, a person can do research on it, ask a [trustworthy] doctor about it, etc. With the "vaccine", it's untested and has been out for a year. How bad side effects are, or how many there are, or how long-lasting they will be, among other things -- all of those things are yet to be determined.
While there are many members telling others not to get vaccinated, I can think of only one who tells people to get vaccinated. I think the forum would be greatly improved if neither of these things happened, although I don't see it as practical to try to enforce it.
Forum improvement suggestion: if a particular person has been banned multiple times for a grave infraction on the forum, and then repeat it yet again, they should be banned forever. Who invites spam accounts back? Why would other such things be welcomed back?
I know there is a schedule somewhere around here, but there are some things that shouldn't be tolerated: spam, illegal content, obscenities, blasphemies, blatant trolling, etc. They infect the forum and restrict its use.
The medical advice restriction proposal earlier does seem like a good idea for giving or asking for advice on off-label medications for diseases that are subject to a lot of misinformation and conspiracy theories.
At the very least, the forum probably shouldn't have a public record of people pushing or recommending such things to pursue on one's own rather than consulting an actual medical professional of some sort who can direct treatment based on knowledge.
Maybe the Plagues, etc board could be visible only to people logged in. That is just a little box to uncheck on the board's permissions.
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 08, 2022, 08:53:47 PM
The medical advice restriction proposal earlier does seem like a good idea for giving or asking for advice on off-label medications for diseases that are subject to a lot of misinformation and conspiracy theories.
At the very least, the forum probably shouldn't have a public record of people pushing or recommending such things to pursue on one's own rather than consulting an actual medical professional of some sort who can direct treatment based on knowledge.
I can easily imagine people having a serious outcome from following advice they received here. They or their families might be in a position to take legal action against the forum in such a situation. Even if nothing goes wrong people could possibly be charged with unauthorized practice of medicine. I think it is worth putting some thought into how to avoid this.
The "and if it gets serious, take X" type of posts are the most alarming.
If one is just treating colds at home, then it is usually fine. Try lozenges, try hot baths, try grapefruit, or whatever, and maybe you'll get better a little faster.
But if it is dealing with actual medical emergencies, then the winging it approach, especially when pharmaceuticals, is completely inappropriate for public discussion.
I don't think there's any need to sound alarms. KK does not pretend to moderate even an informal medical blog. Participants in many blogs and forums assert authority and knowledge over many areas of self-care: exercise, nutrition, sleep habits, and choice of medical approach (Eastern, Western, homeopathy, and more). That doesn't make a forum owner responsible for the outcomes of readers who foolishly, and without consulting their own doctors, take advice from anonymous users. Members of CI also suggest standard, unusual, untried, experimental, and radical advice for self-care, and I'm sure we would know if the owner had been sued for advice that didn't work or harmed. Does Youtube get sued for all of those annoying commercials that interrupt talks and sermons and promote so-called singular miracle cures? I doubt it. Same for TV.
The Internet is ultimately an uncontrolled or very-difficult-to-control environment. KK could issue a policy statement about public posts, but that doesn't prevent users from PM'ing each other with authoritarian advice, or emailing each other. Ultimately, decision-making rests with adults and the expectation of using common sense. No one is being coerced to follow anyone's unlicensed advice.
Those are good points.
Everybody is free to do what they will.
It is mainly the public appearance of the forum that I think about in this. Part of it is association concerns, but I'm mainly thinking of it as a liability for the owner, but I'm not the owner.
I really do think that this forum's public appearance would be improved by not allowing certain elements of it to be public though. But maybe people who visit have a right to know what they are getting into, although, that can cause even more radical elements to be attracted. If that is what the owner is fine with, I guess I am too.
But it should be understood that what is publicly allowed and promoted here forms the basis for future activity of its current members and prospective members.
Quote from: X on January 08, 2022, 11:40:21 PM
There are actually, and do not get them started. They make us all look like idiots.
This is in regard to Flat Earthers.
But the idea that the image of a minority on this forum could reflect poorly on the rest of us is sound.
With that in mind, perhaps the discussions that actively promote the views that traditional Catholics are aligned with extreme political views, conspiracy theories, and other unsavory elements could be regulated to less public boards.
The most sane reaction to those kinds of posts are simply to ignore that, but that seems like acceptance, so one wants to disassociate from them, and that just invites responses, etc. It would be much easier if one did not have to worry about being associated with those views that have nothing to do with the Church. Those kinds of things actually dissuade many people from posting, because they don't want those kinds of responses. So it contributes to the drift towards the extreme, as such views attract like views, and push away others who don't want to deal with it or be associated with it.
What about banning naivete.
Suggestion: Change (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=admin;area=theme;sa=settings;th=1;) the Site Slogan from the default forum software image.
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 09, 2022, 10:47:13 AM
I don't think there's any need to sound alarms. KK does not pretend to moderate even an informal medical blog. Participants in many blogs and forums assert authority and knowledge over many areas of self-care: exercise, nutrition, sleep habits, and choice of medical approach (Eastern, Western, homeopathy, and more). That doesn't make a forum owner responsible for the outcomes of readers who foolishly, and without consulting their own doctors, take advice from anonymous users. Members of CI also suggest standard, unusual, untried, experimental, and radical advice for self-care, and I'm sure we would know if the owner had been sued for advice that didn't work or harmed. Does Youtube get sued for all of those annoying commercials that interrupt talks and sermons and promote so-called singular miracle cures? I doubt it. Same for TV.
The Internet is ultimately an uncontrolled or very-difficult-to-control environment. KK could issue a policy statement about public posts, but that doesn't prevent users from PM'ing each other with authoritarian advice, or emailing each other. Ultimately, decision-making rests with adults and the expectation of using common sense. No one is being coerced to follow anyone's unlicensed advice.
I tend to agree with this, but I would suggest that KK write a general disclaimer somewhere prominent for his own protection. It can't hurt. Unless there is one and I just missed it.
When people sign up for a forum, there is often a default policy which a person agrees to which includes that posts made on the forum are the views of the individual poster. I do not remember if SD has that on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is one.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on January 11, 2022, 12:54:46 PM
When people sign up for a forum, there is often a default policy which a person agrees to which includes that posts made on the forum are the views of the individual poster. I do not remember if SD has that on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is one.
Indeed, but it can also be edited. This is what is used here and I think it is the SMF default. It was written by weasels:
Quote from: Registration AgreementYou agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason. We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.
After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.
Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.
Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.
My commentary on this issue was less about legal liability and more about moral and reputation issues.
If this forum is overrun with Neo-Nazi Homeopathic Feminists, the disclaimer would probably absolve him of legal liability...but it would certainly not erase a possible reputation that could arise from this.
I don't think the current intention is to run a conspiracy theory and an extremist political forum.
Don't think I didn't notice the upgrade to SMF 2.0.19. You may hide sometimes, but I saw it.
In addition to updating software, stickies could use some revamping. A lot of them are very old and probably not viewed anymore.
The current settings allow for one to use avatar images that are default with SMF. These are largely immodest or inappropriate celebrities and most people don't seem to use them anyway.
I suggest that their use be disabled.
To do this, Server-stored avatars (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=admin;area=manageattachments;sa=avatars;), "Select permissions for each group" and just uncheck the groups.
Regular members (and moderators) will see only the "Personalized Picture" settings for No avatar, Specify avatar by URL, and Upload an avatar after this is done.
If people are allowed to repeatedly reference a removed thread to make accusations, I request that the thread in question be restored, as those false accusations are infuriating, as false accusations tend to be.
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 14, 2022, 03:31:44 PM
If people are allowed to repeatedly reference a removed thread to make accusations, I request that the thread in question be restored, as those false accusations are infuriating, as false accusations tend to be.
As I understood it, the thread was removed to stop an extremely unpleasant discussion. Rather than stopping it, however, the subject keeps being raised over and over again with people mischaracterizing Joseph's posts as "false accusations of adultery". The proof of his innocence has been removed.
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 14, 2022, 03:31:44 PM
If people are allowed to repeatedly reference a removed thread to make accusations, I request that the thread in question be restored, as those false accusations are infuriating, as false accusations tend to be.
I repeat this suggestion.
Never mind. I realized what was causing it. All is well. Carry on.
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 21, 2022, 01:32:11 PM
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 14, 2022, 03:31:44 PM
If people are allowed to repeatedly reference a removed thread to make accusations, I request that the thread in question be restored, as those false accusations are infuriating, as false accusations tend to be.
I repeat this suggestion.
Possibly even more than restoring the proof of your innocence is needed. Perhaps we need an "official judgment" from KK and an instruction that people must stop making false accusations about this. It is ridiculous how often this subject gets raised and it does not look like we are going to "move on" without some kind of intervention.
At this point, after reviewing everything (I review things I post, other things, etc, very frequently), I think we need a statement more like deliberate scandalous appearances will be banned from the forum because this is a traditional Catholic forum. Even if it is just all a game or there is some innocent explanation, Catholics should be mindful of how they present themselves to avoid grave scandal.
I don't know what happened in 2019-2020, but we know where everybody started, and where they ended up, and that needs an explanation, not false accusations. To present oneself that way and then lie about others who made no assumptions or accusations in asking for clarification is a grave issue.
It might help improve the image of "traditional Catholics" somewhat to not be associated with certain political extremes that are known for particular crimes against humanity, and persecution of the Church.
All grave sins should be unacceptable to flaunt on the forum.
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 22, 2022, 06:22:45 PM
It might help improve the image of "traditional Catholics" somewhat to not be associated with certain political extremes that are known for particular crimes against humanity, and persecution of the Church.
You mean Democrats?
slandering other posters should be permabannihilatable.
Quote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on January 22, 2022, 07:31:00 PM
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 22, 2022, 06:22:45 PM
It might help improve the image of "traditional Catholics" somewhat to not be associated with certain political extremes that are known for particular crimes against humanity, and persecution of the Church.
You mean Democrats?
That was not in my mind, but I suppose banning any apologetic posts for any political party or organization known for promoting evil as part of their identity would be a good thing.
I would be surprised if there were any card carrying Democratic Party (USA) members here though. I don't even know of the Canadian political parties, but I'm sure they are bad too.
All grave sins should be unacceptable to flaunt on the forum, and that includes those who participate in the sins of others.
Quote from: Heinrich on January 22, 2022, 07:40:51 PM
slandering other posters should be permabannihilatable.
This is not a bad idea in theory, but how could it be put into practice without making a huge amount of work for KK? Every time someone was accused of slander, wouldn't he have to investigate to determine the truth of the matter? Given how often people accuse others of slander around here, I would expect it to be unreasonably time consuming.
ETA: What if accusing people of slander were also a bannable offense, if the investigation determined the accusation were false or unjustified. This might make people think a bit more before making such accusations.
I advocate for the banning of evil behaviours, not individuals.
I try to avoid the hysterical overreactions (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27341.msg565441#msg565441) that are common here.
Even if a person should be banned, I don't make it personal, because that is very petty and diminishes the argument.
If a person has done evil, it should be evident, and the accusations should be able to be supported with clear evidence of actual wrong doing. Whining because one doesn't like another is silly.
In other words, apologetic posts contrary to fact supporting or defending wars of aggression of hateful regimes would be "bad".
Opposing such posts is not. Being called a Nazi (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27210.msg565435#msg565435) for opposing such posts contrary to right reason, history, and the Church is perhaps a clear indication of interior intent. Invoking Godwin's Law in that context was the most bizarre use of it I have seen.
Quote from: Pæniteo on January 23, 2022, 05:28:35 AM
In other words, apologetic posts contrary to fact supporting or defending wars of aggression of hateful regimes would be "bad".
Ah, you are a Confederate sympathizer, like me.
[yt]https://youtu.be/1ZxMDZ3TdZM[/yt]
I do not pick sides in earthly kingdoms anymore and haven't for a long time.
Condemning one regime does not mean approval for another.
"The enemy of my enemy" is not my friend, for I am looking only to God. One is with God or not, and that is all that matters.
I was mistaken about what I had previously written in this post.
All acts which are by their nature mortal sins should be treated as unacceptable on this forum.
If someone came here celebrating sodomy, heresy, or gross immodesty, people would jump all over them, but would people do the same for evil speech (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27063.0), lying (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27228.0), or other grave sins? No, they get celebrated, thanked, supported, and flaunted on this forum.
This should not be. Our sense of what is evil (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27344.0) should not be perverted like that: it is extremely dangerous (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27050.0) and it is very scandalous.
The issue of venial sins (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27248.0) should be the only things that are perhaps on display, jocose lies, imperfect detachment from the world, secular entertainment, etc, not these grave evils.
Promotion of unapproved claims of private revelations and "visionaries" with unclear motives and influence should not be allowed here, at least, not on the general forum. It can be very misleading to those who don't know that such things might be presented (how many times are people interested in a topic, only to be informed it isn't approved or has been condemned, and then regret even looking into it).
People are free to accept or not approved private revelations, but we definitely shouldn't treat unapproved claims of such things with any credulity.
The post above this was made before any public action was take on any matter related to this topic. The near simultaneous timing of this post and other action are a coincidence.
(But in general, I think the idea should be implemented for other such things that are sometimes promoted.)
Quote from: Pæniteo on February 03, 2022, 10:13:43 AM
Promotion of unapproved claims of private revelations and "visionaries" with unclear motives and influence should not be allowed here, at least, not on the general forum. It can be very misleading to those who don't know that such things might be presented (how many times are people interested in a topic, only to be informed it isn't approved or has been condemned, and then regret even looking into it).
People are free to accept or not approved private revelations, but we definitely shouldn't treat unapproved claims of such things with any credulity.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of unapproved private revelation. Besides, we've got enough controversy over the approved ones... :lol:
Is there a way for the admin to verify claims by members that they are priests or religious? If so, could their profiles be marked so that we can be sure to treat them with the proper respect?
Quote from: Vox Clara on February 05, 2022, 12:28:49 PM
Is there a way for the admin to verify claims by members that they are priests or religious? If so, could their profiles be marked so that we can be sure to treat them with the proper respect?
Are there many priests? I know of one previous member (may he rest in peace) and one who posts on a single thread.
Verifying who is a priest is more a matter of declaring who is not a priest. Right now, as far as I know, it is only a tiny number of people at best, and not an issue, but the idea of having a system for verifying and marking accounts claimed by priests would be a tricky thing to do.
The normal way of verifying a priest is establishing identity and then checking with their bishop, under whose authority they are.
Since this is a traditional Catholic forum and has a wide range of views on certain matters, how would a priest be verified? Would any claim that is documented be valid? This forum does not have shy members who doubt the validity of ordinations under certain rites or translations of those rites, and there are those who prefer independent clergy, with no ecclesiastical oversight or verification, whose orders are taken as a matter of personal judgement, whereas other people would judge them to be quite unacceptable (because they are illicit or perhaps invalid, depending on the case).
Priests in general should be treated with respect in posts, and that does not happen here. For those priests on this forum accused of being invalid, illicit, or heretics or other things, what if they joined? Would that retroactively make the previous comments in violation?
Given how priests in general are addressed here, and how the forum is currently, I don't think such a specific policy could be a good idea.
Marking a profile as officially a priest according to the forum policy, and then making it a rule to interact with that account differently from others would be an issue for many depending on who the person was.
Imagine a Roman Rite priest ordained in the new rite posting in the various threads here...how would that turn out? Imagine an independent priest of somewhat difficult to verify heritage...how would that be judged?
Quote from: Pæniteo on February 05, 2022, 01:04:35 PM
Quote from: Vox Clara on February 05, 2022, 12:28:49 PM
Is there a way for the admin to verify claims by members that they are priests or religious? If so, could their profiles be marked so that we can be sure to treat them with the proper respect?
Are there many priests? I know of one previous member (may he rest in peace) and one who posts on a single thread.
Verifying who is a priest is more a matter of declaring who is not a priest. Right now, as far as I know, it is only a tiny number of people at best, and not an issue, but the idea of having a system for verifying and marking accounts claimed by priests would be a tricky thing to do.
The normal way of verifying a priest is establishing identity and then checking with their bishop, under whose authority they are.
Since this is a traditional Catholic forum and has a wide range of views on certain matters, how would a priest be verified? Would any claim that is documented be valid? This forum does not have shy members who doubt the validity of ordinations under certain rites or translations of those rites, and there are those who prefer independent clergy, with no ecclesiastical oversight or verification, whose orders are taken as a matter of personal judgement, whereas other people would judge them to be quite unacceptable (because they are illicit or perhaps invalid, depending on the case).
Priests in general should be treated with respect in posts, and that does not happen here. For those priests on this forum accused of being invalid, illicit, or heretics or other things, what if they joined? Would that retroactively make the previous comments in violation?
Given how priests in general are addressed here, and how the forum is currently, I don't think such a specific policy could be a good idea.
Marking a profile as officially a priest according to the forum policy, and then making it a rule to interact with that account differently from others would be an issue for many depending on who the person was.
Imagine a Roman Rite priest ordained in the new rite posting in the various threads here...how would that turn out? Imagine an independent priest of somewhat difficult to verify heritage...how would that be judged?
My concern is more the opposite: that someone could falsely claim to be a priest or religious and demand special deference that they are not entitled to. This would put other members in the difficult position of not knowing whether they are being disrespectful toward a legitimate authority.
Quote from: Vox Clara on February 05, 2022, 01:15:22 PM
My concern is more the opposite: that someone could falsely claim to be a priest or religious and demand special deference that they are not entitled to. This would put other members in the difficult position of not knowing whether they are being disrespectful toward a legitimate authority.
Yes, I read the forum from top down. I just saw it...
You are right.
Fit for Purpose: what is this forum good for?
That should be a question asked and the forum designed to meet the desired purpose. It states it is a "a traditional Catholic forum", but in practice, free discussion of Catholic doctrine and morality and implementing of those teachings is somewhat controversial, whereas the forum is best suited for endless political discussions on certain matters, most prominently, opinions and judgements of the Pope and bishops and the vaccines and virus and other secular concerns.
Obviously, those concerns are quite valid, but it seems they have primacy to the exclusion of other topics. Moderator activity is what drives and encourages activity, and the impact of those decisions can have far reaching consequences.
There are people on this forum who do not post at all or very sparingly whom I've talked to privately in some way that expressed a desire to post more, but they did not want to get the responses they see others getting. They were good Catholics as far as I know and it is a shame they are not willing to post because of the sorts of discourse they see as being most common here.
Fit for purpose? Not fitting for general traditional Catholic discussion at this time. One has to be well prepared for the political undercurrents and attitudes that are most prominent here if one is going to post on this forum.
A suggestion: make a dedicated part of the forum accessible only to members logged in for discussing politics, conspiracy theories, etc, that might be scandalous to readers of the forum. Whether or not those discussions are evil or not does not matter if they appear to be advocating for certain things to people reading and I think it is a good thing to be mindful of appearances to those who view this forum as a traditional Catholic forum.
What is public here is what is presented as "traditional Catholic" to readers. If the discourse here makes regular traditional Catholics not want to be associated with it, there is a problem. But I think the damage this forum can do should be kept contained at least to forum members, rather than any public reader.
Rename Plagues and Pestilence to Secular Topics Du Jour for all the boring same old topics that are dominated every other political platform that become the topic of fixation here. Then put all the topics that fit in it, including all the political speculations, Ukraine/Russia commentary, etc.
The topics of this forum should reflect its purpose, not just resemble every other secular focused political news forum. The forum is not very active except for these kinds of topics and they should not be the most prominent topic that is presented.
Quote from: Pæniteo on March 04, 2022, 12:01:43 PM
Rename Plagues and Pestilence to Secular Topics Du Jour for all the boring same old topics that are dominated every other political platform that become the topic of fixation here. Then put all the topics that fit in it, including all the political speculations, Ukraine/Russia commentary, etc.
The topics of this forum should reflect its purpose, not just resemble every other secular focused political news forum. The forum is not very active except for these kinds of topics and they should not be the most prominent topic that is presented.
Ukraine has abolished COVID. It is a miracle.
One thing I would like would be a bigger range of reactions, and notification if given thanks or whichever. If serious ones are chosen, it can add to a forum. Some spergs will abuse it to negrate their e-foes, but they don't matter.
Plagues and Pestilence has not had any new posts in it for three days and has had one thread made in it over the past week.
I think the topic is finished. The prophets of that board that drove its activity have moved onto international political commentary on the general forum.
The same problem that led to the creation of that board exists with a new subject. I think a general solution to the general problem is in order.
Quote from: Pæniteo on March 13, 2022, 04:28:00 AM
Plagues and Pestilence has not had any new posts in it for three days and has had one thread made in it over the past week.
I think the topic is finished. The prophets of that board that drove its activity have moved onto international political commentary on the general forum.
The same problem that led to the creation of that board exists with a new subject. I think a general solution to the general problem is in order.
You worry too much. The new wave of C19 is around the corner.
The owner of the forum could respond tp reported posts and users.
Quote from: andy on March 13, 2022, 09:41:20 AM
You worry to much. The new wave of C19 is around the corner.
The suggestion was not about the particular news stories, but the general problem these post and the proposed general solution.
The virus, particular wars, or any other secular topic can be the particular news story of fixation. This is a generalized problem with a general solution.
I'm not worried about anything. Besides political commentary, the other major non-Catholic focus is deranged commentary on me, so maybe a board can be made for that as well.
Quote from: Pæniteo on March 13, 2022, 08:00:43 PM
Quote from: andy on March 13, 2022, 09:41:20 AM
You worry to much. The new wave of C19 is around the corner.
The suggestion was not about the particular news stories, but the general problem these post and the proposed general solution.
The virus, particular wars, or any other secular topic can be the particular news story of fixation. This is a generalized problem with a general solution.
I'm not worried about anything. Besides political commentary, the other major non-Catholic focus is deranged commentary on me, so maybe a board can be made for that as well.
So why you did not post it as above in the first place?
The forum could use a lot of routine housekeeping and the lack of attention to the little details indicates that any major changes are unlikely to be implemented. I would suggest doing some routine housekeeping of the public forum, keeping stickies up to date, keeping policies up to date, etc. The request for suggestions made in 2018 seems to be out of date itself, as the desire to make changes to make a livelier forum and increase activity (in general or in particular topics) seems to have waned significantly.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 30, 2018, 04:36:21 PM
What's some stuff you all would like to see happen around here to make it a livelier joint?
I've noticed activity has been slipping.
Open to ideas all across the board.
No personal attacks to me.
Locking this thread and restating the basic desire for the forum and the actions we should expect if any would be a good start so people are all on the same page on how this forum is run.
Please, a separate sub-forum for unapproved private revelation. Or,
Private Revelation Forum
and a subset for Unapproved Apparitions
Can video clips be posted? Another forum allowed it if you drop into the post and it's handy.
Will the new software after the rollover have a collapse/expand feature? It would be a practical alternative to preset outright ignoring all posts from certain members. Thanks.
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 12:37:08 PM
Will the new software after the rollover have a collapse/expand feature? It would be a practical alternative to preset outright ignoring all posts from certain members. Thanks.
I don't know what you mean, so the answer is probably no?
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 10, 2022, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 12:37:08 PM
Will the new software after the rollover have a collapse/expand feature? It would be a practical alternative to preset outright ignoring all posts from certain members. Thanks.
I don't know what you mean, so the answer is probably no?
Some sites show the first few sentences of a post and then a "Read more" to show the rest (and then a "Read less" to roll it back up).
Some sites show just the subheader (with user name, post time, etc.) and a caret or arrow (like ^ but upside down, or a >) to open the rest of the post.
These are common on a lot of website comments sections.
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 10, 2022, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 12:37:08 PM
Will the new software after the rollover have a collapse/expand feature? It would be a practical alternative to preset outright ignoring all posts from certain members. Thanks.
I don't know what you mean, so the answer is probably no?
Some sites show the first few sentences of a post and then a "Read more" to show the rest (and then a "Read less" to roll it back up).
Some sites show just the subheader (with user name, post time, etc.) and a caret or arrow (like ^ but upside down, or a >) to open the rest of the post.
These are common on a lot of website comments sections.
We do have an ignore feature (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8095.0) already. Are you familiar with it?
Quote from: Lynne on October 10, 2022, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 10, 2022, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 12:37:08 PM
Will the new software after the rollover have a collapse/expand feature? It would be a practical alternative to preset outright ignoring all posts from certain members. Thanks.
I don't know what you mean, so the answer is probably no?
Some sites show the first few sentences of a post and then a "Read more" to show the rest (and then a "Read less" to roll it back up).
Some sites show just the subheader (with user name, post time, etc.) and a caret or arrow (like ^ but upside down, or a >) to open the rest of the post.
These are common on a lot of website comments sections.
We do have an ignore feature (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8095.0) already. Are you familiar with it?
Yes, but it will not remove an ignored poster's post if it is quoted by another poster. I think this is what she is requesting.
Quote from: Baylee on October 10, 2022, 03:00:44 PM
Quote from: Lynne on October 10, 2022, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 01:50:31 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on October 10, 2022, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on October 10, 2022, 12:37:08 PM
Will the new software after the rollover have a collapse/expand feature? It would be a practical alternative to preset outright ignoring all posts from certain members. Thanks.
I don't know what you mean, so the answer is probably no?
Some sites show the first few sentences of a post and then a "Read more" to show the rest (and then a "Read less" to roll it back up).
Some sites show just the subheader (with user name, post time, etc.) and a caret or arrow (like ^ but upside down, or a >) to open the rest of the post.
These are common on a lot of website comments sections.
We do have an ignore feature (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8095.0) already. Are you familiar with it?
Yes, but it will not remove an ignored poster's post if it is quoted by another poster. I think this is what she is requesting.
Ah. I wish ignoring here was like blocking on Facebook or Reddit, it's as if the person no longer exists... ::)
Quote from: Lynne on October 10, 2022, 02:22:45 PM
We do have an ignore feature (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8095.0) already. Are you familiar with it?
Yes, but I'd save the Ignore for the truly horrid troll cases :) .
Even then, as Baylee said, those blocked posts would still get reproduced when others quote them. Instead, what I had asked about is a way of managing what's visible on screen. It could be helpful with high-volume threads, especially when a string of nested quotes starts to take up lots of space. It's also helpful with copypasta where the post in question might still have a redeeming opening sentence.If we can get this feature, great. If not, no biggie. That's what the [pg dn] key is for.
I can force a trimming of quote-nesting, I think. But it gets sloppy when machines do the work.
SMF 2.1 seems to improve the ignore feature, though.
Would it be possible to have a guideline in the forum rules about long copy-&-paste dumps?
I can see the utility of quoting an article or an essay in its entirety when starting a thread, or on the odd occasion where it's warranted, but a constant repetition of long copy-&-paste dumps clogs up threads and seems like spamming. Perhaps there could be a guideline that long copy-&-paste dumps should 1. use the quote function and 2. be infrequent. A simple hyperlink can suffice otherwise.
On a forum I used to run, new posters were not permitted to upload images or use avatars until reaching a certain post count. It allowed me and the mods a chance to determine if the person was there for the purpose of the forum or to cause trouble. I think having such an implementation would be beneficial here considering recent events.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on October 29, 2022, 06:02:43 AMOn a forum I used to run, new posters were not permitted to upload images or use avatars until reaching a certain post count.
Maybe they could be permitted avatars from an approved menu. There is already an avatar gallery on this forum; unfortunately they're only available in a minuscule size, and are of celebrities from the late 1990s. I don't know if the administrator is able to change and customize the selections.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 29, 2022, 07:01:23 AM
Maybe they could be permitted avatars from an approved menu. There is already an avatar gallery on this forum; unfortunately they're only available in a minuscule size, and are of celebrities from the late 1990s. I don't know if the administrator is able to change and customize the selections.
That would work, too, but I think it would be easier to just leave it blank. Picking from a pool of pre-selected avatars doesn't really say much about the person posting.
Also, to add to my above post, new users
could be prohibited from posting links since that can be a problem as well.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on October 29, 2022, 07:07:06 AMPicking from a pool of pre-selected avatars doesn't really say much about the person posting.
That's true, but it's still better, aesthetically, than the plain user name just sitting there by its sad self. A Bouguereau Madonna or Carravaggio's St. Matthew and the angel would give a new user a basic and attractive expression of their Catholicism, even if it's not expressive of them uniquely.
Actually think a blank will stand out more as a newbie which can work two ways : put you on alert that there is a newbie if they are here to cause trouble or thread gently to someone who doesn't know the faith and is here with good intentions.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on October 29, 2022, 06:02:43 AM
On a forum I used to run, new posters were not permitted to upload images or use avatars until reaching a certain post count. It allowed me and the mods a chance to determine if the person was there for the purpose of the forum or to cause trouble. I think having such an implementation would be beneficial here considering recent events.
That would be great if implemented here. Also another thing I've liked on another forum I use: the first 20 or so posts have to be approved by moderation before they are posted to the forum.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 29, 2022, 07:14:35 AM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on October 29, 2022, 07:07:06 AMPicking from a pool of pre-selected avatars doesn't really say much about the person posting.
That's true, but it's still better, aesthetically, than the plain user name just sitting there by its sad self. A Bouguereau Madonna or Carravaggio's St. Matthew and the angel would give a new user a basic and attractive expression of their Catholicism, even if it's not expressive of them uniquely.
Is that a quote from Nabokov in your signature, Pon?
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 29, 2022, 07:01:23 AM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on October 29, 2022, 06:02:43 AMOn a forum I used to run, new posters were not permitted to upload images or use avatars until reaching a certain post count.
Maybe they could be permitted avatars from an approved menu. There is already an avatar gallery on this forum; unfortunately they're only available in a minuscule size, and are of celebrities from the late 1990s. I don't know if the administrator is able to change and customize the selections.
I am, I think.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on October 29, 2022, 06:02:43 AM
On a forum I used to run, new posters were not permitted to upload images or use avatars until reaching a certain post count. It allowed me and the mods a chance to determine if the person was there for the purpose of the forum or to cause trouble. I think having such an implementation would be beneficial here considering recent events.
I manually approve each new registration ever since The Incident years ago with A Different Forum. It's helped to avoid obvious spam bots and such, but this was a new situation.
I can look into it. Once I get the Forum upgraded, I'll see if they have such triggers. They probably do, the upgrade added a lot of functions, last I saw.
Quote from: Goldfinch on October 29, 2022, 08:55:20 AM
Is that a quote from Nabokov in your signature, Pon?
It is.
Other forums have up-votes and down-votes. There's a "say thanks" function on this forum. Is it possible for a "dislike" function to be added?
Quote from: Pon de Replay on November 26, 2022, 06:52:47 AM
Other forums have up-votes and down-votes. There's a "say thanks" function on this forum. Is it possible for a "dislike" function to be added?
We only up-vote here. We're inclusive.
A company that one of my sisters worked for came up with the not so brilliant idea of giving a "Makerel Award", for that employee that screwed up the most during the past week. The boss attempted to give this award to my sister; there was no Makerel award given after that..... :laugh:
I think down-votes invite displays of animosity beyond the content of the post itself. This is what I've seen elsewhere. If a member wants to object to the message and not the messenger, it is better done directly, i.m.o. Dislike of a more personal nature is thus forced to be aired, and therefore has a tendency to restrain the responder because it's within public view.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 27, 2022, 10:29:41 AM
I think down-votes invite displays of animosity beyond the content of the post itself. This is what I've seen elsewhere. If a member wants to object to the message and not the messenger, it is better done directly, i.m.o. Dislike of a more personal nature is thus forced to be aired, and therefore has a tendency to restrain the responder because it's within public view.
I would also add that the ability to downvote can be an occasion of sin (ie. revenge).
How about addressing the kind of blanket-bombing posting that the Ukraine war thread is constantly being subjected to?
Sometimes there are 4,5,6 posts in a row with huge images and text, all of them lifted directly from the MSM. This is bullying, IMO.
This boot-stomping posting style breaks up discussions and is a general distraction which inhibits the thread.
Asking Xavier to stop won't help. People have tried that over and over again and he just continues. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the war but this aggressive and inconsiderate posting style is unacceptable.
Nope, it's you who are trying to bully me. There is no rule about number of posts in a thread or in a page; if there was, it would apply uniformly to all posters and I would observe it. Since it's an ongoing thread, I post updates there as and when they are available. I format etc sometimes, otherwise I just post as I find it. All of it is relevant. For e.g. the number of casualties as per the latest available figures. Otherwise, news about what some commander or general or military analyst has said about the War. Just because you support the Kremlin's Invaders and want to post Pro-Russia material - which I'm not trying to bully you into not doing - doesn't give you the right to try to bully me into not posting Pro-Ukraine material.
Quote from: awkward customer on December 05, 2022, 12:18:39 PM
How about addressing the kind of blanket-bombing posting that the Ukraine war thread is constantly being subjected to? [...]
Even if one avoids the more worldly parts of this forum, there's still Xavier clogging up the more theologically focused conversations with indifferentism, trad-bashing, and base venial curiosity. This is the very sort of thing that pushes away well-meaning people from participating, both those who are better-informed and those earnestly beginning to seek some truth amid the dregs of the internet.
I'm going to ignore AC for a while for my peace of mind. If you don't want to read my posts, then do the same to me. Simple.
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on December 05, 2022, 01:20:20 PM
Even if one avoids the more worldly parts of this forum, there's still Xavier clogging up the more theologically focused conversations with indifferentism, trad-bashing, and base venial curiosity. This is the very sort of thing that pushes away well-meaning people from participating, both those who are better-informed and those earnestly beginning to seek some truth amid the dregs of the internet.
I've noticed this too. Xavier drowns out all serious and complex discussion in a sea of cut and paste. Not to mention all the evangelical stuff he posts and the countless threads he starts ...
Quote from: awkward customer on December 05, 2022, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on December 05, 2022, 01:20:20 PM
Even if one avoids the more worldly parts of this forum, there's still Xavier clogging up the more theologically focused conversations with indifferentism, trad-bashing, and base venial curiosity. This is the very sort of thing that pushes away well-meaning people from participating, both those who are better-informed and those earnestly beginning to seek some truth amid the dregs of the internet.
I've noticed this too. Xavier drowns out all serious and complex discussion in a sea of cut and paste. Not to mention all the evangelical stuff he posts and the countless threads he starts ...
Not to mention all of the insincere sedevacantist "polls".
I would just say that sometimes the worst in us comes out when we don't recognize boundaries and distinctions, or when we merely ignore them. A general prohibition from using Suscipe Domine as personal blog territory would solve a host of problems. Xavier is not the only one with a tendency to post material better suited to a blog than to serious debate. There are many categories of material he posts that belong in the blog genre; an example is his frequent introduction of "Wouldn't It be Wonderful If...? topics.
Yes, it would be wonderful. People who own blogs write those kinds of idealistic reflections. In some cases, those posts on other blog sites are so individualistic as to have little application to others. (They are like entries in a diary.) In other cases, they are so universally obvious as to be superfluous, and one wonders why the blogger is stating something that few would oppose. But in both cases, such entries satisfy the needs of the blogger, not the needs (or, necessarily, interests) of a forum community which seeks to interact with one another and not merely read pronouncements.
IO: I don't know Theology? You do know I considered being a Priest and spent some time in an SSPX Seminary, right? Or don't you? You're a newbie here, so maybe you don't. But I did. I had to return mainly because of financial difficulties. You see, I was born in a poor family, and my dad died at a young age. And so return I did, as my dear Mother depends on me, the eldest son, to provide for our family. And by God's Grace, I got a Great Job recently, in one of the Best Investment Banks in the World, and so the Almighty has made all things well for me. Glory be to Him forever!
This is what a Priest wrote to me about this 1P5 article on Purgatory: https://onepeterfive.com/purgatory-saved-fire/
""Dear Sir:
I have read many articles about Purgatory in my lifetime —- 82 years old and 54 years as a priest.
I just read yours on the 1Peter5 webpage.
Yours is the best I have ever read.
Thank you.
Please keep up your good work.
Fr. Edward B. Connolly "
After you get an endorsement like that from a Priest for one of your writings, you can tell me I don't know Theology. I prove what I write with multiple sources, and that also applies to the Moral Theology of Just War which clearly shows Putin's Kremlin is waging an unjust one. Accepting that or not is your prerogative. Being free to say it is mine.
Gee, how "protestant" of me to prove, from multiple sources in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Doctrine of Purgatory to Protestants. I guess this must be the "indifferentism" you are talking about, since everyone knows Protestants believe in Purgatory and Indulgences, and rely on Masses, Communions and Mary's Promises to avoid Purgatory. </sarcasm>
QuotePurgatory: They Shall Be Saved, but Only So as by Fire
Nishant Xavier July 9, 2020 0 Comments
When Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Mass as a perpetual sacrifice of His Body and His Blood for the remission of our sins (Mt. 26:26–28; Mk. 14:22–24; Lk. 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 10:16–18; etc.), it is clear that He intended in a special way that the New Testament Sacrifice of the Holy Mass be the perfect fulfilment of the Old Covenant sacrifices. Now, if even these were offered up for the remission of the sins of the faithful departed (2 Macc. 12:43–46) — for it is written,"And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection[.] ... It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." — it follows that Holy Mass is the greatest sacrifice to alleviate the terrifying sufferings of the faithful departed that God has ever given to man.
Since Protestants do not accept the Book of Maccabees (although they should; the 4th-century canons of Carthage, of Hippo, and the decrees of Pope St. Damasus's Council of Rome all contain it as canonical), they often ask Catholics:"All right. Maccabees teaches Purgatory. But where is Purgatory in the New Testament? Wouldn't Our Lord Jesus Christ or one of His apostles have mentioned it?"
The First Proof: Direct Proof from 1 Corinthians 3:13–15
Chapter 3 of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians is perhaps the most direct proof in Sacred Scripture of purgatorial fire and merits. According to Catholic doctrine, bad works are penalized by God; bad Christians, whose works are burned up, will therefore suffer loss and be saved only through fire. This is Purgatory and their bad works or sins are why Purgatory is necessary. This doctrine is plainly taught by St. Paul the Apostle.
Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
St. Basil the Great teaches:
I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest. (Homilies on the Psalms 7:2)
What could possibly be clearer? The bad Christian is saved only through fire because of his bad works. The good Christian receives a reward from the Lord on that day because of his good works. This text clearly shows that good works done with faith in Christ are necessary post-justification and contribute to the soul's sanctification. If performed, they entitle us by God's grace to a heavenly reward, because God is so good. If neglected, they demand punishment, because God is holy.
The Second Proof: The Prison of Spirits St. Peter speaks of
St. Peter the Apostle twice proves Purgatory when he speaks of a mysterious Prison of Spirits, in which the Gospel was preached, and from which souls can be delivered. Now, this cannot refer to Heaven, for Heaven is not a prison. But neither on the other hand can it refer to Hell, for there is no deliverance from Hell. It necessarily follows that this constitutes proof of some third intermediate state between Heaven and Hell, which Holy Mother Church aptly calls Purgatory.
1 Pet. 3: "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison[.]"
1 Pet. 4: "For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit."
Bp. Challoner justly comments on 1 Pet. 3:19:
See here a proof of a third place, or middle state of souls: for these spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach, after his death, were not in heaven; nor yet in the hell of the damned: because heaven is no prison: and Christ did not go to preach to the damned.
The Third Proof: The Lord Jesus mentions the same prison
Mt. 5: "If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison[.] Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing."
St. Cyprian eloquently argues based on this prison:
It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord. (Letter 51)
Tertullian interprets:
Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as 'the accuser of the brethren,' or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (A Treatise on the Soul, 35)
Once more: a prison from which souls can be delivered is neither Heaven nor Hell proper. But a spiritual prison from which prisoners depart when they have paid the last farthing is precisely such an imprisonment in an intermediate state.
The Fourth Proof: Our Lord speaks of lesser stripes in punishment
Lk. 12: "The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
This follows the Old Testament requirement:
Deut. 25: "And if they see that the offender be worthy of stripes: they shall lay him down, and shall cause him to be beaten before them. According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be[.]"
Now, those who are beaten eternally have their lot with the unbelievers. But those who sinned in ignorance will deserve lesser stripes — i.e., non-eternal or only temporal punishment. It follows that these souls will ultimately be liberated.
St. Augustine persuasively says:
But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come. (City of God 21:13)
Another related proof comes from Our Lord saying some sins are forgiven in this world, implying some others could be forgiven in the world to come (Mt. 12:32). As the Catholic Encyclopedia shows, St. Augustine was one to make this argument. And Pope St. Gregory, the Great Dialogist, was another. We will quote the latter here. To the question "Whether there be any Fire of Purgatory in the next life," the saintly pope answers in the affirmative, saying, "We must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins: because our Saviour saith, that he which speaketh blasphemy against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offences scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime" (Dialogues, Book 4, Chapter 39: Whether there be any Purgatory etc?).
The Fifth Proof: St. Paul prays for his departed Christian friend Onesiphorus
St. Paul offers a final simple proof: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain" (2 Tim. 1:16). Now, it is manifest in the text, and not infrequently admitted even by Protestant commentators, that Onesiphorus was a departed Christian, whose works of mercy St. Paul calls to mind.
St. Thomas admirably argues: "Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in hell, because they cannot be loosed from sins." This magnificent proof of St. Thomas is a final proof of Purgatory.
St. Chrysostom comments:
Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians, 3)
Conclusion: Purgatory is real. Good news: You can avoid it!
When Our Lord spoke of His Sacred Body and Precious Blood being offered up for the "remission of sins," the promised remission applies in an exemplary manner to the Church Suffering, the faithful departed. Holy Mass exceeds by far the sacrifices of the Old Law and more wondrously liberates the suffering souls in Purgatory. Many who could never have been liberated by the sacrifices of the righteous Maccabees, even if those sacrifices had been offered till the end of time, already have been or will be liberated according to the plan of God before the end of time. How grateful, then, we should be to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to offer! How blessed to know there is a Purgatory! They who do not believe in Purgatory have no good hope of escaping it. Those of us who believe and confess that there is a Purgatory can easily, if we co-operate with God's Grace, avoid going there.
God and Mary have revealed, with Church approval, a Life Offering. Jesus and Mary have promised all who offer their lives, all their Masses and Communions, good works, prayers and sacrifices, to Jesus and Mary, for the salvation of souls, that they can avoid Purgatory and go straight to Heaven.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 11:05:09 AM
Gee, how "protestant" of me to prove, from multiple sources in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Doctrine of Purgatory to Protestants. I guess this must be the "indifferentism" you are talking about, since everyone knows Protestants believe in Purgatory and Indulgences, and rely on Masses, Communions and Mary's Promises to avoid Purgatory. </sarcasm>
:lol:
Bro, you literally are proving their point with this post.
When a false accusation is made against me, Kaese, do I not have the right to respond? I was accused of being "indifferentist" so I cited that to prove I was not. I am not an indifferentist and never have been. The one thing IO might be talking about is where I said Catholics today should Evangelize more, as the Great Catholic Saints of old like St. Francis Xavier did, and as today unfortunately some Protestants imo do better than us. Not only I, but Arvinger and others have said similar things. Such observations, whether one agrees or disagrees, is not indifferentism.
I debate, dialogue and discuss with you or anyone else who quotes my post and asks for a response. In that particular thread - which btw is widely read, with some 5000 replies and 115,000 views, and also has many other Pro-Ukraine posters beside me, like Prayerful, Melkite, Antoninus, Arvinger and others, so this is hardly a lone opinion here - I posted news updates because it was an ongoing thread. At one time, it seemed possible the conflict could result in World War III. Now, most likely, it will not, and that's a good thing. I don't try to curtail other people's freedom to post what they think or want on topics Catholics clearly can disagree about. So I don't understand why AC or IO wants to do that to me.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 11:26:47 AMIn that particular thread - which btw is widely read, with some 5000 replies and 115,000 views, and also has many other Pro-Ukraine posters beside me, like Prayerful, Melkite, Antoninus, Arvinger and others, so this is hardly a lone opinion here - I posted news updates because it was an ongoing thread.
You continually mention that there are others on here who take a pro-Ukraine stance. And indeed there are. I, for one, have benefited from reading posts by Arvinger and Prayerful. You need to consider, then, why multiple people are singling you out from among the pro-Ukraine users for having a posting style redolent of trolling, spamming, thread-clogging, and thread-hogging. Try to have an ounce of self-consciousness and reflect on why your posting in particular is irking people.
By the way, there are some typos in your new loud signature. There's "color" in code brackets, and the book of James is abbreviated either "Jas" or "Jm," but not "Jam." And the bright red font is,
as always, as multiple posters have told you, an absolute eyesore. For a self-styled evangelist, you sure do have a strange knack for making the Word of God appear off-putting.
Edit: And it's nice to see you back, Jayne. Hope you and your family are doing well. God bless you.
@Pon: Is that so? And do you not consider that when I oppose dangerous errors, I also make dangerous enemies who hate me? So for e.g. when I say it's totally wrong to say Fatima is demonic, the person who said that has held a grudge against me ever since, even though I've long since forgiven her for her taunts and insults directed against me. And if I criticize sede-vacantism, especially perpetual 65+ year sedevacantism, likewise, apart from a few sedes who disagree genially and respectfully, and with whom I always do the same, some sedes also attack me for that. And that's also ok. I preach the Truth out of Love and I prove what I write from multiple sources, just like I preach to you, Pon, that you should return to Confession and the Sacraments to be saved, and Jesus Christ has proved His Divinity by Eucharistic Miracles, because I want you to go to Heaven and be saved - out of love for your Soul, and nothing else. So also, when I oppose what the Kremlin is doing today - which some people don't like, they attack me instead of just addressing the arguments, and authorities quoted, such as Bishops, Priests or Theologians like Fr. Vittoria I cited from TFP etc - they attack me for that. I quoted more sources than any other pro-Ukraine poster on that thread, and didn't you see Greg viciously attacked Arvinger and Melkite as well? Of course, you either didn't see that, or conveniently ignored it. There's a War going on, and so people will disagree strongly. I have no problem with strong disagreement, but trying to curtail what others post is not reasonable.
You should be more concerned about your Eternal Soul, and your Eternal Happiness, than fonts and typos. You are straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. I will edit my signature later about the typos, but the font will remain. There is a reason for highlighting the Word of God in a special way. It's because the Word of God is more important than any of the words of man. As a non-believer, I would not expect you to understand. Focus on saving your soul.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 12:08:59 PMI will edit my signature later about the typos, but the font will remain. There is a reason for highlighting the Word of God in a special way. It's because the Word of God is more important than any of the words of man. As a non-believer, I would not expect you to understand. Focus on saving your soul.
I thought the point of evangelization was to strive to
reach non-believers. Shouldn't you try to give the Word of God an appearance of solemnity and sobriety, rather than a font color that suggests exuberance, effeminacy, and garishness? Even the red-letter Protestant bibles you are aping do not use red font all the way throughout. Their red font is reserved for the words of Christ, whereas you are giving yours to King David and Ss. James and Paul. And the Protestant bibles use a crimson font, not bright red.
I used to thank you for your concern for my soul, but I've come to realize you don't actually care. You routinely bring up my apostasy every time you reply to me, just like you routinely bring up Fatima in your replies to awkward customer. It's just a rhetorical trick you like to use: it's an
ad hominem and a diversion off the topic.
It is to reach unbelievers, yes, but not to appease them. Thats what some liberal Bishops are doing, and we all see how well that works. It doesn't. Why don't you focus on more important things like Eucharistic Miracles and the challenge they pose to your unbelief?
Have you ever seen the Gutenberg Bible? I've seen old Catholic Bibles that use special fonts. The Word of God is inspired by the Holy Spirit from beginning to end. Of course the Word of Christ in the Gospels and the Apocalypse is the most important, but also the rest of it is Christ Himself speaking in His Spirit through His Apostles. If you'd read the Gospels daily, as I told you to do some te back, you would know this. "He who hears you, hears Me" remember?
I'm not going to force anyone to become a Saint or be saved anymore than I'm going to force anyone to become a Millionaire or be rich. For myself, I definitely want to be both a Saint and a Millionaire, and give abundantly to Churches and Charities, and strive to win many for Christ. If you listen to my tips, like reading the Gospels every day, it'll be good for the success of your Soul. If not, its up to you. I lose less than nothing. But you will lose everything if you lose your Soul. "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his Soul?"
In Christ,
Xavier.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 01:08:50 PM
It is to reach unbelievers, yes, but not to appease them. Thats what some liberal Bishops are doing, and we all see how well that works. It doesn't. Why don't you focus on more important things like Eucharistic Miracles and the challenge they pose to your unbelief?
Have you ever seen the Gutenberg Bible? I've seen old Catholic Bibles that use special fonts. The Word of God is inspired by the Holy Spirit from beginning to end. Of course the Word of Christ in the Gospels and the Apocalypse is the most important, but also the rest of it is Christ Himself speaking in His Spirit through His Apostles. If you'd read the Gospels daily, as I told you to do some te back, you would know this. "He who hears you, hears Me" remember?
I'm not going to force anyone to become a Saint or be saved anymore than I'm going to force anyone to become a Millionaire or be rich. For myself, I definitely want to be both a Saint and a Millionaire, and give abundantly to Churches and Charities, and strive to win many for Christ. If you listen to my tips, like reading the Gospels every day, it'll be good for the success of your Soul. If not, its up to you. I lose less than nothing. But you will lose everything if you lose your Soul. "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his Soul?"
I've already told you: I'm attending daily Mass, so I'm hearing the gospel quite regularly. I guess you didn't remember because you're just constantly on evangelical autopilot. You talk but don't listen. You don't pay attention to things. I've told you in the past that I think colored font is used to good effect in medieval bible codices (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27616.msg569849#msg569849). I'm all in favor of illuminated manuscripts and Books of Hours. My objection is to your particular use of bright red font. It's loud, garish, and unrestrained. The Word of God should not be headache-inducing to its readers. When evangelizing the Anglosphere, do not use Hindu aesthetics. This is constructive criticism. But you won't take it.
Do you really think presenting the Word of God in a solemn and dignified manner is an appeasement of non-believers? Shouldn't it just be the standard? Your analogy with liberal bishops is off the mark. Restraint is the conservative way; outrageousness is the mark of the progressive.
Yes, I remember you're attending Mass, and if you remember I commended you for that. I would recommend to you 30 Mins of personal Bible reading beside that. If you did this after Confession and Communion, you would receive a Plenary Indulgence. But even if not, it will surely win graces for your soul. I am trying to help you. Nothing else.
Here's some info: "The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) was the earliest major book printed using mass-produced movable metal type in Europe. It marked the start of the "Gutenberg Revolution" and the age of printed books in the West. The book is valued and revered for its high aesthetic and artistic qualities[1] as well as its historical significance. It is an edition of the Latin Vulgate printed in the 1450s by Johannes Gutenberg in Mainz, in present-day Germany. Forty-nine copies (or substantial portions of copies) have survived. They are thought to be among the world's most valuable books, although no complete copy has been sold since 1978.[2][3] In March 1455, the future Pope Pius II wrote that he had seen pages from the Gutenberg Bible displayed in Frankfurt to promote the edition" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible
See also the New World Encyclopedia on the same. Will cite it shortly: "The Bibles were printed, then rubricated (highlighted with red text) and illuminated by hand, the work of specialized craftsmen. Gutenberg produced all 180 copies over a period of one year, the time it would have taken to produce one copy of the Bible in a Scriptorium. Because of the hand illumination, each copy is unique."
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 11:26:47 AM
When a false accusation is made against me, Kaese, do I not have the right to respond? I was accused of being "indifferentist" so I cited that to prove I was not. I am not an indifferentist and never have been. The one thing IO might be talking about is where I said Catholics today should Evangelize more, as the Great Catholic Saints of old like St. Francis Xavier did, and as today unfortunately some Protestants imo do better than us.
Strawman selectively cited. Even a lowly and late-to-the-vineyard "newbie" like me can easily observe many more substantive instances of you boosting heretics and apostates. Those conveniently unmentioned examples are a bit more eyebrow-raising than your wistfully admiring Prots' ability to evangelize "better than us".
There's no need to cite anything. You don't have to copy-&-paste on every last point of discussion. I already told you, I'm not opposed to those presentations. Yours is different; yours is unique. It's bright red font on a turquoise field. It looks childish, girlish, and disgusting. You will stop with it if you have any desire to evangelize with a sense of decorum. But I don't think you do.
I just use color=red. I do the same thing when speaking to a group of Protestants elsewhere, and slowly instructing them in the Catholic Doctrine, including on Purgatory, the Intercession of the Saints, Mother Mary's Greatness etc from the Bible. And many of them highly appreciate it. So you are an outlier among Christians, and I disagree with you on this point. That's all. You aren't Infallible, are you, Pon? It's not a sin or anything to disagree with you, nor with me, and so let's respectfully disagree and put it behind us. There is a reason for it and a tradition behind it. Your subjective opinion does not make an objective fact. Let's move on and discuss something more substantive, such as what you can do for the Salvation of your own Soul.
IO, where did I supposedly boost a heretic or an apostate? What absolute rubbish. I have helped some Apostate Atheists come back to the Faith and start going to Church again.
Just because you want to be a Putin Fangirl doesn't mean you have to make such accusations against me. If you think I've boosted apostates somewhere, demonstrate it if you can.
Cool, none of this has to do with Forum Improvements.
Quote from: Xavier on December 05, 2022, 12:26:54 PM
There is no rule about number of posts in a thread or in a page; if there was, it would apply uniformly to all posters and I would observe it.
Here's a possible forum improvement K.....a limit on how many posts per thread per day or just a limit on how many posts per day. This might help all of us to be more careful when choosing to post as well as the quality of our posts. I see that Xavier's average number of posts per day says 3 on his profile, but yesterday he made 35 or so posts.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 01:45:26 PM
Yes, I remember you're attending Mass, and if you remember I commended you for that. I would recommend to you 30 Mins of personal Bible reading beside that. If you did this after Confession and Communion, you would receive a Plenary Indulgence. But even if not, it will surely win graces for your soul. I am trying to help you. Nothing else.
I do not believe Pon asked for your "help" or your amateurish spiritual direction, did he?
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 01:57:18 PM
IO, where did I supposedly boost a heretic or an apostate? What absolute rubbish. I have helped some Apostate Atheists come back to the Faith and start going to Church again.
You must not read the many replies attempting to correct you in that matter (none by me, rather by non-"newbies").
Good for you for helping those apostate atheists. Yet you don't have permission to equate anyone here who rightfully disagrees with you as just another apostate atheist. (And get yourself a style manual while you're at it. Was such a booklet not required in your MBA program? This is English, not German. We don't capitalize all nouns.)
Quote
Just because you want to be a Putin Fangirl doesn't mean you have to make such accusations against me. If you think I've boosted apostates somewhere, demonstrate it if you can.
1. Don't flip the discourse by imposing a burden of proof on those who point out your offenses. That's a tactic straight out of Alinsky.
2. Putin Fangirl.... Desperate, childish, and laughably false
ad hominem proof you've read none of what I've written in that other bloated thread. Likely so, since you've never bothered to address it. For your convenience, I'll repeat it here. Answer this: Why do you fervently persist in defending a globalist opportunist zionist hack who is using innocent Christians as human shields for the benefit of his own offshore bank account? Till you explain that, nothing you say has merit. It's not about geopolitics. It's about habitual gaslighting and grandstanding which, in case we need to point out yet again, has no place on a forum like this one. You can't keep scurrying back under a cloak of ersatz holiness. It doesn't work that way.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 06, 2022, 02:05:49 PM
Cool, none of this has to do with Forum Improvements.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Quote from: Baylee on December 06, 2022, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Xavier on December 05, 2022, 12:26:54 PM
There is no rule about number of posts in a thread or in a page; if there was, it would apply uniformly to all posters and I would observe it.
Here's a possible forum improvement K.....a limit on how many posts per thread per day or just a limit on how many posts per day. This might help all of us to be more careful when choosing to post as well as the quality of our posts.
Except that some people innocently and productively will write short posts back and forth as a mode of conversation. Why should they be penalized?
Quote
..... If you'd read the Gospels daily, as I told you to do some te back, you would know this. "He who hears you, hears Me" remember? .....
...... If you listen to my tips, like reading the Gospels every day, it'll be good for the success of your Soul. If not, its up to you. I lose less than nothing. But you will lose everything if you lose your Soul.
This is Xavier talking to Pon de Replay.
This is supreme arrogance coming from a 30 year old.
Quote from: Instaurare omnia on December 06, 2022, 02:37:17 PM
Quote from: Baylee on December 06, 2022, 02:27:12 PM
Quote from: Xavier on December 05, 2022, 12:26:54 PM
There is no rule about number of posts in a thread or in a page; if there was, it would apply uniformly to all posters and I would observe it.
Here's a possible forum improvement K.....a limit on how many posts per thread per day or just a limit on how many posts per day. This might help all of us to be more careful when choosing to post as well as the quality of our posts.
Except that some people innocently and productively will write short posts back and forth as a mode of conversation. Why should they be penalized?
I would argue that 35 posts as a "conversation" is still too much. That's making the forum more into a chat room.
Quote from: IOGood for you for helping those apostate atheists. Yet you don't have permission to equate anyone here who rightfully disagrees with you as just another apostate atheist.
IO: I never ever considered you an Apostate Atheist even in the slightest. I know you are a Traditional Catholic. You called me a Zelensky fanboy on that thread. I called you a Putin fangirl in turn above. That's it.
Do I really need to post the Trump video condemning Putin's threats here? It has nothing to do with offshore bank accounts or "globalism". This is a War of nationalist Self-Defense Ukraine is fighting against Putin's unjust invasion.
If anyone is stealing money anywhere, I condemn it. Democrats, BTX, whoever it is, I neither know nor care. As I showed on that thread, Prez. Zelensky publicly praised Jesus and Mary. I stand with his self-defense of Ukraine.
https://youtu.be/RL17-2yi9wE
On the subject of forum improvements, this is a situation in which someone with definite narcissistic traits is causing a disturbance on the forum.
The question is - what to do about it?
The disturbance is caused by the Kremlin's War. Those opposing it have every right to continue to do so, as many Bishops and Priests are also doing. That Kremlin supporters want to silence their opponents shows the weakness of their position, that it cannot stand up to scrutiny, and ultimately is not on the side of Truth and of Righteousness.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 03:50:07 PM
The disturbance is caused by the Kremlin's War. Those opposing it have every right to continue to do so, as many Bishops and Priests are also doing. That Kremlin supporters want to silence their opponents shows the weakness of their position, that it cannot stand up to scrutiny, and ultimately is not on the side of Truth and of Righteousness.
[emoji38]
What in the world?
[emoji38]
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 01:57:18 PMI just use color=red.
I know you do. That's the code for bright red font. I'm saying you shouldn't use it because it's garish.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 01:57:18 PMI do the same thing when speaking to a group of Protestants elsewhere, and slowly instructing them in the Catholic Doctrine, including on Purgatory, the Intercession of the Saints, Mother Mary's Greatness etc from the Bible. And many of them highly appreciate it. So you are an outlier among Christians, and I disagree with you on this point.
Where are these Protestants located, in India? Because you will notice that all the users on this forum cite the bible without using red font, even with you on here to show them what it looks like. You're not preaching to Protestants on a traditional Catholic forum. I am not the outlier here—you are. You're the only one who uses red font for these purposes. Several others besides me have told you it looks ugly, effeminate, and emotional.
I suspect you are deluded on how many people appreciate your style. Some years ago, you and I were contemporaneous on an Eastern Orthodox forum, when I was discerning Orthodoxy and you were on an evangelical crusade to convert your Byzantine brethren. How many converts did you make there? I would be surprised if you had even one. As I remember it, you aggravated many who moaned & complained about your triumphalist tactics and your carpet-bombing of them with cut-&-paste apologetics. But you probably tell stories about how you "slowly instructed" those schismatics on the truths of Catholicism.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on December 06, 2022, 06:04:10 PM
As I remember it, you aggravated many, who moaned and complained about your triumphalist tactics and your carpet-bombing of them with cut-&-paste apologetics.
Xavier had done this before, on another forum!
Quote from: awkward customer on December 06, 2022, 06:08:03 PM
Xavier had done this before, on another forum!
Yes. Here is his "you can't post here without it being reviewed" condemnation. A lot of it will sound familiar.
Quote from: orthodoxchristianity.net moderatorXavier,
Since at least January 2018, if not earlier, you have been asked repeatedly not to proselytise other members with your particular version of Roman Catholicism. The link you provide to your articles in this post is one example of many over the years of your insidious attempts at proselytism. (And in this case, self-promotion as well.)
You have also been warned frequently not to spam the board with topics which are thinly-veiled (or not so thinly veiled, as you yourself admit in this thread!) apologies for "traditional" Roman Catholicism. For example, many of the members participating in this thread have indicated to you that they are tired of your constant return to the subject of the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, in which you re-hash the same arguments over and over again. One Catholic member estimates that you have created no fewer than seven threads on the topic.
Almost every thread you conceive involves your pontification over an "ecumenical discussion" which in reality is more like an exercise in "traditional" Roman Catholic apologetics.
Regrettably, the moderator team has now found it necessary to place you on indefinite post moderation. Every post you make will have to be vetted by a moderator before it appears on the board, for an undetermined period of time.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on December 06, 2022, 06:16:19 PM
Quote from: orthodoxchristianity.net moderatorXavier,
Since at least January 2018, if not earlier, you have been asked repeatedly not to proselytise other members with your particular version of Roman Catholicism. The link you provide to your articles in this post is one example of many over the years of your insidious attempts at proselytism. (And in this case, self-promotion as well.)
You have also been warned frequently not to spam the board with topics which are thinly-veiled (or not so thinly veiled, as you yourself admit in this thread!) apologies for "traditional" Roman Catholicism.
Interesting. Five years later, the mission has flipped from pushing presumed "Trad Cath" on non-Cath to pushing Cath-improv on actual Trad Cath. Whatever floats the self-promotion boat.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on December 06, 2022, 06:04:10 PM
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 01:57:18 PMI just use color=red.
I know you do. That's the code for bright red font. I'm saying you shouldn't use it because it's garish.
Ok. Pope Pon the First ;) Your pontification about permissible fonts to use has been duly noted.
QuoteWhere are these Protestants located, in India?
Nope. All around the world. Many Westerners and yes, some Asians also, including Indians.
QuoteSeveral others besides me have told you it looks ugly, effeminate, and emotional.
Several others on red font, really? Quote 2 or 3 of them for me.
QuoteBut you probably tell stories about how you "slowly instructed" those schismatics on the truths of Catholicism.
I did post there on the Catholic-Orthodox issues, and yes I did get moderated for so-called proselytism of Orthodox Christians recently. So what? Where did the Lord say anyone and everyone will always listen to the Gospel preaching receptively? And what I learned there I used in my first article for 1P5, which was on Filioque, and which had very positive feedback from some of the thousands, mostly Catholics, but some Orthodox also, who read it. And yes, some Orthodox who had left came back to the Church. Others who were thinking of leaving remained within Her. Since you're not Catholic, you wouldn't care about any of that, sure. But anyone who is Catholic certainly would, as even One Soul is worth an Infinite Price, the Price the Son of God paid for in His Precious Blood.
Why is all this of concern to you anyway? You don't even believe in Christianity anymore, and are not interested in hearing the Truth, or learning more about things like Eucharistic Miracles, Messianic Prophecies, the Evidence for the Resurrection and the Miracle of the Shroud of Turin, or related stuff that could help you see the Truth. So what does it matter to you who is right between Catholics and Orthodox? Of course, Catholics are, but get your head clear about Christ's Divinity first. The judgment of an Orthodox moderator is as nothing compared to the Judgment of God, and we will see on Judgment Day what God thinks of my efforts for Him and for Souls.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 09:57:49 PM
I did post there on the Catholic-Orthodox issues, and yes I did get moderated for so-called proselytism of Orthodox Christians recently. So what? Where did the Lord say anyone and everyone will always listen to the Gospel preaching receptively? And what I learned there I used in my first article for 1P5, which was on Filioque, and which had very positive feedback from some of the thousands, mostly Catholics, but some Orthodox also, who read it. And yes, some Orthodox who had left came back to the Church. Others who were thinking of leaving remained within Her. Since you're not Catholic, you wouldn't care about any of that, sure. But anyone who is Catholic certainly would, as even One Soul is worth an Infinite Price, the Price the Son of God paid for in His Precious Blood.
Why is all this of concern to you anyway? You don't even believe in Christianity anymore, and are not interested in hearing the Truth, or learning more about things like Eucharistic Miracles, Messianic Prophecies, the Evidence for the Resurrection and the Miracle of the Shroud of Turin, or related stuff that could help you see the Truth. So what does it matter to you who is right between Catholics and Orthodox? Of course, Catholics are, but get your head clear about Christ's Divinity first. The judgment of an Orthodox moderator is as nothing compared to the Judgment of God, and we will see on Judgment Day what God thinks of my efforts for Him and for Souls.
You're such a terrible rhetorician.
Here's the thing. No one cares about your articles, or your rhetoric. You do not convert a single soul, God does. People are not won over by logic and arguments and proofs, they are won over by the grace of God.
So, you would do well to listen to the people on this Forum that your copy pasta spam-posting is not appreciated.
And rehashing the beliefs (or not) of Pon are so very tiresome. Eucharistic miracles, messianic prophecies, the Shroud of Turin are all nice things, but they are not proofs for the Catholic Faith, and you should stop treating them as some sort of "gotcha!". None of those will help anyone "see the truth".
:lol:
"We will see on Judgment Day what God thinks of my efforts for Him and for Souls." :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Yes, God, you see, I spent hours upon hours of my life copying and pasting the same articles and proofs over and over and over again. It made a lot of people upset and annoyed, but I did it for You so now I should go to Heaven because I punched the card." :lol:
Kaese: "And rehashing the beliefs (or not) of Pon are so very tiresome. Eucharistic miracles, messianic prophecies, the Shroud of Turin are all nice things, but they are not proofs for the Catholic Faith, and you should stop treating them as some sort of "gotcha!". None of those will help anyone "see the truth"."
Is that so? Vatican I says this: "In order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of His Revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the Omnipotence and Infinite Knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith: Chapter 3, On Faith)."
Pope St. Pius X wrote this: "Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time." https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
And in one place, Vatican I says the divine origin of Christianity is rightly proved from Miracles, which is what Pope St. Pius X's Oath against Modernism is referencing above: "4. If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/first-vatican-council-1505
God's Grace is the source of every conversion, agreed. That doesn't mean we are to do nothing. Is God going to come down from Heaven again and convert souls? No, He expects us to help those we can, when we can do it.
In Christ,
Xavier.
Xavier, you are quite off-base. The Catholics who obsess over apologetics are the converts from evangelical Protestantism. They spend (still) hours and hours refuting Protestantism, which is the pattern I've observed in virtually all converts to Novus Ordo Catholicism (i.e., modernistic Catholicism) from evangelical Protestantism.
In general, Protestantism, not Catholicism, is about "proof-texting" in one form or another.. Proof-texting Scripture, proof-texting their own collection of private revelation (modern day so-called miracle stories).
Kaese is right. Spiritual conversion is not an intellectual exercise but the action of grace in the soul of an open seeker. You have nothing to do with that; nor do I. Please back off.
Here is St. Robert Bellarmine "proof-texting" from the Fathers and the Councils. He cites 35 "Proof-Texts", 15 Greek Fathers, 15 Latin Fathers and 5 Church Councils: "Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, "The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is truth, and so he proceeds from him likewise as from the Father." This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.
We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand? What is it that again in the seventh Council the Creed is read with this addition (and from the Son), and yet the Council was for the most part of Greeks?
The fifteenth is John Damascence, who says, "The Son is the image of the Father, and the Holy Spirit of the Son." But an image at least has essence from the exemplar. And later, "God the Holy Spirit is between the unbegotten and the begotten, and is conjoined to the Father through the Son." We have then fifteen Latin witnesses and fifteen Greek ones, who before the rise of our disagreement taught that the Holy Spirit is produced or spirated by the Father and the Son, so that now the obstinacy of the Greeks should seem clearly intolerable." http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm
The Church highly commended St. Robert for doing this by the way. So those who think it's wrong are mistaken imo.
It's not as if one can just "proof-text" anything. One can only prove what the Fathers have actually written. One cannot prove for e.g. that they denied the Holy Eucharist or any Dogma. But ok. I'm going to leave it at that.
In Christ,
Xavier.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarminedoctor.html
QuoteProvidentissimus Deus - AAS 23 (1931) 433-438
Acts of Pius XI
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Church, of the Society of Jesus, is Declared Doctor of the Universal Church.
(Translated by a Catholic layman. Paragraph breaks added.)
Pius XI
For a perpetual remembrance of the matter. God in his great providence has from the beginnings of Christ's Church even up to more recent times continually raised up men distinguished by learning and holiness to defend and illuminate the truths of the Catholic faith and opportunely to repair the damage inflicted by heretics on those same Christian truths.
Among these men [i.e. distinguished by learning and holiness], Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Church, of the Society of Jesus, is without the slightest doubt to be counted. Even from the days of his most holy death he was called "an outstanding man, a distinguished theologian, an ardent defender of the faith, the hammer of heretics" and he was also declared to be "as pious, prudent and humble, as he was generous to the poor". No wonder then that, with all canonical processes having at last being fulfilled, in Our own times and by a particular counsel of Divine Providence, the man himself was elevated to the honours of the altar. For in an Apostolic letter published under the ring of the fisherman on the 13th of May 1923, we bestowed upon Robert Bellarmine the title of Blessed. Then, when we were celebrating the fortieth year of our priesthood, together with the Blessed martyrs of the Society of Jesus who were put to death for the faith in the regions of North America, and Blessed Theophilus of Corte, of the Order of [Friar] Minors, in the sacrosanct patriarchal Vatican basilica last year, on the sacred solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul the Apostles, we inscribed the same Blessed Robert into the catalogue of Saints.
That was right and fitting, since the Saint himself was the most brilliant glory of the Catholic episcopate, of the College of Cardinals, of the famous Society of Jesus which produced for the Church so great a man and most diligently cultivated its student. For upon entering the same fertile Society, Saint Robert was so adorned with the peculiar virtues of a true comrade of Jesus, that he seemed altogether to be the ornament and glory of his companions, and the stimulus and model for them too. In the same order he ascended and held nearly all the ranks; he was a student in the Politian College, then in the Society a novice, a scholasticus, religious, master, sacred preacher, professor, spiritual director, rector, provincial: in discharging all these duties he is perpetually to be cited as a model; in the same manner did he carry out the offices of the church entrusted to him, so much so that in all of them he proved himself to be outstanding: as a man devoted to studies, as a writer, as a theologian and consultant for the Roman Congregations, as one appointed to the pontifical legations, as a bishop, and finally as a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, he showed himself to be endowed with integrity and force of heart and mind, with sanctity of morals, with the highest consciousness of his duty.
Our predecessor Clement VIII who desired to make him though "unwilling and reluctant to no avail" a Cardinal of the Roman Church, praised him greatly, since at that time "with respect to learning, the Church of God had no equal". But the rich fruits of this singular learning Saint Robert gave back throughout his life even unto old age. When he was still a youth he wrote the Elements of the Hebrew Language and he also composed in a very learned manner a book On Ecclesiastical Writers, although this was published somewhat later. Afterwards and throughout his whole life he worked painstakingly on the Sacred Scriptures so that, in preparing an edition of the Septuagint and an edition of the Vulgate, having been called upon by the popes for that purpose, he achieved a success [marked by] greater refinement and carefulness. He pursued all the departments of sacred teaching with the utmost constancy even up to his death. Even in the exchange of letters with acquaintances - letters which were sent throughout almost the whole world and of which a great number are extant today -- he exerted himself in these departments of teaching most fruitfully. And it was with great zeal that he lent his aid to the Apostolic Congregations, and in the handling of the gravest matters, even of the Eastern Church, he exhibited shining testimonies of his learning and prudence. That is also confirmed abundantly by the same documents most of which still lie hidden and unpublished in the archives of the Congregations. The same vota -- as they are called - "pertain to questions of faith, of the sacred rites, of the understanding of the Scriptures and of other controversies of that kind", in which Saint Robert was continually engaged.
His "Disputations on controversies of the Christian Faith" against heretics constitute "clearly the most noble" and arduous work. Saint Robert, at the command of the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, first published them from 1586 to 1593, first in three, then in four, tomes. Indeed, after a long course of study and teaching, Saint Bellarmine had in a certain way already prepared them when earlier at Louvain in the College of the Society of Jesus he had delivered for six years from the year 1570 onward lectures on the Summa of St Thomas to a large audience of students of the university. After 1576 he had closely worked over them when after the establishment of a "Chair of Controversies", he was entrusted by his superiors with the task of teaching theology and carried this out in this City in order to defend the Catholic dogmas against the errors which were then traversing over many nations in Europe. This, the greatest of Bellarmine's works deftly refuted the new attacks which the Magdeburgians had but recently carried out with their "Centuries" as they say, by means of which, especially by employing speciously historical arguments and the testimonies of the Fathers and the ancients, they had attempted to destroy the Roman Church.
Thus Saint Robert, being conscious of the needs of his times, resolved to keep wholeheartedly the Ignatian rule "of holding in the highest esteem sacred doctrine, both that which is commonly called 'positive', and that which is called 'scholastic'". This norm laid down by his father Ignatius, Bellarmine in fact persistently pursued, especially in disputations of controversies of the faith against all heretics: so much so that , especially in this matter of controversies, not unjustly is he to be regarded as the foremost model and to be cited as the most illustrious example of wedding together in a happy marriage, positive theology (as they call it) and scholastic [theology].
But in attaining the end that he proposed to himself, he was not lacking in suitable gifts of intelligence and genius. Already from his youth he appeared to be endowed with the keenest intellect, to be adorned with a unique intellectual liveliness toward his studies and with so great swiftness of mind and prodigious force of memory that whatever he read or heard once, all of it he both immediately apprehended and powerfully remembered. Furthermore the Saint naturally spoke and wrote his books with a ready and brilliant eloquence, eschewing the useless inclusion of subject-matter and literary embellishments fashionable in his age - and yet his refinements included familiarity with the more polished literature, and in his youth he was steeped in music, poetry and all the liberal arts [omnique humanitate] - the style he employed was lucid and plain; "being of versatile genius, he was equally adept at the sublime scholastic speculation and at historical and philosophical inquiry which was so necessary in that age when the reformers boldly claimed that they took their chief arguments from the dominion of positive theology".
No wonder therefore that as soon as Bellarmine's "Disputations on controversies of the Christian faith" were read in the City [i.e. Rome], in the Gregorian University, they abundantly surpassed all expectations of them that they had aroused: that they were printed and published again and again, being desired and sought after continually by everyone; that their author was regarded by very many Catholic theologians not only in his own times, but even in our own, as the Master of Controversies. But in addition to the same, very famous "Disputations" which cover in their massiveness nearly the whole of theology, they excellently recall [us] to the same defence and demonstration of the ninth and tenth article of the Creed "one holy Church, the communion of Saints, the remission of sins"; many other works, of differing length according as the subject matter demanded, he wrote, and many labours he took upon himself for the promotion of the faith and for the guarding of the rights of the Church.
But it is an outstanding achievement of St Robert, that the rights and privileges divinely bestowed upon the Supreme Pontiff, and those also which were not yet recognised by all the children of the Church at that time, such as the infallible magisterium of the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra, he both invincibly proved and most learnedly defended against his adversaries. Moreover he appeared even up to our times as a defender of the Roman Pontiff of such authority that the Fathers of the [1870] Vatican Council employed his writings and opinions to the greatest possible extent. Nor to be passed over in silence are his sacred sermons and catechetical works, especially the famous Catechism "which has been approved by its use throughout the ages and by the judgement of very many of the Church's bishops and doctors". Indeed, in this Catechism, composed at the command of Clement VIII, the illustrious holy theologian expounded for the use of the Christian people and especially of children, the Catholic truth in a plain style, so brilliantly, exactly and orderly that for nearly three centuries in many regions of Europe and the world, it most fruitfully provided the fodder of Christian doctrine to the faithful. In his book expounding the Psalms he conjoined knowledge with piety. Lastly, by his ascetical writings famous everywhere, it is agreed that St Robert became the safest guide for very many people to the peak of Christian perfection. For whether it be in his Admonition to Bishop Theanensis, his nephew where he taught what pertains to the apostolic and ecclesiastical life, or his Domestic Exhortations where he inflamed his companions to all virtues, or his Good Government where he conveyed precepts to Christian princes and explained what are their duties, or whether it be in his exciting of the piety and devotion of the Christian faithful by those short but rich works based on the Sacred Scriptures, the teachings of the holy theologian Fathers and on the annals of the Church and the acts of the Saints, we see that St Robert carried out his ascetical teaching efficaciously and with expert zeal. The illustrious monuments, therefore, that he left of his genius, readily show that there was almost no branch of the ecclesiastical disciplines in which the Saint did not fruitfully engage.
As a lamp placed on a candlestick to give light to all that are in the house, he illuminated by word and deed Catholics and those straying from the unity of the Church; as a star in the firmament of the sky he laid bare the truth which he promoted above all else to all men of good will "by the magnificent rays of his knowledge, rays as wide as they were high, by the splendour of his outstanding and brilliant genius"; the first apologist not only of his own age but of subsequent ages as well, by the strenuous defence of the Catholic dogmas that he took upon himself he commended himself to the memory and admiration of all those who follow the Church of Christ with genuine love. Accordingly Bellarmine even up to this age has enjoyed with the most famous men of the Church, and especially writers, as many as have flourished, so great authority that already he has been regarded and reverently invoked by them as a doctor of the Church. On this matter let it here suffice for Us to mention the saints who on account of their eminent learning conjoined with heroic sanctity have already been declared doctors of the Universal Church; we speak especially of Saint Peter Canisius, of Saint Francis de Sales, of Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. But there have been other saints, blesseds, venerables, Servants of God as well, whose high opinion of Bellarmine's learning and knowledge is attested by unambiguous evidence.
No wonder then that many ardently desire truly to hail St Robert as a Doctor of the Church. That is a desire and wish fostered not only by those who share common principles of living with him in the Society of Jesus which has continually and everywhere served well the cause of promoting and defending the Catholic Faith, but also by the most illustrious men from all the ranks of the Church's hierarchy. For the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and nearly all the Archbishops and bishops of the whole world, as well as the superiors of the religious communities, the officers of the Catholic universities, and lastly very many other illustrious men support such desires. Wherefore we have deemed it opportune to commit the matter of so great importance as a wish and earnest desire to the Sacred Roman Congregation for the protection of Rites. This Congregation by Our Special Mandate delegated the most eminent and reverend men to examine the matter: Alexius Henricus Lépicier, titular Cardinal of St Susanna of the Holy Roman Church, Francis Ehrle, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, deacon of St Caesareus in Palatio.
So having sought and obtained the separate verdicts of these cardinals and even had them printed, the only thing that remained was to ask those in charge of the Congregation of Sacred Rites whether, all things being considered that are usually required in a Doctor of the Universal Church, they thought it was possible to proceed to the declaration of St Robert Bellarmine as a Doctor of the Universal Church. In an ordinary meeting on the fourth day of August just passed convened in the Vatican, after a due account of the matter had been given by our beloved son, the relater of the cause, Cajetan Bisleti, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church in charge of the Congregation of Sacred Rites declared with unanimous consent their affirmative opinion.
Wherefore, having listened also on all these [matters] to our beloved son, Promoter general of the Holy Faith on the sixth day of August of this year, We, yielding of our own accord and gladly to the wishes of so many and so great proposers that have been laid before Us, do by the tenor of these presents and in virtue of our own certain knowledge and mature deliberation establish and declare St Robert Bellarmine Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Universal Church; we decree therefore that the Mass and Office under the Double Minor rite, which have been assigned to the feast day of the same Saint on 13 May every year, be extended by Our authority from now on to the universal Church. Whatever other Apostolic constitutions and ordinances may have effect to the contrary are not to impede this. We decree the present letters ever to be and to remain established, valid and in effect: and to receive and obtain fully and unimpaired their effects; and that it is thus rightly to be judged and defined that if anything with regard to these matters should happen to be attempted differently [= contrary to what we have decreed] by anyone, of whatever authority, whether knowingly or in ignorance, that would be from now on invalid and to no avail.
Given at Rome at St Peter's, under the ring of the Fisherman, on the 17th day of September, in the year 1931, the tenth of our pontificate.
Xavier won't stop.
It makes no difference what anyone says or how many people say it.
Textbook narcissism.
His posts would make an excellent case study.
I'm not a narcissist. I aspire to be an Evangelist. How did Christianity grow from 12 poor disciples and a few women to over 2 BN today? It was through Evangelism. This was what made Christendom great and strong and its absence or the failure to do it is what has made it languishing and weak today. You put efforts in whatever you think will reap dividends, whether it is attacking Fatima, or promoting Sedevacantism, or the idea that the antichrist and the "globalist nwo" is such that "its all over" for the hopes of any great restoration such as Our Lady has promised in multiple approved Apparitions; I will put efforts in whatever helps rebuild and restore Christendom, such as Evangelism, the re-union of the Orthodox with the Catholic Church - also implied in Fatima as part of the Conversion of Russia - and stopping the persecution of Christians, such as the 20 odd MN Christians suffering displacement from their homes, electricity and power outages etc from the Kremlins Unjust War. We will see which approach works.
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 09:57:49 PMAll around the world. Many Westerners and yes, some Asians also, including Indians.
Maybe you could invite some of these Westerners onto Suscipe Domine to tell us how your use of bright red font helped illuminate their conversion from Protestantism to traditional Catholicism. Otherwise I'm afraid this all sounds a bit too much like "I have a girlfriend, but she goes to a different school."
Quote from: Xavier on December 06, 2022, 09:57:49 PMSeveral others on red font, really? Quote 2 or 3 of them for me.
Post nos. 39 and 40 on this older thread (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27616.msg569795#msg569795) are two separate posters telling you, constructively, that your use of colored font is ruining your ability to effectively communicate.
Quote from: TerrorDæmonumDeliberately formatting a post to make it harder to read more or less reduces the number of people actually reading it to an extremely negligible number if not 0.
And post no. 52 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=27616.msg569832#msg569832) is a third poster light-heartedly using colored font to mock the ugly appearance of it. I don't know why you asked for quotes from others besides me, though. It'll be the same response: "well, who made them pope and gave them the authority to tell me what to do?" When in fact it's just people trying to help you communicate without giving others headaches. The same with your long copy-&-paste dumps. awkward customer is right: no matter how many times people complain, you brusquely plow ahead with the same tactics and presentation.
I notice you're still abbreviating James as "Jam," which to Westerners is apt to conjure up either something one puts on toast for breakfast, or for the older set, the name of an excellent 1970s mod band from England. Why not use the traditional abbreviation? It's always some novelty with you. Why is Philippians being cited in bolded black, but not James and Psalms? Neatness and consistency will make readers take you more seriously than colored font ever will.
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 08:08:58 AM
I'm not a narcissist. I aspire to be an Evangelist. How did Christianity grow from 12 poor disciples and a few women to over 2 BN today? It was through Evangelism. This was what made Christendom great and strong and its absence or the failure to do it is what has made it languishing and weak today. You put efforts in whatever you think will reap dividends, whether it is attacking Fatima, or promoting Sedevacantism, or the idea that the antichrist and the "globalist nwo" is such that "its all over" for the hopes of any great restoration such as Our Lady has promised in multiple approved Apparitions; I will put efforts in whatever helps rebuild and restore Christendom, such as Evangelism, the re-union of the Orthodox with the Catholic Church - also implied in Fatima as part of the Conversion of Russia - and stopping the persecution of Christians, such as the 20 odd MN Christians suffering displacement from their homes, electricity and power outages etc from the Kremlins Unjust War. We will see which approach works.
Quitting your job to enter a religious order to become a missionary would fit that bill.
Spam-posting online does not.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
Sheesh. Changed it to James now. I just didn't look closely enough earlier. Happy now, Pon? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
And no, Kaese, I cannot do that as I have family obligations which require me to earn money.
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 08:08:58 AMI'm not a narcissist. I aspire to be an Evangelist. How did Christianity grow from 12 poor disciples and a few women to over 2 BN today? It was through Evangelism. This was what made Christendom great and strong and its absence or the failure to do it is what has made it languishing and weak today.
St. Paul said he "became all things to all men" for the sake of the gospel. So why don't you follow his example and, on a forum of mannered Westerners who do not use colored font inordinately, or make long copy-&-paste dumps, behave similarly among them? When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 08:15:50 AM
And no, Kaese, I cannot do that as I have family obligations which require me to earn money.
Precisely. State in Life: Our primary obligation, all of us. Your state in life is not self-appointed evangelist nor forum member. That category is laughable. Imagine yourself at your particular judgment. You and I will be evaluated primarily on how we loved, and equally on how we fulfilled
the duties of our state in life.And state in life is not just "earning money," and then after that, all other obligations vanish. Strangers to a family cannot do what a relative can do. After that, if a person has free time on his hands, he can engage in corporal works of mercy as time allows; those without children or spouses have more time for that than the rest of us.
SD does not qualify as a work of mercy.
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 08:15:50 AM
Sheesh. Changed it to James now. I just didn't look closely enough earlier. Happy now, Pon?
I'm afraid not, because it's still in garish red. Why is Philippians in bolded black, but not James and Psalms? I also notice that your quotes are from a Protestant bible, whereas I thought your favorite English translation was the Douai-Rheims. You'd want Psalm 14 in a Catholic bible.
I think you were a bit rash in creating this signature. Tell me how this looks. Clean, compact, handsome, and links to an online Douai-Rheims with the Latin Vulgate instead of a Protestant site. This would be a good signature for you.
Psalm 14:2-3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=21&ch=14&l=2-3#x) |
James 3:2 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=66&ch=3&l=2#x) |
Philippians 2:14-16 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=57&ch=2&l=14-16#x)
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 08:15:50 AM
And no, Kaese, I cannot do that as I have family obligations which require me to earn money.
Then get off the Internet and evangelize your neighborhood and city with your acts of mercy and teaching.
Spamposting online does nothing. Prooftexting does nothing. It just upsets people.
Pon, you put what you want in your signature, and I'll put what I want in mine. Deal? Anyway, I changed it a little, since you insist so much. Btw, did you read this from the New World Encyclopedia: "The Bibles were printed, then rubricated (highlighted with red text) and illuminated by hand, the work of specialized craftsmen. Gutenberg produced all 180 copies over a period of one year, the time it would have taken to produce one copy of the Bible in a Scriptorium. Because of the hand illumination, each copy is unique." Here's the definition of rubricate: "add elaborate, typically red, capital letters or other decorations to (a manuscript). "a 42-line Bible, which a scribe finished rubricating on 24 August 1456". So as I mentioned, I didn't invent this.
Miriam, regarding duties of our state of life and corporal works of mercy, agreed. And as for your personal insinuation, I take care of my family very well, thank you very much. Evangelism is a Spiritual Work of Mercy, it comes under instructing the ignorant, whether it is done offline or online makes no difference to that. And many Bible passages promise a Reward in Heaven to those who Evangelize. You want to Evangelize, do so. You don't want to, don't. Why discourage those who want to? Is it preferable to watch movies or play computer games in one's free time, after one's duties are done, or to Evangelize when one can? Obviously, the latter.
Kaese, I do Evangelize in my neighborhood. I have preached the Gospel to many of my Hindu friends. Why would you assume I do not? Is there any rule that one who does that cannot also use online means of evangelism?
It's your opinion that nobody appreciates online Evangelism. I've received numerous emails to the contrary from all around the world. Here is one: ""I love your article on onepeterfive.com. https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/ I started a reddit threat around the topic. I learned so much from the article, wow. Thank for you writing it."
This was posted on Reddit so you can verify it here if you want: "I appreciate the syllogisms presented in the article. They simplify all the meandering theories that I was taught immensely, and make far more sense. Data is good here. It breaks the trance of 150 years of hypnotic scholarship." https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/xvpdpi/matthew_wrote_first/ The article refuted the false modernist theory of anonymous and late Gospel authorship that has caused so many millions to lose Faith in the historical Jesus Christ over the last 150 years. I post the Truth with multiple sources and then I allow people to decide whatever they want. Some appreciate, some don't. But I do what the Lord calls me to do whenever I can.
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 10:52:29 AMPon, you put what you want in your signature, and I'll put what I want in mine. Deal? Anyway, I changed it a little, since you insist so much. Btw, did you read this from the New World Encyclopedia: "The Bibles were printed, then rubricated (highlighted with red text) and illuminated by hand, the work of specialized craftsmen. Gutenberg produced all 180 copies over a period of one year, the time it would have taken to produce one copy of the Bible in a Scriptorium. Because of the hand illumination, each copy is unique." Here's the definition of rubricate: "add elaborate, typically red, capital letters or other decorations to (a manuscript). "a 42-line Bible, which a scribe finished rubricating on 24 August 1456". So as I mentioned, I didn't invent this.
I already told you (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21059.msg602186#msg602186), I know what early bibles looked like, and I have an enduring appreciation for rubricated manuscripts with floral patterns and Celtic arabesques. The Book of Kells and whatnot. I once had the good fortune of seeing a Gutenberg bible on display at the Glencairn museum in Pennsylvania (https://www.glencairnmuseum.org/exhibitions-full/2011/2/6/from-gutenberg-to-kindle-the-art-of-bible-making). That thou art not. You cannot seriously compare what you are doing with
bright red font on a turquoise background on an internet forum to the genius of the medievals. As the moderns might say, "get real, dude."
But, I didn't expect you would change your signature. The garishness continues. You'll just plow on unchanged, giving your readers headaches and ensuring that the least amount of users pay attention to what you post, and you'll always imagine yourself as working in the vineyard of the Lord. Eternal September (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September).
Keep straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, while your Soul is in eternal jeopardy. I am done replying on fonts.
Quote from: Xavier on December 07, 2022, 10:52:29 AM
Pon, you put what you want in your signature, and I'll put what I want in mine. Deal? Anyway, I changed it a little, since you insist so much. Btw, did you read this from the New World Encyclopedia: "The Bibles were printed, then rubricated (highlighted with red text) and illuminated by hand, the work of specialized craftsmen. Gutenberg produced all 180 copies over a period of one year, the time it would have taken to produce one copy of the Bible in a Scriptorium. Because of the hand illumination, each copy is unique." Here's the definition of rubricate: "add elaborate, typically red, capital letters or other decorations to (a manuscript). "a 42-line Bible, which a scribe finished rubricating on 24 August 1456". So as I mentioned, I didn't invent this.
Miriam, regarding duties of our state of life and corporal works of mercy, agreed. And as for your personal insinuation, I take care of my family very well, thank you very much. Evangelism is a Spiritual Work of Mercy, it comes under instructing the ignorant, whether it is done offline or online makes no difference to that. And many Bible passages promise a Reward in Heaven to those who Evangelize. You want to Evangelize, do so. You don't want to, don't. Why discourage those who want to? Is it preferable to watch movies or play computer games in one's free time, after one's duties are done, or to Evangelize when one can? Obviously, the latter.
Kaese, I do Evangelize in my neighborhood. I have preached the Gospel to many of my Hindu friends. Why would you assume I do not? Is there any rule that one who does that cannot also use online means of evangelism?
It's your opinion that nobody appreciates online Evangelism. I've received numerous emails to the contrary from all around the world. Here is one: ""I love your article on onepeterfive.com. https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/ I started a reddit threat around the topic. I learned so much from the article, wow. Thank for you writing it."
This was posted on Reddit so you can verify it here if you want: "I appreciate the syllogisms presented in the article. They simplify all the meandering theories that I was taught immensely, and make far more sense. Data is good here. It breaks the trance of 150 years of hypnotic scholarship." https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/xvpdpi/matthew_wrote_first/ The article refuted the false modernist theory of anonymous and late Gospel authorship that has caused so many millions to lose Faith in the historical Jesus Christ over the last 150 years. I post the Truth with multiple sources and then I allow people to decide whatever they want. Some appreciate, some don't. But I do what the Lord calls me to do whenever I can.
OK.
I'm done with this. It's like talking to a wall.
ETA: Because I feel an obligation to explain myself for a somewhat rash-looking permanent ban... I have made many posts exhorting Xavier to change his posting style to fit the discussion board. Numerous other posters have asked him to do the same, and made coherent, reasonable arguments for why and how he should change his posting approach, particularly to gain more (positive) attention and reception. But, when he is asked, challenged, exhorted to do something, he just buckles down and remains obstinate. He can spampost anywhere on the Internet, but the discussion forum is not an appropriate place to do so. I also take issue with whether or not spamposting arguments is "what the Lord calls" anyone to do, but that's neither here nor there...
What I got out of this was the good news that P.L.R. Is practicing his faith again. Congratulations Pon, and my continued prayers. :pray2:
Can we stop people from changing their user names within the same account?
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=29924.msg606148#msg606148
1. It makes it harder to search for posts and block people.
2. It makes it harder to follow a thread because replies and quotes have the old username not the current one.
3. Only very annoying forum members, like Joseph, have any excuse to do it.
Quote from: Greg on January 20, 2023, 03:19:36 AMCan we stop people from changing their user names within the same account?
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=29924.msg606148#msg606148
1. It makes it harder to search for posts and block people.
2. It makes it harder to follow a thread because replies and quotes have the old username not the current one.
3. Only very annoying forum members, like Joseph, have any excuse to do it.
It seems as if the 'ignore' feature carries over to changed usernames. I noticed he changed names again but when I clicked on the thread it still said I was 'ignoring this user.'
Quote from: AlfredtheGreat on January 20, 2023, 04:09:06 AMQuote from: Greg on January 20, 2023, 03:19:36 AMCan we stop people from changing their user names within the same account?
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=29924.msg606148#msg606148
1. It makes it harder to search for posts and block people.
2. It makes it harder to follow a thread because replies and quotes have the old username not the current one.
3. Only very annoying forum members, like Joseph, have any excuse to do it.
It seems as if the 'ignore' feature carries over to changed usernames. I noticed he changed names again but when I clicked on the thread it still said I was 'ignoring this user.'
Yes, I found that too but all of Greg's other points are valid.
The trouble is that he was TerrorDæmonum before that. He's forever changing his ID.
Is he austistic or something?
Quote from: Greg on January 20, 2023, 03:19:36 AMCan we stop people from changing their user names within the same account?
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=29924.msg606148#msg606148
1. It makes it harder to search for posts and block people.
2. It makes it harder to follow a thread because replies and quotes have the old username not the current one.
3. Only very annoying forum members, like Joseph, have any excuse to do it.
Thank you, Greg. For reference purposes, I'll link also the post I just made:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=29924.msg606188#msg606188
Quote from: Greg on January 20, 2023, 04:24:00 AMThe trouble is that he was TerrorDæmonum before that. He's forever changing his ID.
Is he austistic or something?
Yes, he is on the spectrum.
If the "change user name" feature gets disabled, will those of us who used it be defaulted back to our previous name? Or will we keep our current name? I had the absolute worst user name on the forum, and would like to stay rid of it.
The rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".
I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.
Quote from: andy on January 20, 2023, 10:53:26 AMThe rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".
I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.
More than 3 or 4, Andy.
Quote from: andy on January 20, 2023, 10:53:26 AMThe rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".
I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.
They're not different accounts, at least not now. We can change our user names which is what Joseph did.
Quote from: Lynne on January 20, 2023, 03:43:26 PMQuote from: andy on January 20, 2023, 10:53:26 AMThe rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".
I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.
They're not different accounts, at least not now. We can change our user names which is what Joseph did.
Don't look now but he did it again. I think that's twice in one day. Now it's his name in Greek.
Something tells me he likes being the topic of conversation.
Quote from: Mono no aware on January 20, 2023, 10:45:39 AMIf the "change user name" feature gets disabled, will those of us who used it be defaulted back to our previous name? Or will we keep our current name? I had the absolute worst user name on the forum, and would like to stay rid of it.
I thought that your old handle was one of the coolest (apart from Stu-Cool).
Quote from: andy on January 20, 2023, 10:53:26 AMThe rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".
I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.
He doesn't have multiple accounts. In case you missed it, if you go to your account settings on your profile page you will see the option to change your username.
Using that feature does not increase your number of accounts. It changes your username if you choose to do so and that's it.
It can't be used to hide anything or fool anybody.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on January 20, 2023, 06:02:50 PMI thought that your old handle was one of the coolest (apart from Stu-Cool).
Thank you, but if you listen to the Rihanna song
Pon de Replay from which it was taken, you will understand just how bad it was. Not that the words themselves are problematic, they're merely a patois for "put it on replay." But the song itself is execrable dance-hop. It was actually not my original user name; I chose it in a fit of peevishness when some users on here were speaking positively of hip-hop. I think my new one is a definite improvement.
Quote from: Acolyte on January 20, 2023, 07:57:30 PMIt changes your username if you choose to do so and that's it.
It can't be used to hide anything or fool anybody.
I can see a reason/need to change a username once. A transparent (simple) person will announce it somewhere, and that will be the end of it. Repeated, arbitrary, or sly changes are in fact an attempt to hide and deceive.
We will have to disagree on this point, but it appears that a number of members do hold a view similar to mine.
A person can do many things allowable by regulations, rules or even civil law, but the manner and frequency in which he or she does so will reveal intent.
Quote from: Mono no aware on January 20, 2023, 10:45:39 AMIf the "change user name" feature gets disabled, will those of us who used it be defaulted back to our previous name? Or will we keep our current name? I had the absolute worst user name on the forum, and would like to stay rid of it.
We shall have to refer to you from now on as the "Shining Genji."
The name Mr Brocklehurst comes to mind.
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 20, 2023, 10:36:42 PMQuote from: Acolyte on January 20, 2023, 07:57:30 PMIt changes your username if you choose to do so and that's it.
It can't be used to hide anything or fool anybody.
I can see a reason/need to change a username once. A transparent (simple) person will announce it somewhere, and that will be the end of it. Repeated, arbitrary, or sly changes are in fact an attempt to hide and deceive.
We will have to disagree on this point, but it appears that a number of members do hold a view similar to mine.
A person can do many things allowable by regulations, rules or even civil law, but the manner and frequency in which he or she does so will reveal intent.
Well in Joseph's case he didn't hide anything or deceive anyone. His posting style and content remain the same each time he changes his username.
None of the arguments, though valid/understandable concerns, apply to Joseph's use of the forum feature.
My only interest in the matter is informing people that it is in fact an option allowed currently and not an issue of multiple accounts. And hopefully, prevent members from bearing false witness due to not understanding the difference in the definitions of "forum account" and "profile options".
I'm not bearing false witness, Acolyte. I'm discussing two things, the second much more important than the first.
1. The first contradiction is a technicality that you keep focusing on exclusively. That is not what users like Greg and me are interested in because the technicality that allows for multiple usernames affects the functionality of discussions, including quoting people's past posts in order to verify or clarify their current positions, and more. It is not possible to quote a username that no longer exists, but existed 20 minutes ago or 20 days ago.
2. The vast majority of users on any discussion forum have lives beyond social media, blogs, forums, and other optional participation. If employed people with families and many purposeful interests had additional disposable time, it would be possible to create private "moving tables" that catalogued all of a user's account names and the dates of the changes, so as to retrieve previous information that vanishes once a user changes his or her name. But I don't know anyone on the forum with both the time and the interest in doing so. So when a user repeatedly changes names (for whatever reason), it affects the efficiency and participation level of the entire forum. This is the issue, not any invented charge of "bearing false witness."
In a subsequent post, I will suggest something constructive.
As a Forum Improvement, I suggest the following possibilities:
1. Only one username change per lifetime account on SD, assuming it's the user who wants to change it. (Moderators obviously can insist on a change to accord with Catholic standards and forum parameters, such as names of living people.) For anything generated by the user, it doesn't matter the reason for the change, and the user need not make public his or her reason, but may if he or she wishes to announce it.
a. If the user chooses to keep the reason private, however, the moderator(s) will nevertheless make the changed username itself public in a permanently viewable location.
b. The previous username(s) must be posted permanently on the user's profile page so that all forum members can refer to previous postings if need be for conversational efficiency. A deleted name because of profanity/vulgarity or other infractions will be referred to with an abbreviation, omitted letters, etc., so that the previous undeleted posts might still be locatable.
ALTERNATE:
Instead of #1, no more than one username generated per year by the user. The other contingencies (a and b) nevertheless would apply to this alternate suggestion as well.
Adding that of course it does not solve the problem of the user's new name(s) no longer being associated with previous posts. However, at least a search is possible if other forum members have referred to the user's previous names in their own posts.
A second alternate to all of the above is to associate only one username with one account. Therefore, multiple accounts would be necessary (to live and die) when a new username is created. That would also allow for tracking posts (and PM's) as long as the requirement is met of a viewable record of all of those past usernames.
I prefer just not allowing users to change their names. There can't be so many requests/need to change names that a moderator can't make the change for the member. This is just silly already. Only one member can't seem to control himself and only a couple of others seem to have the need to defend him.
PS. When does Kaesekopf respond to the suggestions here?
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 21, 2023, 10:56:38 AMI'm not bearing false witness, Acolyte. ...
..... The first contradiction is a technicality that you keep focusing on exclusively.
I'm not pointing fingers at any specific members.
And I'm focusing on the fact that an option offered on our account settings page doesn't have anything to do with multiple accounts and the rule that covers it.
I'm focusing on it exclusively because that's all that matters to me. I understand why people think something could be wrong with letting us change our username but the fact is I don't care.
Unless the feature is disabled or there is a printed rule in the rules section regarding its use, a member that takes advantage of the feature has done nothing wrong. That's all I'm saying and have been saying.
And no one is going to convince me to change my mind in regards to viewing it in that light.
Quote from: Acolyte on January 21, 2023, 12:29:43 PMAnd no one is going to convince me to change my mind in regards to viewing it in that light.
And I already acknowledged, earlier, that we will have to disagree on this topic, so I doubt that your restatement surprises anyone else, either. But the issue has not been whether technical "rules" were broken or followed; it was the effect of rapidly shifting identities upon the entire forum --
whether or not the shifts are allowed. Clearly, however, if those shifts are prohibited, the problem goes away.
In many settings in life, rules are made not for the majority who wish to cooperate but for those who struggle to comply (for whatever reason) with the nature of the activity in question, and thus need boundaries.
Quote from: Miriam_M on January 21, 2023, 10:19:56 PMQuote from: Acolyte on January 21, 2023, 12:29:43 PMAnd no one is going to convince me to change my mind in regards to viewing it in that light.
And I already acknowledged, earlier, that we will have to disagree on this topic, so I doubt that your restatement surprises anyone else, either. But the issue has not been whether technical "rules" were broken or followed; it was the effect of rapidly shifting identities upon the entire forum -- whether or not the shifts are allowed. Clearly, however, if those shifts are prohibited, the problem goes away.
In many settings in life, rules are made not for the majority who wish to cooperate but for those who struggle to comply (for whatever reason) with the nature of the activity in question, and thus need boundaries.
We're just looking at the topic differently. As I acknowledged, the issue you and others have with switching usernames more than once is understandable and valid.
But the initial drama started with Joseph being accused of breaking a forum rule regarding multiple accounts. Then the pile on claiming the same.
He didn't break the rule. He doesn't have multiple accounts.
And I'm sorry to say that I still don't care whether the username feature is disabled, left enabled, having a rule posted about its use, or leaving it as it stands, free to use anytime and as many times as a member likes.
Some members think it's a big deal and I think it's small potatoes.
Perhaps I should change my username to The Stubborn One :lol:
Quote from: Lynne on January 20, 2023, 03:43:26 PMQuote from: andy on January 20, 2023, 10:53:26 AMThe rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".
I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.
They're not different accounts, at least not now.
That's not true. I am aware of https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=91 https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2436 https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2823 and there was 4th if my memory might does not fail me. All in a relatively short amount of time since I joined this place. Miriam who has been here since ever said there are way more than that.
His last account name was changed about 5 times in last week as far as I noticed. This is pathetic.
By the way, there are many "sleeper" accounts with no posts with user labels seemingly matching Joseph's typical naming convention. Just a theory that he owns them, but given his behavioral patterns not unlikely that those will wake up when needed.