Forum improvements?

[Mono no aware]

All 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."

Several others on red font, really? Quote 2 or 3 of them for me.

Post nos. 39 and 40 on this older thread are two separate posters telling you, constructively, that your use of colored font is ruining your ability to effectively communicate.

Deliberately 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 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.

[Kaesekopf]

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

[Xavier]

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.

[Mono no aware]

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.

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.

[Miriam_M]

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.

[Mono no aware]

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 | James 3:2 | Philippians 2:14-16

[Kaesekopf]

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.

[Xavier]

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.

[Mono no aware]

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.

I already told you, 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.  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.

[Xavier]

Keep straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, while your Soul is in eternal jeopardy. I am done replying on fonts.

[Kaesekopf]

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...

[Michael Wilson]

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. 

[Greg]

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.

[AlfredtheGreat]

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.

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.'

[Lynne]

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.

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.