Featured Post

The 2017 "Let Them Be For Signs" Series

I've decided to make this year's ongoing astronomical discussion an official series.  So, for your convenience, links to articles...

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Laramie Hirsch: Still at Te Deum

Allow me a moment to stop "pushing my brand," so that I can push someone else's.

To everyone and their mother, it seems as though I am throwing the Te Deum forum under the bus in the last blog post.  I did not see it that way as I wrote it, and I do not see it that way now.  But perhaps what I meant never really came across in what I actually stated.  Fair enough.

This week, in the first of a three-part post, I spoke of some kind of problem between the poster named rum and the Te Deum forum.  Was rum's problem because of sedevacantism, or was it because of a personal matter?  I originally thought the former.  And thus, the entire (attempted) conversation formed about a non-sede among pro-sedes.  My usual navel-gazing ensued, which no one heard, and meanwhile, tensions were raised about whether or not I was making fun of the Te Deum forum.

It is fair enough to say that I didn't take the time to make that distinction.  Let there be no misunderstanding: I mentioned the incident because I saw it as an incident about a non-sede among sedes.

Before, I said that "Rum, my good ol' buddy who I've hardly ever shared a single sentence with online, was recently banned from Te Deum."  This is a joke.  I do not know rum well at all.

It probably also doesn't help that the first section of the blog post is an attempt at an objective conversation, while the second two sections of the blog post were not objective at all, but clear, direct, and outspoken public rebukes of two public people--Kaesekopf and Jayne.  Mix one part objective speculation with two parts public rebuking, and you get...misunderstanding.  

I fully expected to hear from Jayne (who, might I add, is doing interesting work at the blog I was just involved with).  But I did not expect backlash about that first section.  It seemed like dry coverage on the matter.  (That is, dry coverage on my end of things.)  Whatever impressions I gave were unintentional.  

* * *

So, my thoughts about Te Deum?  

There are people friendly to sedevacantism there, to be sure.  I disagree with them, to be sure.

But, as I stated in my first announcement of locating at Te Deum, I like the variety and the familiar faces, in spite of differences.  And as Tmw89 joked, it has been, if nothing else, interesting.  And, as I stated in my first review of the forum, I gave it a positive report.  There have been good conversations, and the moderators have kept the place from being dulled down into a weird pseudo-liberal stew.  

On the Feast Day of St. Nicholas, I will have been at that forum for an entire year.  Sbyvl and Voxxpopulisuxx have given me a fair shake.  They've put up with me, and they probably had my back a few times.  It's my hope that I'll get to see other colleagues from SD visit Te Deum more often, as they are more tolerable and welcoming towards zeal than the moderators of SD.  (That much is clear when examining Geremia's situation.)  

Sbyvl and other moderators have even stated that Te Deum is not a sedevacantist forum.  Of course, sede-friendly people tend to congregate there, because their impassioned views are tolerated, rather than penalized.  Discussion is more free there than elsewhere.  The forum is not as punitive as other places I've been in the past.  (Hello Catholic Answers Forum.)  If you are online for conversation, and you don't feel like being struck by a hammer if you raise your head, then I'd say it's a good forum to take a look at.  At least, from my experience so far.

Any misunderstandings to the contrary, hopefully, have now been repaired.     

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for the clarification and props..LH