Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Turmoil on Catholic Forums and Blogs

So, there's been a bit of intra-forum news lately. So let's recap, shall we?

Rum: Banned From Te Deum, and The Elephant in the Room

Rum, my good ol' buddy who I've hardly ever shared a single sentence with online, was recently banned from Te Deum.  This is being discussed publicly over at Cathinfo, in a post where he questions why Sedevacantists aren't more impressive.  I checked to see if rum's Te Deum banishment was officially mentioned at Te Deum, but I haven't seen anything as of the writing of this blog post.

While, in truth, I hardly know rum at all, his situation brings up a few interesting discussion topics worthy of examining.  I do not think that rum is against the sede position, exactly, as he has stated that "I'm not criticizing the sede position."  But he was definitely confused as to why they dropped him.
If any of you care to take a look at my archive of posts over there I'd be surprised if you found anything that made me ban-worthy, or anything that made me warrant the constant attacks from VoxPopulisuxx and the silence of the other mods and admin.
While it was speculated that they booted him for saying things over at Cathinfo, and that perhaps the lack of an announcement was an oversight, I'm sure that the Te Deum leadership will get around to mentioning the reasoning at some point in the near future.

Often, when I try to imagine running my own hangout place for you folks, I imagine myself being so laid back about it, that I might accidentally be unintentionally lax in important announcements.  (Such is my respect for you all to have your public say and discussions in a place that announces itself as a "discussion forum.")

A few posts later in that thread, however, revealed some unfortunate words passed from rum to the Te Deum moderator, likely explaining the ban.  I think one of those words was "nutball."  (Once again, my dear friends.  Should I ever decide to open up for business, you can call your beloved leader a nutball all you want.  I'll even wear clown noses to your weddings for photo ops.)

But if rum was in disagreement with the personalities of Te Deum, then why would he continue posting there?

And, of course, this brings up the question of questions for Laramie Hirsch.  If I'm not a sedevacantist, then why do I continue to post or involve myself on a forum of people who are friendly to sedevacantism?

I've been avoiding this topic for a year or so.  I suppose now is the time to broach the matter.

I still disagree with the idea of sedevacantism.  I still think everything I thought about sedevacantism two years ago, when I was invited by TCat to form some opinions on the matter.  The idea is abhorrent to me, and it strikes me as a sort of Protestantism.  I also have an opinion about what sedevacantism will do to the psyche of a person who buys into it.  My colleagues at Te Deum disagree with me strongly about what I think of sedevacantism.  We have fought over the subject and traded insults.  It was great fun for a pugnacious person such as myself.  WitchHunt Wednesday was a hell of a time!

Again, apologies to Father Cekada for referring to him as an insect.  I was informed by several priests that he was an actual priest, and I meant no disrespect to his office.  Shortly after, I apologized to him, and any other priest I could think of who I insulted.  As I stated in that apology: The office of priests demands respect. If there are any other priests, bishops, or cardinals that I have called names, I apologize for them as well.  And as someone recently pointed out, Our Lord told St. Catherine of Siena the following:
But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him."
So, once more, I wish to acknowledge the proper respect of priestly authority of Father Cekada.  People at the time thought I was insincere, but they were wrong in assuming that of me.  And I will restate that I revere the office of any other member of the clergy, wherever he is in the cosmos, if I have in any way derided the priestly authority that God has bestowed upon them.  Pray for the Pope.

Where were we?  Ah yes.  I'm at odds with the philosophy of Te Deum members.  

So why stay there?  Well, in spite of dustups, I am a grown man who has the ability to recover after a fight and get along with people.  I've always looked at such a thing as a necessary act of maturity if you are to function in the adult world.  

I've gotten along with the moderators of Te Deum in the past.  We have history.  We've agreed on one thing or another.  So why not?  No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  It's a discussion forum, and if we have a disagreement...discuss it.  They haven't banned me for who I am or what I believe, so I trust that the good will of my colleagues is mutual.  

After all, aren't we "modern" Catholics supposed to be all "ecumenical" and stuff?  It's the internet.  It's conversation. Be honest, be sincere, and have a good time.

I'm curious to know if this statement will generate some conversation over at Te Deum.  Time will tell, I suppose.  I'm not really seeking attention because of this phenomenon, but I am positive that different people have already asked for an explanation.

Also, before I forget, special thanks to my colleagues at Te Deum for letting me bounce off my dilemma with where to go for Mass.  I felt pretty damned lost this summer, but I am content now with the Society Mass that I have discovered.

Next...


Geremina: Banned from The Echo Chamber for Sensationalistic Posting

Sorry XXXXXXX, you are banned from using this forum!
Banned for 3 days for continual over-the-top and sensationalistic posting with no provided justification.
This ban is set to expire November 07, 2015, 01:14:23 AM.
Catholic doctrine must be "over-the-top and sensationalistic" to Modernist ears.

Sensationalistic?  Well, it's a real word, I suppose. Not a popularly used one, I don't think.  I'm sure that "sensational"--or even "outrageous"--would have conveyed KK's misplaced contempt for zeal a bit better.

Okay, so, apparently, Geremia was banned from a Catholic discussion forum for daring to discuss a Catholic current event.  How dare he!

What with the current modernist confusion coming out of this current pontiff, Geremia reasonably demonstrates his own confusion, as he speculates whether or not the Synod on the Family was attempting to make adulterers (divorced and remarried, and probably gays) appear as if they are actually in some sort of state of grace.

A full THREE pages of conversation passed from the moment of Geremia's disputed statement before You-better-worship-me-I'm-Kaesekopf decided that Geremia wasn't echoing back what he wanted to hear.  And what was within those three pages?  The fingers of a parasite, seeking out whatever way she could find to tear at someone else's or everyone's credibility, complete with official backups, qualifiers, and her standard humble-but-not-humble apologies that serve to only draw attention to herself and cause other people to receive negative or even punitive attention.

This, after the Parasite stoked the fires and helped encourage moderator opinion against him, as is the old woman's evil hobby.  Jayne proceeds with her self-serving tattle:
Geremia has a history of misleading and sensationalistic subject lines. He has received moderator warnings for this.
Because it's your job to discuss for one and all the legitimacy of people in their conversations, right Jayne?  You're like an elementary school hall monitor who complains to the teacher for every perceived wrong that could be construed as detention-worthy.  Pulling old history up for the sake of tarnishing your name is a relished skill for the malignant polyp that is JayneK.  She breathes catty behavior.  And, of course, Greg managed to state what is obvious to everyone on the forum:


Would that we were all held account for our posting histories.  
 Ha!  This is why people like Greg.  There's nothing like good ol' wry English sarcasm to spice up a conversation.

The Tumor's history is loaded with contradictions, betrayals, brown-nosing, insincere apologies and self-victimizing statements--generally, anything that will get her attention.  I am certain that she has prepared qualifiers for just about every true accusation that can be held against her.  

She has, without a doubt, an insidious influence over moderators at The Echo Chamber, who always seem to view Her Royal Shiftiness with starry eyes, covered over with rose-tinted glasses.  As for KK's knee-jerk decision to ban Geremia, it obviously came out of nowhere.  If you look at the thread in question, not too many people were bothered with Geremia's Catholic discussion on the Catholic discussion board.  Everyone seemed content with the conversation, and if anyone was riling emotions, it was the latter woman who I've named already.  Indeed, the ban came from out of the blue, demonstrating KK's usual over-the-top tendency to be emotional, agenda-driven, and continually sensationalistic for actions that always appear to lack justification.

But speaking of the Coat-Tail Rider...


Fiddling About

A Cathinfo poster named Loys, in my earlier mentioned Cathinfo thread, reminds us that in Dante's Inferno, flatterers are immersed in a river of excrement for eternity.  This will all take place within the Second Chasm of Hell. 

And, of course, by talking about flatterers, you all know that I am leading up to a discussion about JayneK.  Who else?  I try to be silent about this woman, but she has this tendency of relapsing into her fire-starting habits of old, and she has made the mistake of mentioning me somewhere.

Jayne the meddler, brown-noser extrordinaire, has once more attempted to assemble one of her time-cherished witchhunts.  Whether she's teaming up with sedevacantists in one moment, or siding with Novus Ordo fans of Pope Francis the next moment, it does not matter--so long as she gets the attention she craves.  Even today's blog post, with it's red-flagging of the-road-hazard-that-is-JayneK--even all of this bad press from me likely fills her ego with glee.

Even now, as she reads this post, she is smiling and nodding her head in agreement.

Jayne mentions me in spite of THE FACT THAT I HAVE PUBLICLY REQUESTED FOR HER TO LEAVE ME ALONE, TIME AND TIME AGAIN.  I have told her clearly, repeatedly, and unmistakably.  Yet, her unrepentant scab-picking hobby continues--in spite of the fact that I've even gone so far as to block her on forums.

Do you understand this?  I am so disinterested in having anything to do with Jayne, and I am so disinterested in hearing anything that she has to say, that I have blocked myself from even seeing her words.  Because she is a highly-contagious virus that eats at the soul of the Online Traditional Catholic Community.

What happened, you ask?

Over at another blog, I have come to a disagreement with a blogger.  I will not refer to her or link to her blog, but you can probably guess who it is by reading the post before this one.  She has asked me to not have anything to do with her, and for the moment, I am respectfully complying with her request.

Jayne does not know how to respectfully comply with requests.

After bowing out from my argument with the blogger, Jayne The Meddler wormed her way through the path I followed and found her way to my discussion.  Her interjection was this:


Hi CIB,
Like you, I have been a target of hateful comments on Laramie's blog, so I can empathize. Unlike you, I still consider myself a traditionalist. I think your criticisms against traditionalists would be more reasonable if you were clearer that your comments only apply to some rather than to all trads. As a traditionalist I feel unfairly attacked by what you said about us. 
I came here from following links so I do not know if you have dealt with this elsewhere, but are you interpreting St. Catherine in light of Canon Law? I'm thinking specifically of Can. 212 §3. "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige...
It almost seems as if you are coming to my defense with your posts on this lady's blog.  It is regretful and baffling to observe the blogger proceed to disagree with you over and over.  I thought you made good points.  Too bad you started off the exchange with your typical manipulation.  Had you simply left the first sentence out, I would not say a thing, and probably quietly appreciate your "getting my back."  

But your motivation was not to "get my back," and perhaps not to even defend Traditionalism.  You just want to meddle.  When you take little field trips like this outside of the forums, you typically tend to fool everyone--even the atheists--to welcome you with open arms.  It disgusts me to watch it.

But your faux claims of victimization in the first sentence are yet another wretched example of your two-faced nature.  "Oh!  Yes!  I'm a victim, too!  Let's be friends and show that asshole Laramie that he's the hatingest hater that ever hated!"  You raise yourself and your newly-acquired host up, and you lower down the "mutual" enemy.  You co-opt your host and lead them towards your own ends.  Much as you have done at the Echo Chamber, the Gay Sewing Circle, and elsewhere.

But every now and then, your smug arrogance takes a peek out from your various disguises.  Here's a point in conversation where Jayne--revealing her true self for a split second--laughs at the low reputation of another person on Cathinfo.



Jaynek said:
Maybe he just wanted to see how quickly he could get his reputation down to zero.  :)

Kick em while they're down, eh, Jayne?  Pile on!  Everyone else is!  No one will notice you doing it!  It's justified in this case, so why not?  Every day is Witchhunt Wednesday for her!  Is playing groups against one another a genetically Jewish trait?  I don't know, but the case could be made for that with Jayne's online actions. 

And here you are, teaming up with the vulgar man who claims to be Catholic but acts far from it, OHCA, whom I've also blocked:


Wow! This is just like the ending of Casablanca.  Laramie is flying off in his airplane, leaving OHCA and me behind in his ignore file.  Goodbye, Laramie, we'll always have the Hirschfiles.  OHCA, I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Damn straight.  We'll always have the Hirsch Files.  My little spot on the interwebz will remain here for folks like Geremia, rum, TCat, or whoever...that they may say what they've been wanting to say, but refrained for fear of raising their heads and getting targeted.  Conversation has always been welcome with me.  

Jayne says that she is a "target for hateful comments" on my blog.  She is absolutely wrong.  I am not stating this about Jayne with the specific intention of harming her reputation--though this and other posts most certainly do.  No.

My statements about her infiltrating personality are a harbinger.  Road signs.  Flares.  Warning beacons in space to keep your craft out of the asteroid field that is JayneK's manipulations.  Too many people who don't know the woman will swing by with their default good will, and they will automatically assume that this woman is filled with the same good will that they have.  People often cannot comprehend that certain people in society exist at a baser level than they do.

However, we are to be harmless as doves and as wise as serpents.  And so, for the umpteenth time, I warn you people to avoid JayneK.

I will continue to block her (and OHCA) on Cathinfo.  I have no interest in having anything to do with her.  At all.  In the past, I have repeatedly asked her to "get out" of my conversations, yet she obstinately refuses to respect my sincere request.  I am certain she will obstinately refuse to leave me alone in the future--thus revealing her duplicity.

When that time comes, and she rears her head in my life again, I will tell you all about it.  That way you will know that her evil continues.

Here is a picture of Two Face.



UPDATE 11/16/15:  So, Jayne's decided to carry on and engage the Novus Ordo Catholic at her blog, earning herself a post typed out to her specifically.  Just like yours truly.  It should be an interesting discussion to read.

Unfortunately, she remains unrepentant and nasty as ever:
CIB, I hope you don't mind if I leave a message for Laramie here. He has forbidden me to mention his name and is terribly offended that I included his name in a comment here. He has written a long rant on his blog about how evil I am in order to punish me for committing such a terrible crime. (Although he actually did agree with my comment.)
I just want to go on record that I am unmoved by his tantrums and will mention his name whenever I wish. Laramie. Laramie. Laramie.
Thank you, CIB.

The co-opting continues.  I was actually awaiting your response here at homebase--if you dare approach.  There will always be an open comment form waiting for your apology and your pledge to keep away.

She further stated:

I was being childish and petty to make a point of mentioning Laramie like that. I would have deleted it if you had not already responded to it. I look forward to your new post.

Yes, you were.  Just as you were childish with the former comment to CIB.  I only want one thing from you, Jayne.  Leave me be.  Go, and leave me be, and I will reciprocate.  Be a Catholic for a change, and conduct yourself as one.  If you don't mention me anymore, then I will eventually, in the fullness of time, forget about your whole shenanigan.  Otherwise, if you keep pestering me, I will continue to casually catalog your nonsense for the world to see and enjoy.


19 comments:

  1. Your post on Rums ban is at best factually incorrect...at worst you sit on a throne of lies.
    Voxxpopulisuxx...TD

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whatever rum's issue is, I'm not taking sides on it. I was discussing it objectively; I'm indifferent about the imbroglio, so don't read too much into it. Today rum has shared more words about the matter that make his stance obvious.

    The incident seemed noteworthy for me because it gave me pause, and I reflected a bit on where I sit in the online Trad Community.

    The only people I'm attacking/pointing out in this post is KK and the Parasite, both of whom need to publicly confess their treacheries, apologize to their victims, and reform their ways.

    If you have more to contribute to the tale, whether it be new developments or further insight, then you're always welcome to share. This place is a free platform.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You claim that my apologies are always insincere and then you demand an apology. Does that even make sense?

    And you attempt to threaten me. That is always a bad idea because it just makes me more inclined to be stubborn and uncooperative. It is an even worse idea to make this specific threat. You think that you are exposing my wrong-doings, but you are linking to threads in which I object to your sede-bashing and sede-baiting. They are threads where I come off looking better than you. If you were trying to write a post to convince people that you should be kicked off of Te Deum and that I should be allowed on, you could not have done a better job. (I guess I should thank you because I would like to be allowed on Te Deum.)

    I do not care what you write about me, Laramie. I can't imagine that anyone whose opinion I respect takes you seriously. If I want to mention you, I will mention you. I probably won't very often because you aren't very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You claim that my apologies are always insincere and then you demand an apology.

    Probably because you habitually co-opt groups of people to demonize someone.

    After an apology follows a resolution. Actions and measures to stop the previous error.

    If I want to mention you, I will mention you. I probably won't very often because you aren't very interesting.

    Fantastic. Please leave me be, then.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is the "apology" to Fr. Cekada you are referring to, the one in which you juxtaposed him with Martin Luther, Arius and Judas?

    And then you apologized for in anyway demeaning the office of Martin Luther, Arius and Judas by comparing them to Fr. Cekada.

    This was nothing more than a lame attempt to be clever while delivering a backhanded insult disguised as an apology.

    You and Jane are two peas in a pod.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The parasite can consider itself a Trad about as much as Macaulay Culkin can consider himself African-American. Laramie, although logically inconsistent on some theological points, has at the very least shown his earnestness in what he believes and why he shies away from X, Y, Z.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is the "apology" to Fr. Cekada you are referring to, the one in which you juxtaposed him with Martin Luther, Arius and Judas?

    You should take off the quotations from the word apology. Because it was a real one. And I even sent him private messages conveying my regret. I'd show them to you if I still had my SD membership.

    But no, I was not juxtaposing Fr. Cekada to Luther, Arius, and Judas. I was including the latter three in my apology. They were in addition to my apology to the former. I may have said bad things about these priests.

    Look, man. I just spent the last few weeks on this topic. While we are allowed to disagree with the imprudent and even heretical decisions of clergy, we still have the right to call the clergy out. HOWEVER, we ought not call into question the authority that God has bestowed to the priests. This is where sedevacantists and I differ. I still revere the authority they have, and I am in awe at the power that God has to transcend the evils that bad priests bring into their lives.

    Again, more with St. Catherine of Siena:

    "It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them, not for what they are in themselves, but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the holy sacraments of the Church. For if you refuse these when it is in your power to have them, you would live and die condemned."

    And,

    “Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him."

    I think that THE MAIN POINT OF CONTENTION between ALL CATHOLICS OF EVERY STRIPE during this Crisis is the inability of people to separate the priestly authority from the man. St. Catherine of Siena was able to do this, as I've argued recently.

    We are to recognize that authority that God bestowed upon all priests. And we should not disparage the authority that God gives them, as I did with Fr. Cekada. I was wrong on that day. I have been trying to tread more lightly and carefully when it comes to criticizing clergy, and I've been trying to recall if or when I may have failed in other places.

    This was nothing more than a lame attempt to be clever while delivering a backhanded insult disguised as an apology.

    Stop being emotional. This is an emotional conclusion derived from your feelings about me. If you haven't figured out the whole idea of respecting the office of a priest--in spite of his errors--then I recommend you read The Dialogues.

    Just don't run off thinking you're not supposed to criticize priests for their errors, as others have done recently. Just understand that we are called to carefully call them out (as justified by St. Thomas Aquinas), while remaining respectful of God's power through them.

    Even Martin Luther, whose views were detestable, and who greatly sinned against the Catholic Church, retained the power to consecrate bread and wine to his dying day. If no one else were present to offer you Extreme Unction, would you accept it from him?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alright Laramie, I don't want to rehash this whole thing all over again. The only thing I can say that if was a real and sincere apology, there would have been no objections raised against it; but there was. I think anyone with a shred of common sense could plainly see that is was a rather thinly and poorly disguised way to insult a traditional priest.

    However, I do want to thank you for posting a link to that thread at Suscipe Domine. I rarely post there anymore and rereading that thread piqued my memory of some of your more colorful posts while you were there.

    You certainly have said some "interesting" things about sedevacantists and sedevacantism at SD, CI and on you blog. I assume you still stand by everything you have written about the subject and don't wish to recant or retract any of it?

    I guess I find it curious that you would be posting on a forum that is approving of the sedevacantist position and whose moderators all hold that position; especially when you have made it so abundantly clear that you believe sedevacantists to be schismatics and enemies of the Catholic Church.

    I know that you started a thread to address this question, but it was locked before you really had a chance to answer the question, so I was wondering if you would address it here or maybe write something about it on you blog.

    Some people of the more cynical nature would say that you are playing nice with the sedevacantists because you had been banned from Fisheaters and SD, so your traditional Catholic forum options was becoming limited.

    And no, I would not receive Extreme Unction or any other sacrament from a non-Catholic. Martin Luther, at the end of his life was a non-Catholic.


    ReplyDelete
  10. I know that you started a thread to address this question, but it was locked before you really had a chance to answer the question, so I was wondering if you would address it here or maybe write something about it on you blog.

    Yes. It was a thread for you and a few others who wanted to talk about it. It was locked, but we can talk about it here if you want. I can't commit to a full response right now. Got too much to do, and the family's awake. I'll respond later tonight, probably around midnight, Central Time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only thing I can say that if was a real and sincere apology, there would have been no objections raised against it; but there was.

    I have objections raised about my sincerity on a bi-monthly basis, it seems. I expect it these days. But, again, I do not wish to demean the authority of priesthood that Fr. Cekada--or any other priest--rightfully carries.


    However, I do want to thank you for posting a link to that thread at Suscipe Domine. I rarely post there anymore and rereading that thread piqued my memory of some of your more colorful posts while you were there.

    No problem! At your service! It's been a tumultuous time! But I hope we're all havin' fun, nonetheless.

    You certainly have said some "interesting" things about sedevacantists and sedevacantism at SD, CI and on you blog. I assume you still stand by everything you have written about the subject and don't wish to recant or retract any of it?

    I don't know. I think I do still. I think I still stand behind most of what I've said. Bear with me. What has it been two or three years since I first said anything about the sede position? But I wouldn't be surprised if something has changed. I was thinking of actually creating an open thread about this topic. I was going to do it tonight. But it'd be lunacy for me. I have a registry exam I need to study for in the next two months, and getting wrapped up in heated conversation would drain all my attention from those studies. Pray for me that I pass, please. It could mean a better livelihood for the family if I can pass the exam.

    I guess I find it curious that you would be posting on a forum that is approving of the sedevacantist position and whose moderators all hold that position; especially when you have made it so abundantly clear that you believe sedevacantists to be schismatics and enemies of the Catholic Church.

    Not everyone there is a sede. But even then, there are various levels of agreement that we all share on the Te Deum forum. Plus, I find that being in a place where everyone agrees with me is very boring. Why do you think I was venturing out to confront atheists, shortly before SD banned me for it? I got zeal to spend, I guess.

    Some people of the more cynical nature would say that you are playing nice with the sedevacantists because you had been banned from Fisheaters and SD, so your traditional Catholic forum options was becoming limited.

    Nah. I joined Te Deum before I was banned from Suscipe Domine. I wasn't banned from Fisheaters until last winter. I guess if you want to call me not bringing up sedevacantism "playing nice," then so be it. From the beginning I've said the topic is not too interesting to me, and that the subject was placed before me, as it were.

    I've been more interested in rallying together ideas and other people's wills towards aggressive Catholic social action on the internet. But I don't think people have got the fight in them at this point.

    Martin Luther, at the end of his life was a non-Catholic. I think that's true. Yes. But he remained a priest. And even in Hell, he is a priest. Such is God's power. It is an unremovable mark upon a man to be a priest.

    Shoot back if you want. Got some stuff to do around the house, though. -LH



    ReplyDelete
  12. We should start a Catholic forum in which no one is banned. We could use decentralized technology like Twister, which "is completely decentralized [so] no one can censor you. No one can remove your posts. Your account cannot be blocked."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Aether is really the software we're looking for:

      Aether is a free app that you use to read, write in, and create community moderated, distributed, and anonymous forums, an “anonymous reddit without servers.”The Verge

      Like Twister, it also "is completely decentralized [so] no one can censor you. No one can remove your posts. Your account cannot be blocked."

      Delete
  13. Geremia,

    While you certainly have my sympathetic ear, here at Hirsch Files—as does anyone else who deals with nonsense from forum tyrants—I am not completely convinced that I would be capable of pulling off a forum.

    For one thing, credibility. Sure, this blog has had its fair share of traffic coming in. A lot of this traffic has been our friends from the different forums who have had issues and had nowhere else to go. Others are just lurkers who, perhaps, agree that there have been dilemmas from places such as Fisheaters or Suscipe Domine.

    But honestly, I’m just one guy. I’m a private individual who treats the Traditional Catholic Community as an outlet for my religious and political beliefs. I do not wholeheartedly agree with everyone in this community, and therefore, I’ve generated some strong critics. And these critics have “poisoned the well for me,” as it were. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m an ostracized outcast, thanks largely to my possession of conviction and zeal. Different unfortunately loud voices of the community have passed out pitchforks and torches, pointed their fingers, and cried “Get him!”

    Would it even work out? Or would it just be a dead forum? I dunno.

    One thing is for sure. I’m on board for reducing the ban craze. I’ve always thought it stupid to discourage discussion on a discussion forum. As far as punitive measures to reign in the radical outliers, even then, I’d only utilize 6-month to 1-year bans at MOST. Perma-bans are ridiculous. At worst, a habitual offender would just continuously get themselves banned year after year.

    Most of all, final decisions for such measures would come straight to me, the dictator. It’d be the only way I could guarantee it’d go right.

    But when I think of all of it, I imagine it’d be like trying to start up a bar or something. At which point I have to ask myself: Is that what I want to commit myself to with my time?

    Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was banned from a forum for stating cold hard facts in a respectable manner.
    Personally I think some (not all) of the people on forums aren't who they seem to be.
    Secondly I noticed a childish teenage girl mentality with some of the frequent members who post daily or at least every 2 days.(constant insults,attacks,etc..on almost everything I posted.I went out of my way to be chill calm respectful,etc..it was odd)
    When someone is banned for stating facts without being disrespectful,something tells me some of these people may be pulling for the other side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've observed a lot of irrational behavior from forum owners. I've been banned for speaking up about opposing atheists, and I've been banned for speaking out against homosexual marriages and for discussing tactics in arguing against atheists. Both times, they were Catholic forums. And yet, are Catholics not supposed to oppose atheism and the homosexual lifestyle?

      If it's one thing I've learned, it's that plain and simple truth is still often taboo, even in the circles I've traveled. For that reason, I am beginning to believe that even trads deserve the difficulties they must endure. Their apathy demands it, I'd say.

      You talk about being banned for stating facts? I know what you mean. Objective conversation is often not comprehended by most people. And most people do not know how to be tactful and polite. I think this is due to the increasing degradation of the populace's IQ. Some people just can't roll with it, I suppose.

      Delete
  15. I'm slowly starting to wonder if some of the Te Drum crowd (not all but a few) are either insane or passive aggressive sociopaths.
    Not being rude their behavior is bizarre to be over 30 years old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Te Deum seems to attract the most informed Catholics of any self-proclaimed Catholic forum. They seem to be very stable to me.

      Delete
    2. I said "some members" not all of them.

      Delete