Kevin's Watch

Savor Dam wrote:Yes, the Close would be the most appropriate venue if you were to do that.

However, be aware it probably will come to a bad end...not eventually, but quite soon (at least the bad part, no promises about the end being soon.)

i shall star then.

sgt.null wrote: i shall star then.

♫ You don't have to be a star, Sargie
To post in the Close... ♫

Savor Dam wrote:

sgt.null wrote: i shall star then.

♫ You don't have to be a star, Sargie
To post in the Close... ♫

damn my spelling gets worse the later it gets - wonder why that is? the meds haven't even kicked in yet.

sgt.null wrote:hell, we have Christians attacking Christians in the close. being Catholic i am used to that (ever read the Jack Chick tracks?) but it is surprising to be attacked by someone who nominally agrees with you.

www.chick.com/default.asp

I am thinbking of posting a CHick thread - just not sure where. close?

Hi Sgt,

I, too, despise Jack Chick's works. If we have the truth, we should not be afraid to cast our opponents' views in their very best possible light - using their own words and teachings - before tearing them apart. Chick was the very opposite, in creating his purely imaginary versions - as he understood them, and not at all informed on actual Catholic teaching. Cartoonist propaganda that will backfire for anyone who learns better, as I did, and as I warned Z about.

Nevertheless, you have hit the nail on the head - "nominally" is the very word - in name, but not in fact. If someone nominally claims a faith which has a central authority, and then denies the teaching of that authority, then it's self-contradictory from the get-go. I don't know why that is so hard for people to understand. I hazard the explanation that the dogma of the freedom of the individual has lead to the justification of self-contradiction, as long as freedom of the individual is served by that contradiction. To say "I am Catholic" or "I am Orthodox" AND "But I'M going to decide which teachings of my Church I will accept" is how that contradiction of nominalism is played out. The name without the substance. The Cchurches have catechisms which you have to examine/go through before being received into the Church. For outsiders, that is the exact verb used - "Being received into the Church". You don't "join" it. You are received (or not) into it. It's a corporate entity, not a mere bunch of individuals that just so happen to agree on some points.

(I don't need to name names and am not pointing out anyone here. If a person does that, then the shoe fits, so let them wear it.)

I hope that provides a rational explanation for what has surprised you.

Never heard of this Jack thing until a few days ago, with some post or other.

Anyway, I'm throwing out ideas. If nobody's gonna help me with it, I don't want to hear any complaining about things.

I heard there was some sort of argument in here somewhere concerning Mom? What was that about?

I really don't know, Brooke. I heard part of it relayed, which seemed to say that rus said something that was taken out of context, or something.

Oh okay...is it all alright now?? I got a PM from rus and he said he was banned because of it??? Not sure what to say...I don't think Mom would want to be the reason for someone being banned.

[jaw drops at the sheer chutzpah of this claim]

To have contacted you with a guilt trip along those lines...well, it is not right.

Yes, there have been some, most recently dAN today, who have mentioned rus having been disrespectful of Tracie -- which, to whatever extent it happened, took place while she still was among us. However, that was not what was at the heart of what happened to him here.

I have not been involved, so I will let others tell the story, but I just am flabbergasted that rus PMed you along the lines you indicate.

What else can he do? I love(d) Furls, in an internet kind of way, but I think she'd be uncomfortable with... well, I can't describe it, but the closest thing I can come up with is a kind of sacrosanct treatment. She didn't seem to care if someone disagreed with her; she was just unshakeable in her belief and her willingness to share it, or just share... friendship, in the true sense of the word, with everyone.

Rus may have disagreed with her beliefs (frankly, so do I, almost as much as I disagree with Rus'), but I think he still respects her memory, as I do. I think he was just trying to make that clear to those who continue her legacy. Understandable considering the accusations leveled against him.

While I'm on the subject, look at the Hall of Gifts. Out of six announcements, Furls-related threads compose four, two out of five stickies. I know it's intended to show respect, but I can't help thinking it's kind of shrine-like. It gives the pages a kind of sepulchral feel. On one hand, it's very fitting for the Hall of Gifts, but on the other, the resemblance is almost ironic. If I remember my Chrons, an argument can be made that the Hall takes away from the achievements by cloistering them.

What am I saying? I don't know. Not that we should let go, but we should... try to be a little more real about it.

Fire Daughter wrote:Oh okay...is it all alright now?? I got a PM from rus and he said he was banned because of it??? Not sure what to say...I don't think Mom would want to be the reason for someone being banned.

No, your mother would not want that. And no, it does not seem to be alright yet. I really don't want to get into the whole thing, and start an argument about it all. I'll just say that, from what I've seen of the situation, I think he was minunderstood/misinterpreted. There are long-standing issues with rus, which I think are serious. But I don't think this needs to be a part of it.

[Syl] wrote:What else can he do?

I agree with everything Syl had to say, except the first sentence of his post, quoted above. While the scant months of interaction (here and in MSN chat) I had with Tracie made a profound difference in my life, I know she would cluck her tongue in disapproval at the pedestal we have placed her on. I feel she deserved and deserves it, but I know she would not.

My point above, to which Syl responded with "What else can he do?" is that rus is misdirecting the discussion of why he was subject to restrictions and why his handling of those restrictions may have been leading to more severe censure.

What else can he do? He certainly ought not be trying to make himself the victim of a non-existent witchhunt in order to avoid owning up to the behaviors that really did lead to the situation he now faces. Drawing FD into the discussion with claims that he is being chased from the Watch because of long-ago disagreements with Tracie is deceptive and manipulative. In my mind, doing so is much more offensive than any comment he may have made about Furls in the distant past.

What rus should do is accept with dignity the consequences of his extensive posting history and either submit to the discipline prescribed, or leave. He claims to be leaving, but that tune has been played before.

Ok, Rus' temporary ban has absolutely nothing to do with anything that may or may not have been said about Furls. I want to be clear about this...nothing at all.

As you can see in my post in his "Farewell" thread, it's being enforced solely for disregarding my request to briefly rein in some of his posting. And assuming I have my way, it is only temporary.

Hopefully a short break will encourage Rus to reassess his method of participation, after which we will all try again.

Clarified?

--A

Yeah. The ban and the stuff about Tracie are not related. I just think there's enough crap going on that we don't need to have disucssions or fights about what he said and what he meant regarding her.

Okay...I was just trying to understand what was happening.