I noticed I still have some time left, Tomndeb

[Rubystreak]

@Oy!

Isn’t this a little like hating Jesus because of what his followers have done in his name?

I for one would never compare the Church to Jesus. It’s a false comparison and clouds the issue.

The RCC can’t control every detail of what is taught or done in its name any more than Jesus can prevent sleazy televangelists or politicians to cash in on his name.

I guess it’s up for debate how much responsiblity the RCC has for who it choses to spread its message. These people are the vessels of God, supposedly. If they’re promulgating incorrect and hurtful misinformation, in the Church’s name, what reaction should the recipient have? It’s confusing to be sure, and upsetting. It’s even more upsetting if you feel that people like tomndebb are trying to absolve the RCC of responsibility for the misrepresentations of it by its own members.

So what is tom supposed to do? If someone states categorically that the RCC teaches X, and tom knows for a fact that official doctrine is Y, should he just let it stand, especially in GQ or GD, where facts are required? That, indeed, would be spreading ignorance.

Don’t ask me to be prescriptive-- I’m not going to tell tomndebb what to do. I’m just trying to elucidate why people might be ticked off at what seems to most people as a totally reasonable and likeable person. The spin on things that takes all blame off the Church for its abuses has a long and vile history; some might see tomndebb as continuing in that tradition. Unfairly? Sure, in many ways. But even Pittings you don’t like, on people you do, often contain a kernel of validity. Is all I’m saying here.

[Oy]

@Rubystreak

I for one would never compare the Church to Jesus. It’s a false comparison and clouds the issue.

Sorry, I thought by stating I was an atheist, that I was avoiding the issue of Jesus as divinity. Okay, then substitute the Founding Fathers and the nasty things the U.S. has done, especially in recent years.

@Rubystreak

I guess it’s up for debate how much responsiblity the RCC has for who it choses to spread its message. These people are the vessels of God, supposedly. If they’re promulgating incorrect and hurtful misinformation, in the Church’s name, what reaction should the recipient have? It’s confusing to be sure, and upsetting. It’s even more upsetting if you feel that people like tomndebb are trying to absolve the RCC of responsibility for the misrepresentations of it by its own members.

Don’t ask me to be prescriptive-- I’m not going to tell tomndebb what to do. I’m just trying to elucidate why people might be ticked off at what seems to most people as a totally reasonable and likeable person. The spin on things that takes all blame off the Church for its abuses has a long and vile history; some might see tomndebb as continuing in that tradition. Unfairly? Sure, in many ways. But even Pittings you don’t like, on people you do, often contain a kernel of validity. Is all I’m saying here.

But tom has repeatedly agreed that a) many folks have been taught incorrect doctrine, even by people expected to know better, such as priests and b) that the RCC has had many faults and evil-doing in its name. I don’t think in a million years that he would blame anyone for hating the church because of their own personal history with it. But if someone says something as fact that isn’t true, he is honor bound to correct it. If that makes him seem an apologist to some, or if some people want to blame him for what their parish priest/mom/school teacher did to them, that is their privilege, but it doesn’t validate their position.

[Kamino_Neko]

@Frank

If I can figure out how to shoehorn Hunter S. Thompson in here, my day will be complete.

Well, this is quite definitely bat[shit] country.

[Lemur866]

@Valteron

Please, listen to Lemur866. While I am an idiot, a moron, etc., he is apparently not only a mental health professional, but also one capable opf diagnosing people he has never met. He is either capable of extraordinary superhuman feats or else he is. . . . but then I would never call others a fool, being one myself.

Wait, didn’t you explain your previous repeated bouts of suicidal ideation on these boards as having the wrong balance of medications?

If not, then I apologize. But when I see a poster about to flameout on one issue, then they adjust their medication and improve dramatically, then they slowly return to flameout status, perhaps suggesting they might be having a repeat of the previous mental health issue isn’t so ludicrous.

Of course this is a tricky issue. I’m kind of a jerk myself, but no one suggests I take a pill to make myself less jerky. That’s just the way I am, and I’ve learned to live with myself the way I am, and my personality “works” for me…I can hold down a job, I can keep my marriage together, my kids love me and vice versa, and so forth. And most people are like myself in that they have various undesireable personality traits that they have to muddle along with…they’re stupid, angry, gullible, boring, impulsive, horny, insensitive, unempathetic, shy, or whatever. But some people have pretty extreme personality traits that they just can’t muddle through with.

Anyway, IF you’ve had previous inappropriate near-flameouts on this board, and changing your mental health regimen has helped you, perhaps it wouldn’t hurt that it seems to me you’re having another such episode. Or perhaps your problem is that you can’t recognize when you’re having such episodes, when my sister-in-law has spells of depression she insists she’s not having spells of depression, despite being unable to get out of bed, suicidal ideation, and all the rest, it’s only after she’s better that she can regonize that she was depressed.

[Skywatcher]

@Heffalump and Roo

Just to clarify, you’re calling Contrapuntal a clueless person asking inane questions? That sure hasn’t been my impression of his posts, so I just want to make sure this is what you’re saying.

Contra does come off a bit trollish at times.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Lute Skywatcher

@Heffalump and Roo

Just to clarify, you’re calling Contrapuntal a clueless person asking inane questions? That sure hasn’t been my impression of his posts, so I just want to make sure this is what you’re saying.

Contra does come off a bit trollish at times.

Perhaps so. I haven’t been here long enough to get a feel for the majority of his posts, but I was in both of those threads that were linked here. And in those threads, **Contrapuntal **was not the only one trying to elicit that information. He was just the one that was most persistent about it.

[Rubystreak]

@Lemur866

Anyway, IF you’ve had previous inappropriate near-flameouts on this board, and changing your mental health regimen has helped you, perhaps it wouldn’t hurt that it seems to me you’re having another such episode. Or perhaps your problem is that you can’t recognize when you’re having such episodes, when my sister-in-law has spells of depression she insists she’s not having spells of depression, despite being unable to get out of bed, suicidal ideation, and all the rest, it’s only after she’s better that she can regonize that she was depressed.

So what you’re saying is, the guy doesn’t like tomndebb, he Pits the guy… therefore, he must be off his meds and needs psychiatric evaluation? Based on this and some thread you think you remember from a while ago? WTF?

Wow. You guys are really madly in love with tomndebb, or way far up his ass, something. Lemur866’s post borders on offensive in his diagnosis of Valteron, considering it’s based on this thread and some aggravation that Valteron has about Catholicism and the defense of it by tomndebb. Any recovering Catholics out there know that it’s a hot-button issue for many people, not just for the mentally ill. I’ve tried to explain why someone might react in a strongly negative way to tomndebb’s posts for valid reasons, even if you disagree with them.

IOW: Come the hell ON. The OP’s behavior, in this thread at least, certainly doesn’t warrant these kinds of accusations. Mostly, it’s been a pile-on, an excessive one at that. As fun as it is to gang up on the person expressing the unpopular position, that doesn’t mean you can tell him to take his meds and shut up, dismissing his concerns because he’s nuts… for disagreeing with your buddy.

[Liberal]

Rubystreak, I know that you and I aren’t on the best of terms or anything, but I do want to say that I believe your point has merit. It is indeed a pile-on, and Tom is indeed being defended with lots of gusto. But if you’ll hear me out, I think I can explain why. There are a few people who have attained a certain status, and I think Polycarp and Tomndebb are among them. When they are attacked, defenders come out of the woodwork and go to town on the attackers. But there is a reason, honestly. It’s because they earned the status they have by being even-tempered and fair over literally years of time. They been helpful and courteous to all and sundry of every faith and no faith. They don’t take sides in their roles as members, except on rare occasions when they discern that something unfair or untoward has been said. I’m not saying they’re sinless saints, but they have earned the benefit of the doubt, and especially when the complaint against them consists of basically saying, “You come across as nice, and I’m sick of it.” Does that make sense?

[Oy]

@Rubystreak

So what you’re saying is, the guy doesn’t like tomndebb, he Pits the guy… therefore, he must be off his meds and needs psychiatric evaluation? Based on this and some thread you think you remember from a while ago? WTF?

Wow. You guys are really madly in love with tomndebb, or way far up his ass, something. Lemur866’s post borders on offensive in his diagnosis of Valteron, considering it’s based on this thread and some aggravation that Valteron has about Catholicism and the defense of it by tomndebb. Any recovering Catholics out there know that it’s a hot-button issue for many people, not just for the mentally ill. I’ve tried to explain why someone might react in a strongly negative way to tomndebb’s posts for valid reasons, even if you disagree with them.

IOW: Come the hell ON. The OP’s behavior, in this thread at least, certainly doesn’t warrant these kinds of accusations. Mostly, it’s been a pile-on, an excessive one at that. As fun as it is to gang up on the person expressing the unpopular position, that doesn’t mean you can tell him to take his meds and shut up, dismissing his concerns because he’s nuts… for disagreeing with your buddy.

Ruby, please don’t think I have a down on you; you just happen to be the person I’m disagreeing with today. Tomorrow it may well be someone else.

I don’t think they’re saying that because Valteron’s pitting tom (I could be wrong). It’s the over-all tone of his posts, which sound very young at best, and somewhat hysterical or desperate at worst.

It’s true that tom is by and large very well respected for his facts, his even-tempered moderate tone, and his sense of humor. But I don’t think the fact that he’s being pitted is the primary reason that people are speculating about his mental health. There have been several other threads of this nature, and the OPs’ sanity there wasn’t questioned. It’s the tone, the near-assertion that the OP alone sees the truth and all the rest of us are blind idiots praying to a tomndebb altar, etc.

Maybe I’m wrong and am misinterpreting them, but that’s the sense I got from the last few posts. The pile-on, of course, is kind-of silly, but it tends to happen quite a bit around here, often concerning OPs that have nothing to do with the SDMB, let alone tom.

[Oy]

@Liberal

Rubystreak, I know that you and I aren’t on the best of terms or anything, but I do want to say that I believe your point has merit. It is indeed a pile-on, and Tom is indeed being defended with lots of gusto. But if you’ll hear me out, I think I can explain why. There are a few people who have attained a certain status, and I think Polycarp and Tomndebb are among them. When they are attacked, defenders come out of the woodwork and go to town on the attackers. But there is a reason, honestly. It’s because they earned the status they have by being even-tempered and fair over literally years of time. They been helpful and courteous to all and sundry of every faith and no faith. They don’t take sides in their roles as members, except on rare occasions when they discern that something unfair or untoward has been said. I’m not saying they’re sinless saints, but they have earned the benefit of the doubt, and especially when the complaint against them consists of basically saying, “You come across as nice, and I’m sick of it.” Does that make sense?

By the way, Liberal, if your general posting is now anything like it’s been in this thread, you have become an extremely likable person and a poster I will seek out in the future. I don’t know what happened to you, but you also sound a lot happier, so I’m glad.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

@Heffalump and Roo

Perhaps so. I haven’t been here long enough to get a feel for the majority of his posts, but I was in both of those threads that were linked here. And in those threads, **Contrapuntal **was not the only one trying to elicit that information. He was just the one that was most persistent about it.

There was no ‘information’ to ‘elicit’. There was an irrelevant question based on a hypothetical which was used for another purpose entirely. A red herring. A hijack. But if you are hellbent on clinging to it as a fond memory, be my guest.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Rubystreak

So what you’re saying is, the guy doesn’t like tomndebb, he Pits the guy… therefore, he must be off his meds and needs psychiatric evaluation? Based on this and some thread you think you remember from a while ago? WTF?

Wow. You guys are really madly in love with tomndebb, or way far up his ass, something. Lemur866’s post borders on offensive in his diagnosis of Valteron, considering it’s based on this thread and some aggravation that Valteron has about Catholicism and the defense of it by tomndebb. Any recovering Catholics out there know that it’s a hot-button issue for many people, not just for the mentally ill. I’ve tried to explain why someone might react in a strongly negative way to tomndebb’s posts for valid reasons, even if you disagree with them.

IOW: Come the hell ON. The OP’s behavior, in this thread at least, certainly doesn’t warrant these kinds of accusations. Mostly, it’s been a pile-on, an excessive one at that. As fun as it is to gang up on the person expressing the unpopular position, that doesn’t mean you can tell him to take his meds and shut up, dismissing his concerns because he’s nuts… for disagreeing with your buddy.

So–you understand why someone might not like tomndebb. Because anyone bent out of shape by their encounter with Catholicism has a right to react irrationally to a moderate & rational explanation of Catholic doctrine. Forever. Perhaps those “recovering” Catholics need to get over it. Sure, oppose what you think the Church has done wrong–but a whiff of incense is no excuse to act like a fool.

I was raised Catholic but dropped The God Concept many years ago. However, here in the Bible Belt, I’ve been known to enlighten people who learned about the Church from Jack Chick pamphlets.

Here’s Valteron’s latest Crusade.

[Liberal]

@Oy!

By the way, Liberal, if your general posting is now anything like it’s been in this thread, you have become an extremely likable person and a poster I will seek out in the future. I don’t know what happened to you, but you also sound a lot happier, so I’m glad.

I took a six month break, got some perspective, and came back. Thanks for noticing a difference.

[Contrapuntal]

@Quiddity Glomfuster

There was no ‘information’ to ‘elicit’. There was an irrelevant question based on a hypothetical which was used for another purpose entirely. A red herring. A hijack. But if you are hellbent on clinging to it as a fond memory, be my guest.

You posed a hypothetical situation (later described by you as an analogy.) I simply asked whether your hypothetical was a unique situation, or did it apply to any other situation. It was a yes/no question. Really. Asserting a positive or a negative does provide information, whether or not you believe it does. There is a real world yes/no answer. And you were unable to answer it. Or, more likely, finding yourself trapped, disengaged. Kind of like you did upthread where I showed your assertion of my fondness for the word ‘liar’ to be baseless. It is a habit of yours to refuse to acknowledge when a point has been scored. A habit that does not reflect well on you. Or maybe it does. Maybe it is your most redeeming character trait. Surely nothing in your behavior on this board would suggest any different.

[Lemur866]

@Rubystreak

So what you’re saying is, the guy doesn’t like tomndebb, he Pits the guy… therefore, he must be off his meds and needs psychiatric evaluation? Based on this and some thread you think you remember from a while ago? WTF?

Did you read what I wrote? I didn’t diagnose Valteron as cuckoo-bananas because only a crazy man would contradict the sainted Tom. It’s not that he’s disagreeing with Tom. But he seems upset vastly beyond what any reasonable person could be with Tom, including all sorts of grandstanding.

And given that I know that Valteron has discussed his psychiatric issues in the past…in OTHER THREADS, such as when he posted that his previous hysterical complaints about the moderation of his suicide threads a couple of months ago were the result of his medication being off…why is it insulting to sugget that his current baseless complaints about Tom might have the same source?

Look, Valteron isn’t just complaining about Tom being a dick, or Tom being a catholic apologist. He’s doing it in an irrational way. Maybe he’s irrational because he’s an idiot. Or maybe he’s irrational because he’s literally irrational.

And I wouldn’t presume to “diagnose” anyone this way except for Valteron’s previous self-diagnosis, and his disclosure earlier that he’s bipolar. I have no problem with bipolar people posting, we have plenty of valuable contributors here who have at one time or another disclosed that they are bipolar. So when a poster who I already know is bipolar seems to go off the rails in an irrational manner, suggesting that there’s a connection isn’t irrational, is it? People sometimes go off the rails, and to point and laugh at them when they do seems a bit mean spirited.

[Lemur866]

Here’s the thread I was remembering:
“An apology and thanks from formerly suicidal Benzo-addict Valteron”

An apology and thanks from formerly suicidal Benzo-addict Valteron

[Oy]

@Liberal

I took a six month break, got some perspective, and came back. Thanks for noticing a difference.

I responded to this before, but the hamsters appear to have been hungry…

I could hardly help noticing! If you had always posted like this, I think you would have the stature of a tomndebb or a Polycarp (to use your two examples). Unfortunately, you still have some people out there who haven’t figured out this new and improved model, and are treating you as if you were as you were before, which you definitely are not!

Maybe the Mods would let you change your user name again, so that you wouldn’t have to lug around that old baggage as much.

In any case, I am delighted for you. You really do sound SO much more at peace and happier with yourself and therefore the rest of the world.

[Rubystreak]

Liberal: Yes, it makes sense. I agree tomndebb has earned the respect he has and a lot of people want to defend him. I think it’s a bit excessive in this case, and mean-spirited. Especially if you think Valteron is mentally unstable, right? Why taunt the guy?

Oy!: No problem. You’re not being ad hominem or mean, so I could argue with you forever (not that I want to) without it being a problem.

@Bridget Burke

So–you understand why someone might not like tomndebb.

No, didn’t say anything about liking tomndebb. I gave reasons why someone might take issue with his posts, or feel that he is being condescending and dismissive in his religion posts, or worse, an apologist for Catholicism. It’s not personal to me. Maybe it is to the OP, esp. if he thinks the board is condoning that treatment. He’s not the first person to bring this up, btw. Apparently anyone who takes issue with tomndebb is automatically a nutcase to be scoffed at and blown off.

Because anyone bent out of shape by their encounter with Catholicism has a right to react irrationally to a moderate & rational explanation of Catholic doctrine. Forever.

Oh, you’re trying to bait me into getting into a fight with you, aren’t you? Not gonna do it, baby. You’re putting words into my mouth and I think you’re doing it deliberately. Please don’t.

In defense of the OP, tomndebb can be dismissive, and act as if the letter of his dogma is all that matters, ignoring the reality of the situation of how the doctrine is disseminated and implemented in the real world, and who is responsible for that. I have never excused bad behavior on the part of any poster, or advised anyone to promulgate inaccurate information or get emotional in GD. The OP was getting emotional in the Pit, which I think it just fine. Apparently no one agrees with me and thinks it’s fun to kick Valteron around, riding the I LURVE TOMNDEBB bandwagon into the sunset. Lame.

Perhaps those “recovering” Catholics need to get over it. Sure, oppose what you think the Church has done wrong–but a whiff of incense is no excuse to act like a fool.

Maybe the OP has acted like a fool in other threads. He isn’t acting like one in this thread. Maybe he should just “get over it,” but who are you to tell him how to handle his abuse and pain? Granted he shouldn’t vent on people who are just trying to offer facts, but it might seem to the OP like just another Catholic doctoring the spin. It happens all the time, it’s belitting, and it’s been a problem with those rebuttinng criticism of the RCC for a long time. Maybe it’s not fair to lump tomndebb in with all that, but it’s a real phenomenon in the world and that could have caused the OP’s reaction. Thought maybe context would help explain the OP’s anger. But hey, if you just want to hate on the guy, nothing I say is going to stop you, right?

I was raised Catholic but dropped The God Concept many years ago. However, here in the Bible Belt, I’ve been known to enlighten people who learned about the Church from Jack Chick pamphlets.

Aren’t you just soooo enlightened. When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :rolleyes: Come on, do you really think the absurd pile-on in this thread was decided it would be in like, post #2 is justified?

[Rubystreak]

So when a poster who I already know is bipolar seems to go off the rails in an irrational manner, suggesting that there’s a connection isn’t irrational, is it? People sometimes go off the rails, and to point and laugh at them when they do seems a bit mean spirited.

I don’t think he’s gone off the rails in this thread. Maybe in others, and that’s what you’re reacting to. I’m not quite seeing it here. I am seeing a lot of people being disproportionately fucking nasty, though.

[Oy]

@Rubystreak

Liberal: Yes, it makes sense. I agree tomndebb has earned the respect he has and a lot of people want to defend him. I think it’s a bit excessive in this case, and mean-spirited. Especially if you think Valteron is mentally unstable, right? Why taunt the guy?

Oy!: No problem. You’re not being ad hominem or mean, so I could argue with you forever (not that I want to) without it being a problem.

Thank heavens! It’s amazing how often people can’t seem to distinguish between a rational disagreement and a fight.

@Rubystreak

Aren’t you just soooo enlightened. When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :rolleyes: Come on, do you really think the absurd pile-on in this thread was decided it would be in like, post #2 is justified?

You are being a tad ad hominem or mean here. I don’t think Lib deserved that. That’s not like you; why don’t you take a break from the thread for a while and cool down? I can easily understand how a whole bunch of people disagreeing with you, and some of them being a tad rude about it might get under your skin - it would certainly get under mine!