I’d have to agree if only for the most excellent archaicism! And an extraordinarily “Catholic” one!
As you saw, I spoke as an individual and as one who was not directly attacked by his statement (an advantage to having converted before this happened). Each person who was hurt by his words must approach it in his own way. I merely offered guidance in one way of looking at it. You would be far from the first person to not follow my guidance. In fact, following it is more the exception than the rule.
BTW, thanks for the explanation of why it’s not a joke.
Thanks, dropzone. The scary thing is that I didn’t necessarily intend it that way . . . now you’ve awakened memories of my mates taunting me that I would convert to Catholicism sooner or later . . .
I was all set to do it when my daughter started going to my new church! Yes, I would recommend any fence-riding or even “fallen”* Catholics give you Anglicans a look, too, but our food HAS to be better!
Made the mistake to suggest to parishoners who were told to make the Sign of the Cross as they entered the church Palm Sunday and were murmuring “How do you do a Sign of the Cross?” to follow the lead of the Fallen Catholics in the congregation. Wife pointed out (pointedly) that I am no longer “Fallen” and should describe myself as “Reformed.”
My response:
[list=A]
[li]One should never assume what the behaviour of another person indicates unless one knows the other person very well.[/li][li]Decisions on who is/is not suited to be a moderator are not made by the general board population, but by the SDMB staff.[/li][/list]
Um, I don’t know about you, but I would MUCH rather be called a goat fucker than a pedophile.
A goat fucker is usually just a creative, nonsense phrase. Calling someone a pedophile is insinuating that they molest children. BTW, if you were serious-you could get someone into a whole host of trouble-legal wise. I wouldn’t reccomend it.
For the record, guys, I do forgive manny. As for his status on the board-well, that’s for the admins to decide. Obviously, he’s upset-as am I. I don’t know what to do about the church, either-I rarely go.
However, at the same time, those who continue saying that those of us who are Catholic are no better than molestors themselves can lick me.
By Manhattan’s own admission, he went into hiding over the weekend because he was struggling with his issue, and, presumably, didn’t feel ready to face his fellow posters after making an egregeous insult that he knew to be wrong. Since that time, he has made only one post, for a grand total of two posts in five days. He used to be an active poster, though–this brand spankin’ new software tells me that he normally posts on the order of six posts per day.
Given what Manhattan has already admitted, and given the fact that he really ought to be participating more on the boards simply by virtue of his job description (as a moderator), is my speculation really all that unreasonable?
Furthermore, it’s not necessary to come at me with the officialspeak, Arnie. I suggested that manhattan himself summon up the courage to resign as a moderator–not that you get involved in any way. I hope manhattan recognizes that his crisis of conscience will be a little easier to deal with if he isn’t having to continually defend his position of authority, a position in which–whether you acknowledge it or not–he has done a great deal to damage his own credibility. Likewise, his decision whether to resume duties as a moderator would be his own to make, not yours. Again, I would suggest that he make that decision after addressing the concerns of his constituents raised here.
As an aside, Arnold, I think it’s becoming clear that the authoritarian management model is extremely suboptimal–whether in business, government, or, yes, church affairs. For example, we can see that the American bishops’ efforts to cover up and close ranks in the face of priests’ behavioral problems did nothing to cure those problems and indeed put the leaders in a facilitating role for continued transgressions.
I won’t say anything else except to note the ironic parallels already pointed out by some others in this thread.
FWIW, I think we should just stop dumping on manny. He appologized, it seems like he’s taking some time off to collect his thoughts.
This is a painful issue. Struggles with one’s faith can be painful-I can attest to that. So just let it go, all right? When someone appologizes, you don’t throw it back at them!
And yes, he DID appologize. Explaining WHY you did something doesn’t take it back. I for one appreciate the fact that he did explain WHY he said what he said. It helps us to understand one another.
Doghouse - you even say in this most recent post “presumably”
and Arnold had politely pointed out to you that to presume some one else’s motivations and reasons for behavior is very risky unless you know that person very well.
you don’t.
Neither do I.
You called his recent lack of posting ‘cowardice’, chosing an especially issue laden word to describe what is simply speaking ‘the lack of posting’.
you can presume to know, guess at, make some stab at understanding, but to fucking label his actions as ‘cowardice’ is flat out ignorant, based on insufficient data.
I would suggest that instead of speculating, you ask him via e-mail. If he is willing to give you an answer, he will.
I think you did suggest that I become involved, and that the population at large become involved also - to quote your words:
(emphasis mine)
I disagree with you. In any company I’ve worked with, the decision to choose managers / CEOs / etc… is not done by popular vote, but by the current managers. In the past, my experience has been that SDMB posters (and also current staff) have suggested possible candidates for moderators (e.g. post in ATMB saying "so-and-so would make a great moderator) and then the staff weeds through the suggestions. IMHO this is a good combination of consulting the “will of the people” vs. the “authoritarian management model.”
In addition, I will state that if we were totally unconcerned with opinions of the Teeming Millions, we would not have bothered to close the previous thread or discussed it amongst ourselves, as the staff did. If we wanted to cover up the issue, we would close this thread also and post “discussion of the matter must cease.” I have not noticed that this has happened.
Please tell me where I ever used the word cowardice, or implied it for that matter. If you can’t come up with an example, don’t you think you owe me an apology? I said–and I still think it’s a reasonable assumption–that manhattan’s ineffectual apology has left his conscience still burdened, and he is probably dealing with those issues of conscience before coming back to post here. The fact that you equate this with cowardice says a lot more about you than it does about me, or about manhattan for that matter.
Actually, my failure to follow up is nothing more than a confluence of IRL events that kept me away from the boards for a couple days. I feel bad that that happened at a bad time SDMB-wise, but I’m not going to apologize for it.
To those who think my explanation subtracted from my apology – I didn’t intend that, but I’m not going to apologize for that either. I simply felt it more honest to go into more detail.
Guin, thank you. Among other things, for initially giving me more credit than I earned. Good luck with your fight.
hmm, judges? can one reasonably say that Doghouse ‘said or implied’ cowardice by using words like “afraid” or phrase like he should ‘summon up the courage’?
Um, hello?? Did you fail reading comprehension? Nobody has said that. It is obvious that the catholic church (the organization, not a sweeping generalization, including everyone to the last member) has condoned and defended both the crime, and the clergy who have committed it.
Continued membership in the organization supports the organization that supports the behavior, REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINIONS ON PEDOPHILIA.
Remaining a member, and continuing (assuming you do pay tithes and/or offerings) financial support, of the catholic church, even though you hate pedophilia, is like saying you’re a member of the KKK even though you hate racism. Whether you like what they do, by continuing to associate yourself with the group (and call yourself a part of it) you tacitly condone the group’s actions. No matter how loudly you proclaim your “issues” with the church, your (that’s you collectively, not just you) continued membership and support condone their coverup of the rapes in the same way that the coverups condone the rapes themselves.
That is what Manny said. He did not call you a pedophile, neither did I and neither did anybody else on this board. I’m certain that you’re not a pedophile. In fact, you’re probably a wonderful person (nevermind that the total of my experience is to the contrary). But that doesn’t change the fact that the RCC covers up child molestation by its clergy, and that by remaining a member you are supporting it.
And an insult is an insult is an insult. Throwing insults at people with the intent to make them angry is being a jerk. Period. It doesn’t matter if you think the insult is funny or not. Damn hypocrites. “When I call you X, it’s funny to me and I’m not being a jerk. When you call me Y, you’re being a jerk.” Whatever.
The Catholic Church has defended the crime? Perhaps you can clarify for those of us whose reading comprehension is not up to snuff how it’s reasonable to infer that the RCC has defended the practice of pedophilia. Covering up the act–a despicable practice itself–is not the same as defending the act. In fact, if there is any reasonable inference, it is that cover-ups are associated with the belief that an act is indefensible.
And it’s still not clear to many of you that Catholics believe that the Church is a body established by Christ, an unbroken line that survives all through God’s love and protection. The Church does not equal the hierarchy of the Church, nor is the Church defined by the actions of any individual or group of individuals within its body. You can choose to believe otherwise, but Catholics believe the Church is immortal and transcendent of any individuals’ acts.
That does not excuse the acts of those in the hierarchy. But it’s obvious you don’t understand a Catholic believer’s faith when you ask variations of “How can you belong to a Church that has members who have committed atrocities?” We can despise the acts, we can feel betrayed by our leadership, without for a second doubting the message of the one fully true faith. To understand what “the Church” means is to understand that it cannot be abandoned.
What was that about reading comprehension again? It seems they can teach a drooling masturbating chimp how to type, but they can’t make him understand the words on the screen.
Go back and re-read - or have someone who can understand the words read it and explain it to you - and you will see more than your over-simplified “When I call you X it’s funny” bullshit. That was one opinion. There was more to it than that.
The ones you seem to have chosen to ignore are dropzone’s post, milroyj’s post where he/she agrees with dropzone, and my entire response to Darwin Finch’s question. The other opinion is: It’s less to do with what is found humorous than what the poster being insulted has done as a member of this online community to bring the insult upon himself. Guin has done nothing to be told she was a member of a child sex cult. Justify it and rationalize it all you want, but that’s the bare bones of what was said. It was insulting and unjustified.
In this case, I’m insulting you because you’re acting like an ass. Your statements contradict themselves, as I will explain presently, and you make cracks about about reading comprehension when you ignore one enitre side of the discussion. I feel justified in insulting you and calling you a moron, because you’re certainly acting like one.
Now you want to start calling people hypocrites? Take a look at what you just posted yourself, Joe:
**
Yet you think manny was justified in the wording of his opinion of the RCC by calling it a child sex cult and no apology was necessary? That insult doesn’t seem worded to piss people off in your mind? He didn’t compare it to a child sex cult, he didn’t keep the accusations to the heirarchy that made the decisions involved. He flat out said the RCC was a child sex cult and called a member of the boards a member of that cult, which can be seen as an accusation of molestation by association against Guin. She may be a member of the church, but calling her a pedophile because of what a select few did without her knowledge is insulting, unjustified, and unfair to Guin. So you didn’t think an apology would be called for there? I see an unjustified insult there. Pull your head out of your ass, you’re obviously not getting enough oxygen.
And your own words again:
This is not an insult towards Guin meant to get under her skin? It certainly can be construed as an insult, ergo by your own definition, you are being a jerk.
An understandable fear and a need to summon courage for (what what I would actually regard as a rather) noble act is not the same as “cowardice”. A struggle with conscience is one of the hardest undertakings any of us will face, and I think manhattan is making a valid go of it. Again, the fact that you equate the the inevitable fear and need for courage that comes when facing one’s conscience with “cowardice” only illustrates how little understanding or experience you have of it.
Think of a soldier in Afghanistan about to enter a still-intact cave to search for surviving al Quida. Is he afraid? Certainly. Does he need to muster courage in order to enter that cave and do his job? Absolutely. But he overcomes that fear and musters that courage, which stands as the very reason that we thereupon call him brave. Only very little boys still playing with pop-guns will say, “ooh, you said he’s afraid, that means he’s a coward, nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah boo boo!”
Welcome aboard. Normally I’m happy that people join us. However, if you only joined for a driveby insult, please don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
