With all due respect, Polycarp, I think your comment was inappropriate

In this thread:


which contained a discussion between Cyrin and Kirkland, Cyrin made some statements that could be taken as anti-Catholic. Kirkland took offense at the statements and requested an apology, and Cyrin did so. Kirkland than accepted his apology, noting that he would continue observing the other’s posts, to see if he was sincere, or actually anti-Catholic, but that he suspected the latter.

Your statement after that seems to me to be uneccesarily provocative, and inappropriate.

Annnnd…the reason you couldn’t just e-mail Poly about this is because…?

Addy for Poly.

Ick, that sounds like an American Girl doll story. “Addy and Polly”.

Which post was it? I don’t see anything from Poly at your link that’s inappropriate.

I’m assuming it’s this:

Or, I dunno, here’s another thought, you could have maybe posted your comment in the thread itself?

I’m sorry. I probably should have. Honestly, I just didn’t think of it. I’m so used to people’s e-mails not being public, I forgot to check, and since the Pit is the place for flaming other posters, and since this is, technically, a flame, I felt it would most appropriately go here.

Lib, I felt the comment:

was inappropriate, given that the disagreement seemed to have been settling down on its own, as well as Kirkland’s previously stated vehement dislike of fundimentalism. It just seemed like a really provocative statement to me.

I and several others who are on the same side of an arguement with Kirkland have repeatedly tried to get him to stop with the frothing. I also don’t find Polycarp’s post as inappropriate.

(Sorry, didn’t see this when I previewed)

I considered posting the comment in the thread itself, but I was worried that that would be a further hijack of the thread.

Well, first of all, Captain, I don’t see where Cyrin apologized. What he/she wrote was so backhanded and qualified that it doesn’t fit into the mainstream definition of “apology”.
I also don’t see where Kirk accepted the apology. The closest he came was “so you say.” Kirk evidently didn’t believe the sincerity of the “apology.”

So, the fight certainly wasn’t over. And Polycarp came in and expressed his opinion on the fight.

Isn’t that what people do in GD?

DDG, why should this have gone to email? Certainly that is one valid response, but oh Captain, my Captain chose another valid response - to call another poster into the Pit for a post Captain found offensive.

I don’t agree with Captain’s interpretation of events, and I thought I’d be posting from Mars before I ever saw Poly get Pitted, but there is certainly nothing wrong with Captain chosing the Pit route, regardless of Poly’s (well-earned) reputation here.


Captain Amazing, if yer gonna get upset about that one comment of Poly’s, then you might want to line up a whole bunch of people who have made similar, if not much worse, comments to Kirk.

FWIW, if anything.

I don’t think that the comment cited in the OP was inappropriate, but the fact is Polycarp has been a little snarky lately, as evidenced here and here, both of which are condescending drive-bys in otherwise benign threads about college athletics and Title IX. He really seems to have some kind of bug up his ass when it comes to Universities and sports, as shown by his less than constructive posts.

Maybe that halo could use a little more polishing.

I think Poly is wrong to defend Çyrin’s hateful anti-Catholic statements (as we all know, I tend to consider anything less than the visceral pummelling of a bigot to be defense… for better or worse). But I took no offense at his statement, I was just mildly shocked.

Poly has seen me in these fights for years now. He should know how they end, that you can never trust these people, that they lie and cheat to get their way and then turn on you the moment you show them your back.

You can’t forgive those who are unforivable, and I won’t bend over backwards trying. Not anymore. I learned that lesson at the Pizza Parlor: any fundamentalist who you don’t leave broken and bruised to the point of incapacitation is a fundamentalist who will later turn on you to your own detriment. Treat them like you would treat an angry, venomous snake.

If Çyrin were to have the character to recant his attacks on the person of the Pope and the faith of Catholics, then I’d consider his apology potentially valid. But, being a lying sack of shit like all fundamentalists, he likely doesn’t even have a passing acquaintance with the concept of “character,” so I’m not going to hold my breath…

I know no one on the board likes me, and I don’t pretend to be Mr. Good Person Man. But i sleep well knowing, no matter what, my enemies are worse than I am.

But Poly isn’t like that. He’s a very good person, who was trying to make a point. A year ago, I’d probably have listened to him. The world has taught me too much since then to wear rose-colored glasses now.


Interesting perspective.

I suspect that it is more likely that when one is faced with a large number of like minded people, arguments and discussion points that are effective with, say, 80% of them will still fail with the remaining 20%. (The failures, of course, may be due to anything from a simple failure to find common language right through to willful, obstinate, obtuseness.) It may be, in those cases, that one remembers those one has failed to reach as if they were the whole of the group.

However, resorting to broad brush tarring of any group only makes one’s own position look weak. There have been a number of devout Fundamentalists who have posted to this SDMB and the AOL/SDMB that preceded it who always spoke in Christian charity. There were certainly points of theology on which we would never agree, be we were quite capable of respecting each other’s persons and learning aspects of spirituality from each other.

I am quite happy to excoriate nine-commandment Christians when I find them bearing false witness–although I do try to distinguish between the person who knowingly lies from the person who is fully persuaded of their erroneous belief. I have also made reference to “fundies” on occasion, when a Falwell or a Robertson is caught spewing their own forms of hatred.

However, I’m afraid that I find comments such as I have quoted from you, here, both unChristian and unCatholic (for all that we might find examples of “Catholics” such as Fr. Coughlin or Fr. Feeney or Archbishop LeFebvre making them).

Should I, a lying sack of shit, go prepare to be bruised and beaten to incapacitation now?

Many of which have been, given Kirk’s somewhat aggressive manner toward people of faith, entirely justified.

Oh, and Beeblebrox? Watch out for casting those stones, man. “Let he who has never been snarky . . .” :wink:


Because posting any Pit thread is an invitation for a Pit Pileon, and it seems particularly pointless where the offending poster is someone who doesn’t normally inspire Pit threads, who’s a real peach and an ornament to the SDMB and an all-around just-this-short-of-saint-Nice-Guy.

And the resultant pileon seems *extra-*pointless when the OP’s rant, as such, is so lame, and the offense seemingly so trivial.

But hey, Poly’s a big boy, I’m sure he can handle this, I’ll just offer my services to hold his jacket if he wants.

[Beeblebrox, you’re a total nit, and you can tell your mom I said so.]

How about I try for unnecessarily provocative?

Kirk, you’ve gone way too far. You know, there is such a thing as being loving toward your neighbor, as featured prominently in the Bible. Even the fundamentalists are your neighbors. I’m not saying that you must agree with them by any means, but you might want to try being charitable.

And andros, I think somewhat agressive is an understatement, at least as evidenced in this thread.

Hey, I never said I wasn’t. :slight_smile: Hell, smart ass comments are a signifigant part of my posting repertoire on this board. I know that. You know that. Anybody who has ever read any of my posts and the lame jokes contained therein knows that.

I keep that type of post in the pit and out of GD, however, which was my point.

Duck, I may be a nit, and probably a lot worse, but I disagreed with the OP and said so. You conveniently left that part out when you quoted me. I do not think Poly’s comments to Cyrin were inappropriate in the thread the OP linked to. However, Poly has annoyed me recently with his condescending remarks in the two threads I linked to and it must be admitted that his comments there were out of place. I brought it up here because I figure Poly will find this thread eventually and explain himself, which he failed to do in either of the other threads.

Maybe I should have taken it to e-mail instead of “piling on” as you so innacurately put it, but I suspect I was not the only one annoyed with his attitude. By posting the links here I am allowing him to explain his attitude to us all, instead of just me

It’s certainly not my intention to provoke a pile-on. I have the greatest respect for Polycarp, as both a poster and an individual. I just felt, in this particular case, the comment seemed inappropriate, especially because the (also, and probably more inappropriate) personal conflict going on in the thread between the two posters previously mentioned was ending. Of course, I realize I might be misinterpreting the entire situation, and if I am, I sincerely apologize. I have noticed, though, a disturbing trend in Great Debates, where too often, people react emotionally to threads instead of logically, and, what should be a debate turns into acrimonious exchanges and hurt feelings.

I do not have an “aggressive manner” towards “people of faith,” unless you count fundamentalist human tumors as the only “people of faith” in this world.