MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 [quote]I don't want you to be banned, Morph, in fact, I'd hate to see it. I just want you to be respectful. [quote]QUOTE No one was getting nasty of anything, it was closed becoz it wasnt pro-us admin, and im getting sick of it. [/quote] No, you were being overtly anti-US admin and in a hateful, defamatory way. Stop trying to drum up sympathy by posting your problems with the rules, you're not going to get it. I'm closing this thread, too. [/quote] To answer this, since if i do in Lame board, raphael will yet again close it and or delete it. First part. - I am respectful, to those that deserve it. Second part.- Wrong again. I do not hate anyone, and it wasnt in a defamatory way, thats the way you got it, not the way I done it. Second part is a person attack by him. I wasnt after that. or anything like that.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 You were using negative criticism and in implying that I am censoring you, you are doing it again.
qfnol31 Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Blah. dUSt is a good person to go to. This seems very out of place.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 23 2004, 04:25 PM'] You were using negative criticism and in implying that I am censoring you, you are doing it again. [/quote] You were censoring me. Go to the Lame board. You closed every thread that has anti-us-admin statements. Here it cant be done, coz ur not a moderator. This is my only safe-guard.
qfnol31 Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Well, why don't you discuss what you want to discuss instead of censorship?
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 23 2004, 02:14 AM'] You were censoring me. Go to the Lame board. You closed every thread that has anti-us-admin statements. Here it cant be done, coz ur not a moderator. This is my only safe-guard. [/quote] Please note the distinction, for the last time, Paul. Anti-American sentiments do not get me to close threads unless they are negative criticism.
Scofizzle Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Morph....just chill dude...first off its not that big of a deal....secondly as an American I was very offended when you said that 9/11 was caused by our own Gov't. But reagrdless. There is no need to judge our country based on the actions of a few decades ago. If this were the norm, how many of us would be Catholic? There have been problems within the leadership of the Church and we don't judge the entire institution we recognize the fallibilty of human beings.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 23 2004, 04:45 PM'] Well, why don't you discuss what you want to discuss instead of censorship? [/quote] becoz censorship was apart of the problem..LOL Hopefully it cant be now, since he isnt a mod here, although i wouldnt be surprised he gets the rank now.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 23 2004, 02:40 AM'] becoz censorship was apart of the problem..LOL Hopefully it cant be now, since he isnt a mod here, although i wouldnt be surprised he gets the rank now. [/quote] Goodness gracious, so now I'm in it for rank? Paul, this has gone too far.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 23 2004, 04:58 PM'] Please note the distinction, for the last time, Paul. Anti-American sentiments do not get me to close threads unless they are negative criticism. [/quote] [b]Phorum Guidelines[/b] [b]Prohibited Content:[/b] [b]Negative Criticism of Other Religions-[/b] a post or comment that negatively criticizes (as opposed to constructively criticizes) a different religion in a way that is harmful to open ecumenical dialogue. "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 838 [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?act=boardrules[/url] [b]NOTHING[/b] there about being anti-us admin. Nice try Raphael, but being Anti-US Admin, and posting negative comments is NOT a banning or valid warning reason.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 23 2004, 02:43 AM'] [b]NOTHING[/b] there about being anti-us admin. Nice try Raphael, but being Anti-US Admin, and posting negative comments is NOT a banning or valid warning reason. [/quote] Please read my statements carefully. As I said, you can criticize the US Administration. I don't care. You cannot, however, do it with negative criticism, as you have been doing. Negative criticism [b]is[/b] a valid reason.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Scofizzle' date='Sep 23 2004, 05:06 PM'] Morph....just chill dude...first off its not that big of a deal....secondly as an American I was very offended when you said that 9/11 was caused by our own Gov't. But reagrdless. There is no need to judge our country based on the actions of a few decades ago. If this were the norm, how many of us would be Catholic? There have been problems within the leadership of the Church and we don't judge the entire institution we recognize the fallibilty of human beings. [/quote] I said pentagon, not 9/11. The Pentagon attack has to many ??? around it. Again, I dont know if this in your mind all the time or what, but just because someone doesnt support your gov, doesnt mean they hate your people, please keep that distinction, americans cant seem to get that, i dont know why. -> And No I wasnt being sarcastic, but its what I have noticed and many others on boards and chats.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 23 2004, 05:13 PM'] Goodness gracious, so now I'm in it for rank? Paul, this has gone too far. [/quote] nvm, u wont get it.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 23 2004, 05:15 PM'] Please read my statements carefully. As I said, you can criticize the US Administration. I don't care. You cannot, however, do it with negative criticism, as you have been doing. Negative criticism [b]is[/b] a valid reason. [/quote] How the heck does that make sense?? Still their is no such rule. So its still [b]INVALID[/b].
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 23 2004, 02:48 AM'] How the heck does that make sense?? Still their is no such rule. So its still [b]INVALID[/b]. [/quote] Only in the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is against negative criticism. dUSt simply wrote only about negative criticism of other religions because he did not anticipate political discussion. Negative criticism of any kind, I suspect, would be prohibited by dUSt himself.
MorphRC Posted September 23, 2004 Author Posted September 23, 2004 Dont give me that "Spirit of the Law" junk. I can bag the US-Admin as much as I want with sources and quotes, and you cant do anything. Criticism IS NEGATIVE, it has a negative sense. THe End.
qfnol31 Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Morph, you keep getting on Raph. Either debate what you wanted to or don't. If you think he's censuring you, fine. However, you keep going on and won't do what you say you want to do. This is crazy.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Sep 23 2004, 03:04 AM'] Dont give me that "Spirit of the Law" junk. I can bag the US-Admin as much as I want with sources and quotes, and you cant do anything. Criticism IS NEGATIVE, it has a negative sense. THe End. [/quote] Criticism needn't be negative. For instance, "your use of negative criticism troubles me. Perhaps if you would lighten things up and not use blanket statements, things would be more positive," is a positive criticism because it points to your actions, not you, and sets up a plan to help you resolve the problem.
cmotherofpirl Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 There is nothing wrong with criticism [positive or negative] if done in a polite manner. Cite your sources and use good manners. Remember, however, this is not a political board, so fixating on government behavior unless it is related to the Church really shouldn't be here.
MartinLuther Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Gday Morph, I think you were actually negatively critcising a religion - Americanism - a religion that is believed just as strongly as catholicism (if not more strongly) by many posters on this board. Cheers ML [quote]America is a religion US leaders now see themselves as priests of a divine mission to rid the world of its demons George Monbiot Tuesday July 29, 2003 The Guardian (UK) "The death of Uday and Qusay," the commander of the ground forces in Iraq told reporters on Wednesday, "is definitely going to be a turning point for the resistance." Well, it was a turning point, but unfortunately not of the kind he envisaged. On the day he made his announcement, Iraqi insurgents killed one US soldier and wounded six others. On the following day, they killed another three; over the weekend they assassinated five and injured seven. Yesterday they slaughtered one more and wounded three. This has been the worst week for US soldiers in Iraq since George Bush declared that the war there was over. Few people believe that the resistance in that country is being coordinated by Saddam Hussein and his noxious family, or that it will come to an end when those people are killed. But the few appear to include the military and civilian command of the United States armed forces. For the hundredth time since the US invaded Iraq, the predictions made by those with access to intelligence have proved less reliable than the predictions made by those without. And, for the hundredth time, the inaccuracy of the official forecasts has been blamed on "intelligence failures". The explanation is wearing a little thin. Are we really expected to believe that the members of the US security services are the only people who cannot see that many Iraqis wish to rid themselves of the US army as fervently as they wished to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein? What is lacking in the Pentagon and the White House is not intelligence (or not, at any rate, of the kind we are considering here), but receptivity. Theirs is not a failure of information, but a failure of ideology. To understand why this failure persists, we must first grasp a reality which has seldom been discussed in print. The United States is no longer just a nation. It is now a religion. Its soldiers have entered Iraq to liberate its people not only from their dictator, their oil and their sovereignty, but also from their darkness. As George Bush told his troops on the day he announced victory: "Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," and to those in darkness, "be free".'" So American soldiers are no longer merely terrestrial combatants; they have become missionaries. They are no longer simply killing enemies; they are casting out demons. The people who reconstructed the faces of Uday and Qusay Hussein carelessly forgot to restore the pair of little horns on each brow, but the understanding that these were opponents from a different realm was transmitted nonetheless. Like all those who send missionaries abroad, the high priests of America cannot conceive that the infidels might resist through their own free will; if they refuse to convert, it is the work of the devil, in his current guise as the former dictator of Iraq. As Clifford Longley shows in his fascinating book Chosen People, published last year, the founding fathers of the USA, though they sometimes professed otherwise, sensed that they were guided by a divine purpose. Thomas Jefferson argued that the Great Seal of the United States should depict the Israelites, "led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night". George Washington claimed, in his inaugural address, that every step towards independence was "distinguished by some token of providential agency". Longley argues that the formation of the American identity was part of a process of "supersession". The Roman Catholic church claimed that it had supplanted the Jews as the elect, as the Jews had been repudiated by God. The English Protestants accused the Catholics of breaking faith, and claimed that they had become the beloved of God. The American revolutionaries believed that the English, in turn, had broken their covenant: the Americans had now become the chosen people, with a divine duty to deliver the world to God's dominion. Six weeks ago, as if to show that this belief persists, George Bush recalled a remark of Woodrow Wilson's. "America," he quoted, "has a spiritual energy in her which no other nation can contribute to the liberation of mankind." Gradually this notion of election has been conflated with another, still more dangerous idea. It is not just that the Americans are God's chosen people; America itself is now perceived as a divine project. In his farewell presidential address, Ronald Reagan spoke of his country as a "shining city on a hill", a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. But what Jesus was describing was not a temporal Jerusalem, but the kingdom of heaven. Not only, in Reagan's account, was God's kingdom to be found in the United States of America, but the kingdom of hell could also now be located on earth: the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, against which His holy warriors were pitched. Since the attacks on New York, this notion of America the divine has been extended and refined. In December 2001, Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of that city, delivered his last mayoral speech in St Paul's Chapel, close to the site of the shattered twin towers. "All that matters," he claimed, "is that you embrace America and understand its ideals and what it's all about. Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was ... how much you believed in America. Because we're like a religion really. A secular religion." The chapel in which he spoke had been consecrated not just by God, but by the fact that George Washington had once prayed there. It was, he said, now "sacred ground to people who feel what America is all about". The United States of America no longer needs to call upon God; it is God, and those who go abroad to spread the light do so in the name of a celestial domain. The flag has become as sacred as the Bible; the name of the nation as holy as the name of God. The presidency is turning into a priesthood. So those who question George Bush's foreign policy are no longer merely critics; they are blasphemers, or "anti-Americans". Those foreign states which seek to change this policy are wasting their time: you can negotiate with politicians; you cannot negotiate with priests. The US has a divine mission, as Bush suggested in January: "to defend ... the hopes of all mankind", and woe betide those who hope for something other than the American way of life. The dangers of national divinity scarcely require explanation. Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced, like George Bush, that it possessed a heaven-sent mission to "liberate" Asia and extend the realm of its divine imperium. It would, the fascist theoretician Kita Ikki predicted: "light the darkness of the entire world". Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only to engineer a hell. [/quote]
Recommended Posts