For any of you who might be interested, my last comment, censored by Jeff on his blog was "I invite any reasonable person to decide if I fit"touchy old bastard" better than he fits "arrogant little twerp. No syncophants, please"
More on this in the days ahead.
Anna. Almost finished moving. My non-RCIA reception was excellent. Priest even payed for the good work of my previous church (anglican) in nurturing me in the Christian faith. My crusade took almost three years but with the help of you and others, I maintained my integrity. It was worth it, as several catholics told me in the last few days. Much more later. Thanks, thanks again. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you know what this symbol means?
ReplyDelete:-D
It's called a smile, Jack. As in, "you're a touchy old bastard, granpa", or "hey doting uncle, you sure are a touchy old bastard today..." Could you have made the least effort to put the remark in context with what followed in the text before flying off the handle? Apparently not, but this has been your pattern throughout. Just thought I'd throw that in, before you bug everyone else we both know about this.
As for your statement I invite any reasonable person to decide if I fit "touchy old bastard" better than he fits "arrogant little twerp" why limit people to one or the other? Why can't BOTH be true?
Yeah, I',m big enough to apologize. My cousin RCA who mike claims is a fake saw this and said "Jeff was joking" RCA has worked with computers for years and is strongly anti-catholic and he had the nerve to say "Jack, the guy was trying to be nice." I did not know what that symbol meant. So my apologies. Of course I did not fly off the handle. Check your own recent post and see if it meets that mark of Christian charity that you seem desirous to protect.My comments have been sincere, direct, and to me quite inoffensive. But apparently you do not like my style. In the next few days I'm goinng to say, as a Catholic, very directly what I think. Incidentally , I did not catch the smile, but apparently you have overlooked the lavish praise I have given you. So I need to learn blog 'shorthand' and you need to read my comments in full.You obviously don't like to be disagreed with, but it doesn't bother me.
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteApology accepted. I apologize as well. I should have known better. Written communication can be so easily misunderstood, it was foolish of me.
Do I dislike being disagreed with? Perhaps. Then again, I don't know a lot of people who do like it. I spent my first couple of years on the web doing apologetics. I've had dozens of lengthy online debates. It's not unfamiliar to me to do that, but ultimately, I didn't see much utility in it either. I saw that in most cases it tends to harden people within their preconceived positions and to breed resentment and bitterness. People who enjoy disputation rarely if ever change their minds. Most of my posts on the blog are meant to stimulate discussion, but not necessarily debate. That's not the main point of it. Life holds enough troubles for us without us going out looking for it all the time.
Was my last post a model of Christian charity? No, probably not. I don't claim to be a saint Jack. Most of my correspondents, whom you've now insulted by labelling "sycophants", are well aware of how sinful I can be, and what category of sins they are. I'm no celebrity. I've got a handful of people who post regularly and over 2,000 who have taken a look and decided I'm not worth the time.
Yes, I'm responsible for what gets said on my blog, but so are you Jack. You deny that there has been any character assassination perpetrated upon me? September 5, Blog Closed... "The arrogance and cruelty" of some bloggers. That's a reference to me. On September 2, Maybe Will Meet Again... "I was subjected to the most scurrilous attack I have experienced in 47 years of debate both verbal and written."... "maybe the other blogger thinks he can intimidate or blackmail jack."..."it is hard for me to understand you can't see the 'knife' for reasons which i won't repeat.", etc... On Liam's blog, it was a post about my "smug superiority." All of this on your blog, my blog, and other blogs (blogs of my friends)without mentioning my name directly, but eventually everyone figured out who was being spoken about, and some felt manipulated.
At the same time, a promise to open a new anti-Catholic blog - "JACK's new blog : Catholic Sin {sex is nasty} should be up and running within a week or two", and a guest appearance by someone you yourself describe as anti-Catholic. All of this was less than helpful. You're doing it again this week... Posts to Garpu, Crystal, Kevin. Other people do not appreciate being drawn into these battles between us, I assure you. As for Mike... Yes, he happens to be a friend of mine. I've known him longer than I've known you. I didn't advise him to email you, but I think he was inspired to do so in order to defend me and to defend our Church.
The most scurrilous attack in 47 years? Jack, you know that is hyberbole. You were a union steward, for crying out loud. If what I said was the most scurrilous attack you ever suffered, I'd have to commend you on living a charmed life indeed.
Yes, Jack, I've seen the laudatory stuff and kind stuff you've said about me too, but can't you see why this vacillation between being lionized and villified would be confusing and troubling to me? I feel like I'm on eggshells all the time with you. I'm not that important. I'm truly glad that we had discussions that were fruitful and helpful, but you make too much of it, much in the same way as you make too much of our disagreements.
Jeff. I do not make too much of what you did for me. I told you three things that had bothered me for years: one that I had made a bad decision at 22 which had always troubled me. Two,I had had some troubled dealing with the death of my father when I was sixteen. Three,I had some serious guilt feelings over my attitude at the death of my son 4 years ago. You, Jeff, listened and it changed my life.
ReplyDeleteNow Jeff you have dealth rather harshly with me at times, it seems to me. When I refered you to an article about candidates and converts, it seem to me there was some ridicule in your response. Your immediately taking the side of Mike in our little dispute did sting. Your comments about 'secrecy' could, and I repeat could, have been directed at me. Your blunt dismissal of me for not automatically accepting your interepretation, I felt was not completely fair. Your banning me from your site had happened before on a traditional site when I objected to the physical beating of my sister in law for being made to say the rosary on her knees a few hours before she died. Oh, your comment to 'leave me alone' was most hurtful.
Yes, I did feel compelled to note to three of your 'commenters'that I felt your comments were harsh--not knowing the 'smile' symbol.
So maybe i spoke of the speck in your eye and mimized the mote in my eye.
Now in the days ahead, when I speak very bluntly of my take on catholicism, I will wind up with making many angry. Discussions are between people; ideas do not 'discuss' of themselves, they have a human medium.Sometimes an exchange of points of view, must, of necessity,involve into "you are wrong, and this is why I think you are." This may involve saying "I think you are prejudiced," "I think you are being unfair" etc. These do not offend me--a sharp reply does not mean I hate you.
I guess the above describes the differences in style I have refered to. The refusal to even hear another side is not my style, nor in your heart do I believe it is your style.
I must close in a way you object to. You, Liam, Anna and maybe others are in the forefront of my gratitude. These discussions have been most serious to me---not just "fun" arguments. Jack
Jack
ReplyDeleteYou, Jeff, listened and it changed my life.
Jack, I was glad to be of help. Sincerely. I mean that. Truly I do. That wasn’t a problem, but on the other hand, I am not you “confessor”, and I do not “know more about you than you know about yourself.” I don’t. That’s an objective fact. I don’t, and to claim otherwise publicly is a burden that you shouldn’t put on anyone else’s shoulders.
Now Jeff you have dealt rather harshly with me at times, it seems to me. When I refered you to an article about candidates and converts, it seem to me there was some ridicule in your response.
And it seems to me that when I told you about the circumstances of my sister’s death, it barely registered a ripple with you. Hardly a bump. It was right back to feeling indignant about minor slights you thought were being directed your way. I was quite taken aback by that.
Your immediately taking the side of Mike in our little dispute did sting.
He’s my friend. What can I say? If the dispute was about me, and Mike took my side, you can’t really blame me for taking my own side, can you? He came to my defense, and for that I am very grateful to him.
Your comments about 'secrecy' could, and I repeat could, have been directed at me. Your blunt dismissal of me for not automatically accepting your interepretation, I felt was not completely fair.
OK, let’s go back to the beginning on this.
You told me some details about your life on my blog, and we had a fruitful and very pleasant discussion about it. That was fine. That was great.
A short time later, a comment was posted on my blog from your computer saying that you had been incapacitated. That you had suffered a seizure.
That day, and for several days after that, however, I noticed that there were hits from your computer all over the different posts on my blog. Knowing that you wanted to keep your story confidential, I frantically went back and scoured the comments, deleting the ones that I thought you would want to keep secret from other eyes.
I thought I was doing you a favor. I thought I was watching your back.
I had no idea whether you knew about this or not. I didn’t know if you knew that someone was using your computer while you were away. How was I to know?
See what happened, Jack? You told me a secret, and I was put in the position of having to protect it.
When I went on vacation, I read a lengthy book about the abuse crisis and the Church. A serious lesson to be gleaned from the book was the danger of secrecy, and from not dealing with things openly. Yes, it colored the way I was thinking. Anna had that right. You know the saying… “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”.
I took a quick look at the blog while I was away, and noticed that you had put up another ‘anonymous’ post or two. I asked you not to, asking if we had gotten past the point of secrets. I didn’t know if you were going to say something else confidential, that might be picked up on by someone else using your computer.
So, Jack, instead of an indictment, I wish you had read it as a friendly warning, because that is what it was. Alice was posting at that point just as much as you were. You didn’t want to receive emails. What was I supposed to say about it? How was I supposed to communicate this to you?
The moral of the story, children, is that a married man should divulge his secrets to only one person, and to one person only - his WIFE.
Anway, even if it had been an indictment, asking some to stop using secrecy is in no way, shape, or form, comparable to calling someone cruel and arrogant on multiple blogs. It is not. That is also an objective fact.
Oh, your comment to 'leave me alone' was most hurtful.
“Respectfully, and without rancor”, is what I believe I said.
Being called cruel, and arrogant, and smugly superior, and of having concealed ‘knives’ in my remarks was hurtful, especially after I had tried so hard to watch your back. Having my friends commiserate with you before knowing that it was me you were talking about was hurtful. Are you capable of feeling anyone else’s pain besides your own?
Now in the days ahead, when I speak very bluntly of my take on catholicism, I will wind up with making many angry.
Why do that? What the hell do you want to do that for? You claim to have just entered the Church. Everyone is entitled to a rant now and then, but have you ever had anything positive to say about the Catholic Church on this website?
Discussions are between people; ideas do not 'discuss' of themselves, they have a human medium.Sometimes an exchange of points of view, must, of necessity,involve into "you are wrong, and this is why I think you are." This may involve saying "I think you are prejudiced," "I think you are being unfair" etc. These do not offend me--a sharp reply does not mean I hate you.
Wrong! That’s entirely wrong. That’s not the way to hold a discussion or a debate. Discussions between people should be about ideas, not the people who hold them. It’s perfectly legitimate in a debate to point out why you think someone is wrong, and what is wrong with the idea. When a discussion becomes personal, when ad-hominem attacks are used, when a person’s motivations and a person’s character are attacked, that is usually a sign of a lost cause, and inevitably leads to a breakdown in the discussion. In the abortion discussion with Mike and I, that is the route you took immediately.
These discussions have been most serious to me---not just "fun" arguments. Jack
You know, life is short, and it is serious. Facing cancer? You, of all people, should be well aware of that. As for me? I have a demanding job and a large family. Every day has serious challenges and tasks. Sorry, I look to have a little fun now and then. I don’t want to be earnest on the blog all the time.
If you’re raring to have tooth-and-nail debates about the merits and demerits of Catholicism, there are many apologetics forums out there for you to choose from. There is the Catholicism Debate board on Beliefnet, the Catholic Answers Apologetics Forum, Jimmy Akin, Steven Ray, David Armstrong’s Cor Ad Loquitor, and many others. I suggest you try one of those.
Jeff, well I guess there is no hope. I have had health problems that did not allow me to post. But I am certain that anyone who posted on my blog had my permission. I believe they always identified themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I did not comment more on your family problems, which I said made mine look small. What more could I have said. I thought I was doing the right thing.
I truly appreciate your efforts to keep me anon. and I NEVER used that to deceive you. You did say 'leave me alone'. And there are other statements in your last comment that I believe have been taken out of context, not on purpose I am sure.
You are a 'cradle' catholic, I assume and that gives you the right to claim certain advantages. I am not a catholic by birth--but you see that gives me some weight in a discussion as well.
Neither of us is all wise. I think we might have benefitted from each other, For example you say personal feeling have no place in a discussion then say you sided with Mike because he was your friend. You seem to imply that, unlike you, I cannot comment on catholocism because that is a "new" faith to me.
Well friend "forgive me my trespasses". Jack