Posted on 12/12/2009 5:14:04 AM PST by Kolokotronis
As I have no desire to converse with you, I prefer that you not post to me. But it's a two-way street, and so I avoid posting to you.
Nonetheless, I could see what the difficulty was within your post, and thought that by posting the information as to what was happening that it might prove helpful.
Without encouraging you to post to me.
sitetest
You wrote:
“As I have no desire to converse with you, I prefer that you not post to me. But it’s a two-way street, and so I avoid posting to you.”
I know. But don’t you think it is odd to post to the thin air rather than simply post to me when it is for me that the post is intended?
“Nonetheless, I could see what the difficulty was within your post, and thought that by posting the information as to what was happening that it might prove helpful.”
It might be useful. One thing that would make it more likely to be useful is that I see the post. I only saw it by accident. In the future, if you feel compelled to post to me, then actually post to me.
“Without encouraging you to post to me.”
I don’t need encouragement to post to you. When I feel like posting to you, I do so. When I don’t, I don’t. Your desire to have me post to you, or your complete lack of desire to have me post to you, doesn’t enter into it.
“I know. But don’t you think it is odd to post to the thin air rather than simply post to me when it is for me that the post is intended?”
Yes, a little odd, but so what? It seemed the best way to handle the circumstances.
“It might be useful. One thing that would make it more likely to be useful is that I see the post. I only saw it by accident.”
It seemed reasonable to think that that “accident” was likely to happen, as you're posting to the thread. And indeed, it did actually happen.
“I don’t need encouragement to post to you.”
I was being polite.
“When I feel like posting to you, I do so. When I don’t, I don’t. Your desire to have me post to you, or your complete lack of desire to have me post to you, doesn’t enter into it.”
That would be disappointing, if true. I've asked you not to post to me in the past, and it's generally considered proper posting etiquette at Free Republic to respect those wishes when expressed, as long as the requesting party reciprocates in refraining from posting.
sitetest
You wrote:
“Yes, a little odd, but so what? It seemed the best way to handle the circumstances.”
What circumstances? You want me to know something? Tell me. You want to avoid communicating with me? Then don’t communicate with me. There are no circumstances here for you to wrestle with. Simply make a choice. Either post or don’t, right?
“It seemed reasonable to think that that “accident” was likely to happen, as you’re posting to the thread. And indeed, it did actually happen.”
It seems more reasonable to just post to the person you hope sees the post.
“I was being polite.”
Posting to thin air when you intend it for me doesn’t seem polite.
“That would be disappointing, if true. I’ve asked you not to post to me in the past, and it’s generally considered proper posting etiquette at Free Republic to respect those wishes when expressed, as long as the requesting party reciprocates in refraining from posting.”
And yet there you are posting to me - by name now. Sitetest, I think you need to simply make up your mind. If you post something I think is interesting enough to respond to I’ll do it. And by the way, I don’t mean that as some sort of insult as if your posts are boring. That’s not what I mean at all. This is a public forum. If you want to post, do so. If you don’t, don’t. If you want to post something to me, then do so - to my name, so I’ll see it. No matter how rude you might believe me to be, I would at least direct that rudeness right to you by name (yes, I’m actually kidding about the rudeness!). But I will post directly to your name since I intend the post for you. That seems most reasonable.
Dear vladimir998,
Please don’t post to me anymore.
Thanks,
sitetest
Test.
Not likely. Heretics were to be tried by an ecclesiastical court and, if found guilty, turned over to the state for execution. No Catholic ecclesiastical court would have had jurisdiction over a Russian national of Orthodox faith anyway.
The Spaniards in the New World didn't generally go around torturing to death native pagans who were resistant to conversion anyway; why would they do it to an Orthodox?
The Spanish military, in possession of a suspected Russian spy, trying to extract information under torture, though ... might be a different matter.
May this Holy Martyr to the faith, pray for all who suffer because of their love of Christ. In Jesus’ name.
That evening, the Jesuits came to the prison with lanterns and lighted candles. Again they tried to persuade two Aleuts in the cell to accept the Catholic Faith. ‘We are Christians,’ the Aleuts replied, ‘and we will not change our Faith.’
Well, well. It's not just us nitpickey Protestants that talk like that.
Thank you for the rest of the story. I certainly hope and pray that Fr. Junipero Serra had no knowledge of this atrocity! As a native born daughter of CA, I have always revered him and his work.
Also, I am surprised that there were any Aleut Christians of that period. Again, something that is missed in teaching history to children which, in this country, is often organized on a state-by-state basis with emphasis on what happened in the particular state where the child is living. IOW, Californians learn about the Spanish missionaries and the gold rush, whereas Alaskans may learn about their early history and New Yorkers spend a lot of time on how Peter Stuyvesant bought Manhatten for $24 worth of glass beads.
As a Californian, I did learn about the Russian influence in northern CA. There even was a beautiful Russian chapel from the 1700s still in existence on the coast north of San Francisco when I was a young woman. I guess it marked the spot where the Russians met the Spaniards!
I visited it with my children and marveled at the condition of the unpainted wood — redwood, of course — that had aged to a soft silver. No rot. Perfectly preserved. Quaint carvings and embellishments. Unfortunately, it burned to the ground a couple of years later. 300 years of history gone — poof! In a puff of smoke. I can’t remember the name of the chapel (it was in a State Park) and I don’t know if the cause of the fire was ever determined.
Here’s a link to a good article from the Library of Congress on Alaskan Natives and the Orthodox Church.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/russian/s1a.html
Thanks for the link. Interesting. After viewing the pictures, I think I’ll get out my fur coat for church tonight. It’s cold enough! Catherine II was pretty and not intimidated by fur!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.