[dsc]

You know, some people—no one here on FR, of course, but some people—might think that a distinction between (a) insulting through indirection, and (b) insulting directly, is either moronic or hypocritical. No one on FR would think such a thing, of course. Here on FR it is abundantly clear that a statement such as, “Cannibalism is part of the Catholic faith” is in *no* way insulting toward any Catholic, because no specific person is directly indicated.

Here it is obvious that a statement such as, “Do you know, a person could go mad, believing there is a conspiracy behind every corner... “They’re out to get me”...famous last words of a nut.” is in *no* way a statement that the person to whom the poster is speaking (a) is insane, (b) believes that there is a conspiracy behind (sic) every corner, (c) suffers from delusions of persecution (“They’re out to get me”), and (d) is a “nut;” which is to say, insane (again).

Everyone else in the known universe would take such a statement in exactly that way, but here on FR we know differently; we know that there is a clear distinction between insulting a person indirectly like that and directly insulting them, for instance by using the words, “you are (such and such).” The first type of insult is perfectly acceptable, while the second constitutes “making it personal.” Some people—no one here on FR, of course, but some people—might say something stupid like, “Since the person is equally insulted in either case, what’s the difference?” We know better, of course. We know that the indirect insult is perfectly civil.

Further, despite the fact that prefacing a statement with words such as “you know,” or “do you know,” is not an inquiry regarding the listener’s knowledge, but is rather shorthand for, “Are you aware of the fact(s) that…”, at least in the English language as spoken on planet Earth, here on FR those words indicate that whatever follows is a question—even when it is in the form of a statement. Of course, no one on FR would dream of pointing those things out, because to do so might give rise to the totally mistaken impression that the speaker is implying that the moderators are either biased or stupid, or both, and we all know that can’t be true.

Yes, it is a great comfort to know that, here on FR, anyone can say anything they like about us so long as they have their copy of “Quotes of Oscar Wilde” ready to hand, and so long as they are able to couch their insults as indirections that *seem* to be directed at no specific person (wink wink, nudge nudge). It is a great comfort to know that however obvious it may be that those indirections are in fact insults directed at a specific poster, the mask will remain in place, and no sanctions will be levied.

Some people—no one here on FR, of course—might go so far as to think, mistakenly and maliciously, that the level of the posts and the intelligence of the posters have declined markedly over the past ten years (What kind of loon would think that, eh?), and might—astounding as it may be, and remember that no one here on FR would think such a thing—think that the completely hypothetical and fictional style of moderating not described above was a major factor in that completely imaginary flight of those who make the totally unreasonable request of intellectual honesty in moderation.

Some people, eh?

[smvoice]

And are you aware that some people-no one here on FR, of course, but some people-purposely try to begin a flaim bait war by (a)insulting directly by calling someone a "troll" and "a DU member", and (b)insulting through indirection. And then running to the Religion Moderator to register a complaint when that person answers their nonsense? Can you believe that? It seems a daily game to some. Go onto a post,pull a plug on an insult grenade, throw it, and run to someone in charge, complaining that the post is full of grenades. Amazing, I know, that some would be so juvenile. But it may be all they have in life. No debate to speak of, just throwing grenades.

Some people, eh?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Thank you dcs. That’s one of the best posts I’ve ever seen on the Religion Forum. Its sums up the silliness so well, I’ve copied and pasted it to my profile page for posterity.

[OpusatFR]

Thank you, dsc.

Very good and thoughtful post.

[D-fendr]

Nailed it, DSC...

[Alex Murphy]

Some people—no one here on FR, of course—might go so far as to think, mistakenly and maliciously, that the level of the posts and the intelligence of the posters have declined markedly over the past ten years (What kind of loon would think that, eh?), and might—astounding as it may be, and remember that no one here on FR would think such a thing—think that the completely hypothetical and fictional style of moderating not described above was a major factor in that completely imaginary flight of those who make the totally unreasonable request of intellectual honesty in moderation.

And don't let the imaginary door hit them on their hypothetical way out.

[Salvation]

Thanks, FRiend!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58

[Mad Dawg]

FWIW I view the problem differently. One purpose of rules is, so to speak, to keep bloodshed down to a minimum.

Rules cannot always inculcate or ensure virtue any more than the rules of football can make people gentle and ensure a pain-free game.

And it is part of our fallenness that when we see rules we tend to test their limits. How many of us, seeing a “55 MPH” sign, think it means, “Keep it under 60 MPH.”

So the rules of the forum will not be used as encouragements to charity and gentleness but as outer limits to permissible verbal cruelty. If we don’t like the way our antagonists express themselves, even when they comply with the rules, we can appeal to them and to our Lord. But I don’t see how we can expect of anyone who says “simul justus et peccator” that he stop being a sinner.

We Catholics have a burden not shared by Protestants, to bear all things,to endure all things, and when we see gross injustice from our antagonists to remember that we also are unjust.

This is not some treacly piety and I make absolutely no claim whatsoever to any success in following my own opinion.

Yeah, they’re sinners. So are we. Yeah, they sometimes seem to set out to cause pain. Even if one day with a straight face I could claim to be innocent of that sin, I still hope I would remember the pains of St. Francis and the pains of our Lord and TRY to accept this as part of the gentle yoke which I pretend to shoulder willingly.

So, yeah, it’s irritating. Were we ever told that it would be otherwise?

[bronxville]

Thanks dsc...well said.

[Quix]

THANKS THANKS THANKS.

When RC folks post things that are absolutely contrarian nonsense, 180 degrees from the truth, spirit and heart of a matter . . .

it helps us Proddys understand better how Roman Catholics can become so addicted to the Maryolatry stuff.

The current Rel Mod brought sanity and massively greater civility and plain WORKABLENESS to the Rel Forum with his categories, policies and definitions of what was kosher and what was not.

PRAISE GOD FOR SUCH ANOINTED WISDOM--IT WAS LONG NEEDED.

Of course we realize that such ANOINTED WISDOM on the part of the Rel Mod

does NOT prevent some RC's from their !!!CONTROL!!! freak full court press efforts to !FORCE! FR into becoming an arm of the Vatican directly controlled from a cubicle in the Pope's offices--strictly complying with all their petty sensibilities and thin-skinned preferences. Perhaps it's long overdue for the lot of them to stay off the open threads.

It does, however, make such efforts a bit more absurd and laughable.

However, if some RC is now proclaiming himself/herself to be the new Solomon for the planet--or perhaps merely bucking for the Rel Mod position--by all means, let JimRob know. Perhaps he'll be impressed enough to bow and scrape before such loftiness.

/sarc

[1010RD]

Outstanding post.