Back, by dope demand

17 04 2010

You didn’t think I’d gone, did you?





Does IMWAC have something to hide?

7 02 2010

Deleted forever? Or maybe not

The IMWAC yahoo group’s archives and member information have disappeared, causing consternation to one of its members and most prolific posters, George Bouchey.

[IMWAC-english] Can’t read archives‏
From: Offline imwac-english@yahoogroups.com on behalf of george (xxxxxxxxxxx@comcast.net)
Sent: 06 February 2010 23:17:09
To: IMWAC-english@yahoogroups.com
 

Now in addition to having lost the ability to Forward when reading at Yahoogrouops.com, I also cannot read the Archives. What goes?
pax – george

I can tell him what goes and the most likely reason it has disappeared: this blog.

This blog has reproduced posts from the IMWAC list, which is after all a public forum, in the interests of transparency and accuracy. And plainly the IMWACers don’t like it.

I can’t really work out why they don’t like it – if you’re not confident of what you’ve been saying on a public forum, why say it at all? If you don’t have any faith in your arguments, why articulate them publically? Or more to the point, what does IMWAC have to hide?

As I’ve indicated before, this sort of behaviour is foolhardy. For one thing, I’m the kind of person who never throws things away. IMWAC posts get sent straight into an email inbox and there they stay, my own personal archive of IMWAC posts in all their glory. Secondly – and how many times do I have to say this? – you can’t censor the internet and it’s pointless trying to do so.

The other thing thing this rather desperate attempt to halt the flow of information points up is what a tiny fringe clique IMWAC is. IMWAC flatters itself that it is an international movement, hence the “I” and “M” of its acronym but if it really were such a thing its members’ positions and ideas would be common currency. They aren’t and it isn’t.

The truth about IMWAC is that is a miniscule unrepresentative group of libertines and eccentrics whose ideas are based on junk history that spend their time impotently railing against the Church they claim to be loyal members of. That IMWACers feel the need to delete their own yahoo group archives goes to show just how secretive and creepy an organisation it really is.





WAC Job

7 02 2010

Valerie’s put in a lot of hard work over the years slagging off the Church and its pastors, organising the disgruntled and holding bring and buy sales for the cause. And now it’s paid off with one of her letters being published in Wednesday’s London Evening Standard (page 43). Result or what?

Pope Benedict is no stranger to political gaffes

Really? News to me. Maybe Valerie means “gaffes” where other people would use “newsworthy” or “made headlines”

and the reporting of his latest comments on equality legislation will remind many Catholics

Valerie the seer – how does she know what many Catholics will be reminded of?

of the centuries when we were regarded in this country with suspicion as outsiders

Wahey! This is one of Mad Val’s trademark leaps of logicShe jumps from a) Pope said something to y) Catholics don’t want to go back to the bad old days without going through the intervening stages of her argument. 

Ordinary Catholics have no wish to return to those times and much prefer being able to play a full part in British society.

Bad old days. I’m ahead of her here as she starts battering her argument into submission.

We much appreciate the endeavours of our UK Church leadership in this regard since the Second Vatican Council.

Brown nosing … and then the implied criticism.

Discrimination on the grounds of gender, class or sexual orientation has no place in a modern society or the religions associated with it.

Subtle. Not.

What Valerie did was set up a classic straw man argument. No one disagrees with the sentiments she expressed in that sentence, certainly not the Church. Despite Valerie’s nasty implication, the Church does not defend discrimination on the grounds of gender, class, sexual orientation or ethnic origin (something Valerie strangely missed out) but she does insist on her right to ordain those who fit its theology, that is celibate men as well as employ people in sympathy with its aims and objectives, much like a political party or tiny pressure group like IMWAC, come to think of it. Speaking of which, why don’t I wack my impressive CV over to Valerie and make a speculative application for the position of campaign strategist in chief?

We Are Church holds no brief at all for immorality, abuse or other offences against the dignity of the person.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, hic, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha  … She cannot be serious.

We believe that provided any criteria of membership are met, a job should be given to the best possible candidate.

Notice that “any criteria of membership”.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, hic.

Sorry. Who is she trying to fool?

We should also question whether UK taxpayers, fewer than a million of whom actually attend Roman Catholic services, should be asked to fund this year’s papal visit over and above the usual costs of a state visit.

Don’t you just love that “over and above the usual costs of a state visit”? There are no costs associated with the Pope’s visit over and above the usual costs of a state visit. Wot. A. Dunce.

If we Catholics wish the Bishop of Rome to join with our bishops in a pastroal visitation, we should be prepared to pay for it.

We Catholics? I mean WE Catholics?

Who on earth does Valerie think she’s fooling?

Valerie Stroud is not a Catholic of any stripe whatsoever. In fact, I see no evidence that she’s any kind of Christian at all. I think she’s a middle-class libertine wannabe wrecker who has tried using some hopelessly crude entry tactics to get her own way and when they predictably didn’t work – c’mon, it’s the Church we’re talking about here – she went into a prolonged temper tantrum. Some of us think that the sooner she emerges from that infantile disorder the better it will be for her and everybody else.

Valerie wrote one of her bonkers letters to the Evening Standard





So, talking about discussion group and blog ethics

3 02 2010

How’s about if you try complaining about me and the fact that I have exercised my legitimate rights of expression, criticism and scrutiny – and you’re on a losing game if you think you can censor the internet – then I’ll be straight on the blower to Yahoo’s HQ about the things which’ve been said in a public forum about other people.

There is another way to do this, of course: MY way, which involves vigorous argument and frank, democratic debate.

My pledge to you

So long as you don’t libel anybody, I will not censor you, delete you or in any way attempt to control what you say and how you say it.

If you think I’m being unfair to you or am wrong about something, you leave a comment here on this blog leaving an email contact and I’ll get back to you and then we can thrash it out between us.

You can’t say I’m not being fair to you. I’m being fairer than you’ve ever been to others who’ve dared disagree with you. But there you go, I believe passionately in freedom of speech, which I contend is the best and only guarantor we have of discovering the truth. On this I take my stand. The rest is up to you.





What that “honest and hardworking” woman wrote the other day

3 02 2010
[IMWAC-english] Stand Up for Vatican II has got the fundamentalists buzzing.‏
From: Offline imwac-english@yahoogroups.com on behalf of We Are Church (UK) (xxxxx@btinternet.com)
Sent: 31 January 2010 23:24:39
To: wearechurch@yahoogroups.com; wac-info@yahoogroups.com; IMWAC-english@yahoogroups.com; IMWAC-COUNCIL@yahoogroups.com
Cc: ‘Bernard Wynne’ (xxxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.co.uk)
 

Hi Everyone,

The Daily Telegraph, a respected newspaper in my youth, employs Damien Thompson to write a fundamentalist blog on its website. There is also a woman “in private vows” called Name of Blogger who writes a blog called XXXXXXXXXXX. They are so outraged by Catholics for a Changing Church’s spearheading of the Stand Up for Vatican II campaign that they have found the time to create a rather nasty website of their own.

Do visit http://gcc4vat2.co.uk/ and laugh. Don’t get angry. It ishighly offensive but mature adults are used to turning a blind eye to the juvenile antics of the young. I rather go along with the PR adage: “No publicity is bad publicity” You would have to be pretty stupid to give this spoof website any credibility.

The real CCC site will be found at http://www.ccc4vat2.co.uk/

You know what, Valerie, you should make sure you’ve got some pretty damn good evidence for the claim you made about that second blogger.

And if I find out you’ve started a flame-war against them, well I shall be very disappointed in you indeed.

Say hello to Bernie Wynne for me, by the way.

Kisses,

Garnet Silk.





A muppet writes

3 02 2010

IMWAC-english] RE: discussion grop (sic) ethics‏

From: Offline imwac-english@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Mary Ann Hain (xxxxxxxxxxx@comcast.net)
Sent: 03 February 2010 00:51:27
To: IMWAC-english@yahoogroups.com
 

Is their (sic) not a way to report such behavior to Worldpress (sic) England and ask that this person be blocked?

Block me for what, exactly? Telling the truth?

I think Mary Ann Hain doesn’t really “get” the idea of free speech and exciting new things like the blogosphere.





Ooh!

3 02 2010

Someone from a certain anti-Catholic organisation spent six minutes and two seconds looking at this blog yesterday.

Heh heh heh

Chaps, I’m flattered.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.