Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Suspended From Catholic Answers

Well, it only took me 10 years to get suspended.

Old Today, 7:52 pm
Suspended
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 799
Religion: Reformed
Default Re: Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spina1953 View Post
I think that I am smart enough to know the difference between facts and uncouth remarks and spin.
If this is about me, which I think it is, I am not the subject of this discussion, nor have I made any of you the subject of this discussion. Rather, I've asked factual questions about the material being posted, and a lot of these factual questions I've raised, if not most of them, have been ignored.

Yes, I'm sure you all think it was some sort of anti-catholic rant I went on to receive this badge of honor. Nope, I got it for asking the moderator about 3 or 4 times why he allowed personal attacks against me that were off-topic to the actual discussion. He never responded, unless of course you count being suspended.

 Here's one of the notes I sent him:

Since I've contacted you now a few times about these personal attacks, am I going to get another infraction for abusing the alert system?

I would hope not. Frankly, if you have a moment, I would appreciate you letting me know why you allow personal negative comments about me to be posted. Perhaps you have a good reason, or perhaps I don't understand the rules. An explanation from you would probably cut down on me sending you these alerts. I know I've pointed out 3 previous posts that were about me personally, and not the subject matter of the topic at hand. All are still visible on the forums.

Elsewhere on CA I found the following:

"It should also be noted that Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation. In fact, Catholics are often held to a higher standard. As our Lord cautioned, "To whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48). Here at CAF, we believe that the truth will take care of itself. Our job is to reveal it as charitably as we can."

I can  understand Catholic Answers suspending me for some severe violation of the rules, but what it really comes down to is that they don't quite know what to do with someone who plays by their rules that they don't like. They'll allow someone they don't like to get lynched by their Lord of the Flies mob mentality.

17 comments:

explorer said...

Their banning policy is strange.

I knew one person who posted an atheism question which sounded a bit too much of an "attack" on the Christian faith and he got banned. Interestingly, their forums banned topics on Atheism for a period from about 2005. I last visited it in 2012 or 2013 and atheism topics was still banned. The ban probably still stands.

I have also heard interestingly on RadTrad discussion boards that CAF despise the Dimond brothers so much that they ban topics even about the Dimonds debating James White on Sola Fide.
Some sedevacantist also got banned due to "agenda to propagate MHFM Cult" (see here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholic-answers-sits-in-darkness/#.VBAdy_mSzoE)

Don Stein said...

I've never questioned CAF moderator action until now. I had read about uneven enforcement of the rules from other bloggers, but hadn't seen it first hand. I chalked it up to silly complaints of angry fringe posters.

The action taken after this most recent round of Luther bashing certainly seems unfair to me. You never attacked anyone in that horrendous thread, but two other [Roman Catholic] posters were permitted to personally bash you, Luther, me, entire denominations and synods -- heck, even other Roman Catholics for not being "Catholic" enough!

The suspension policy is simply mystifying. I'm thinking of one particularly vulgar Roman Catholic who ought to have been banned months ago. But instead, he's permitted to continue bashing all his sworn enemies on his self-appointed, one-man crusade. (Well, two man. He has a poorly-educated parrot of a partner and the two have their own conversation throughout threads.)

Most disheartening to me, is that Armstrong - who I've come to largely respect (exception being the disjointed and infamous 'Luther List') - joined seemingly only to take the 'side' of the uncharitable posters. There was no search for truth about Luther the man.

CAF had become one of my daily internet haunts. I enjoyed the calm discussions and camaraderie of fellow Christians. Today is a sad day for me.

James Swan said...

I can appreciate the support from both of these comments, but keep in mind, anything you write publicly here that's positive about me in any way can and may be used against you by other bloggers.

The stated reason I was suspended was for sending in too many alerts to Mr. Hilbert. I think I may have sent him three alerts, all on different posts (maybe it was 4 posts, I don't recall). All the posts were about me personally in some regard and not about the topic. All of them are still visible on CAF.

I never asked him to ban or suspend anyone. I simply asked why the posts were being allowed (as explained in blog entry here) and if I understood the rules correctly. Mr. Hilbert never wrote me back.

A few weeks ago this sort of thing started up, and a few of my posts in which I presented a meager defense were removed, whereas the actual personal posts about me were kept. I was also contacted by Mr. Hilbert asking me to remove the link to my blog under my personal profile, which I did. I asked him then why he was allowing personal stuff to be posted, and he did not respond. So, this started back on Aug. 25.

I'm not sure what Mr. Hilbert's reasoning here is. I can only conclude that's it's not consistent with the stated rules and also the expressed statements on charity found all over CAF. He may have some other good reason for his actions that he's not allowed to share. There is a way to appeal stuff like this via CAF, but it's not really a battle I want to pursue. No, I'll take the suspension- and if I do return, I will certainly keep it in mind that the rules of charity do not apply to me, and I'm not allowed to use the alert system, and anything said about me personally is allowed.

In the meantime, I may post a few of the interactions here on the blog- like some of the blatant anti-contextual information that was posted that I asked for clarification on, and never got any.

FWIW, I was pleased to come across a few people participating in the discussion that were willing to look at facts and evidence without making it personal. One woman actually started a discussion thread asking for me for dialog on some interesting subjects, and the moderators removed the entire thing. I don't get that either.

Perhaps it's because of my involvement with Dr. James White? I don't know.

Lloyd Cadle said...

The only time I have ever been banned from any website was from the "Heidelblog".

Scott Clark can write stuff against Catholics that are as scholarly as the likes of a Dave Hunt (remember him?) or a Chuck Mistler but you are not allowed to respond.

But as long as you suck up, and think and bash like he does, you are welcome on his website.

He did respond via his personal e-mail, but he clearly did not want any un-Reformed, pro-Catholic stuff to be heard. With him, on his site, it is his way or the highway.

By the way, Catholic Answers has regular time slots on their radio program for non-Catholics at least once a week. As long as one doesn't use profanity, they take all comers.

James Swan said...

Well, Mr. Cadle, welcome to my little friendly blog. It's been quite a while.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Thank You!

Pete Holter said...

It is too bad when the exchange of ideas gets stifled. It doesn’t happen on James Swan’s blog! James, I enjoyed the series that you did on Tetzel. “During his illness Luther was moved to pity, and sought to console him by writing that the matter had not been begun on his account.” Sad. Love will bring us back together.

With love in Christ,
Pete

James Swan said...

Hi Peter,

You've always been one of the bright lights in regard to Roman Catholicism. you've always given me hope that people can disagree with each other and not make it personal.

Now your comment, implying that I'm fair, sets you outside the pack, for sure. I'm very sorry if you get maligned or attacked for your words. There are only a few people, who I refuse to interact with or won't allow to comment here.

Lloyd Cadle said...

James -

Good point. Back in the day-when I was Reformed, a great friend that I worked with for seven years was a devout Catholic (he still is), and I used to go to lunch almost every day.

He used to defend Catholicism and I would defend Reformed theology. We never fought but had respectful conversations. We both learned a lot.

That is what I like about Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers. The boat can be sinking, you can take shots at his theology, but he doesn't take it personally and responds with intellegent answers. He wins a lot of folks that way. Tim Staples also does the same. By the way, It seems like Tim Staples has the whole Bible memorized.

James Swan said...

Mr. Akin is one of the best in terms of pleasant demeanor. Mr. Staples has gotten better over the years.

PeaceByJesus said...

This is just another example of the cultic devotion and immaturity that is typical of so many RC apologists.

Of course, when you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of official RC doctrine, as your basis for assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, then those who substantively appeal to such examination are considered threats.

And CA too often deals with them as if they are disgruntled inquisitors who long for the means of their old job.

explorer said...

"This is just another example of the cultic devotion and immaturity that is typical of so many RC apologists. "

Jimmy Akin attempted to defend JPII receiving the cow dung mark of shiva on his forehead from the hindu priestess by claiming absurdly that the hindu priestess was a catholic woman giving a traditional indian catholic pre-mass greeting.

Jimmy Akin's attempted defense of JP2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aDMFTBcfZg

Refutation of Jimmy Akin's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8nrMDtX9_0

James Swan said...

OK, riddle me this Batman:

The moderator who suspended me, who would not respond to any of my requests for moderation, who allowed me to be attacked, who wouldn't even write me back to let me know what was going on, has just posted the following on CAF:

Eric Hilbert
Moderator

Join Date: September 30, 2009
Posts: 6,315
Religion: Catholic

Something for all of us to remember:
Pope Francis: correction without charity is 'a slap in the face'

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=908655

Now, if anyone can explain this guy, I would really like to hear it.

PeaceByJesus said...

Now, if anyone can explain this guy, I would really like to hear it.

As what one does constitutes what one really believes, (Ja. 2:18) then it means that,

A. "Charity" means whatever Rome and thus a RC says it means, so that charitable correction means banning a challenging but carefully code-abiding adversary, just as burning "heretics" who believed akin to you was doing what was best for them (i was told this).

B. The "charity" part of the correction was toward others, eliminating a threat to the steady flow of propaganda, and warning others what happens when you get too close to the target.

C. The mod is another RC who interprets the pope to confirm to his interpretation of Rome, as part of the unofficial mighty Internet magisterium that criticizes evangelical for interpreting their own supreme authority.

Let the voting begin.

James Swan said...

I think option D is I've been a vocal critic of CA materials and personalities, so there's no hope for me to be brought into Romanism, especially since I've contributed blog entries for Dr. James White.

Option E is the moderator really doesn't care about rules or being fair, but enforces the arbitrary appication of the rules because of time restraints. The moderator could care less who I am, but rather spends as little time as possible keeping the forum in order.

I think it's either of these, not sure which one.

Peace and Faith said...

I just want to say, I do not believe there is an alleged "board of moderators" in Catholic Answers Forum. I think there is ONE DUDE who does LITTLE ELSE than spend ALL of his days on CAF, so he feels its HIS, and he feels ENTITLED to do WHATEVER HE WANTS.

He has created a series of psudo-moderators to boost his importance, and particularly to DEFLECT ALL CRITICISM and ALL ACCOUNTABILITY for his actions. Notice, the "mods" all sound EXACTLY LIKE him. Check it out. They are are ALL curt and judgmental. To the EXACT SAME degree.

Not one of them posts on forums. Have you ever seen a forum where you know NOTHING about ANY of the moderators and NONE of them chat on the forum? No. Haven't you noticed on every other forum you get a "sense" of the differing personhoods of the different moderators, because they all speak with a unique voice that it theirs alone? Yes.

The ONE CAF dictator-moderator is LYING when he says there is a "board" of busy moderators, when its JUST HIM. He has "retired" one or two of his fake moderators, the rest, male or female fakes that they are, NEVER take a break from the forum, year after year. "They" are all there DAILY. Sound fishy? It is.

No, there is no "board of moderators" at CAF, as that one man lies to everyone that there is, and Catholic Answers shamefully allows this. This is a one single man who considers himself the King of CAF, and he LIKES banning people, ESPECIALLY people that sound smarter than him, or holier than him. Its all about what HE likes.

I cannot believe Catholic Answers puts up with it. Why do they turn a blind eye to the forum with THEIR name on it? Its not right.

The list of "Banned" at CAF, for the most part, is an HONOR ROLE. Just click on the name of a banned person you see, and read the posts they write. If they are not actual spammers you can depend on reading posts by them that show they are level-headed, intelligent, devout, and kind.

I think the Sole Moderator King that has long-monopolized the CAF - for MANY years - perhaps more than 20? - and he runs it according to his personal preferences and he answers to NOBODY and he is a narcissistic male who believes he is entitled not to answer to ANYONE for his decisions, and that he owes no allegiance to fairness.

And he does NOT like people smarter and nicer than him. And that turns out to be a LOT of people.

Probably Catholic Answers does not know what to do about him so they leave him alone. They are probably completely dependent on him for inventing the forum, and setting it up, and it truly is a monopoly. So they hear the complaints and think there is nothing they can do, so they do nothing.

My husband once took what he thought would be a dream computer programmer job. We lived out in the country and this was in a beautiful home a short further ride into the county. No more commute to the city! He was to assisting the sole computer expert for a moderately sized corporation, who worked from home. This guy had ALWAYS been their sole programmer, so, he had a real monopoly, and he was King. Well my husband was given little to no work to do, just mow the guys lawn and he could spend the day hunting his land, which he enjoyed. The guy did not want to share his monopoly on computer programming for the company. The employees of the company would call with their needs and questions and he would give them curt answers and slam down the phone, saying, "Idiot!". My husband left the go-nowhere job after about a year because he was afraid of not keeping up in his field. For all we know he still has that monopoly...

The CAF Mod reminds me of that guy...

PeaceByJesus said...

The list of "Banned" at CAF, for the most part, is an HONOR ROLE.

It seems to often be the case, as whenever I have seen a valid challenge it is from a banned poster. You can imagine what life would be line under the Roman monarchy many trad. RCs long for.

Yet even many Caths complain about the mods. And it is likely there is more than one. I read read some say "Robert Bray is particularly zealous in banning all comments that are "unamerican". Thomas Casey seems to have it in for those who express support for Traditional Catholicism." http://metaphysicalcatholic.blogspot.com/2013/02/banned-from-catholic-answersagain-oops.html