Monday, February 20, 2012

Pure Manhood: how to become the politician God wants you to be

The Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has just met his Section 28. Or is it his Clause 4? Whatever ‘defining moment’ this turns out to be, it is surely an example of the precise irreconcilable tension and mutual exclusion in the ever-expanding competing hierarchy of rights of which His Grace has long warned. The Human Rights Act 2010 is incompatible with religious liberty: the two cannot coexist; one must give way to the other.

It transpires that Roman Catholic Schools across Lancashire have been using a booklet written by a Roman Catholic theologian which includes a bit of Roman Catholic orthodoxy on human sexuality, and this apparently amounts to ‘homophobia’ or ‘gay hate’. The booklet is entitled Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be, by one Jason Evert, and it is reported to discuss ‘a boy dealing with "homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse".’

Supplementing this outrageous homophobia with a bit of generalised sexophobia, the booklet ‘claims that "scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke", explains that "the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God's natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding”.’

Well, this has got right up the nose of the TUC’s Brendan Barber who wrote to Mr Gove, reminding him that the Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their ‘protected characteristics’ (which includes [in case you don’t yet know] their sexual orientation). He wrote: ‘Schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely.’

Mr Gove apparently responded that the education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 do not extend to the content of the curriculum: any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, are not subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.

This might have been his initial reading; it might have been his understanding; it might have been his hope; it might even have been his legislative intention when he devolved curriculum matters to headteachers, parents and governors as part of his ‘free schools’ initiative. But as the Human Rights Blog correctly points out, the school curriculum is not exempt from the tentacles of the Equality Act: it is all pervasive, all invasive and all consuming – ‘A school is permitted to teach about whatever subject it likes, so as not to inhibit it from teaching about a wide range of issues, including, it would seem, controversial views about homosexuality. However, the school must still ensure that those issues are not taught in a way which subjects pupils to discrimination.’

Of course, if (as appears to be the case) Mr Evert is a Christian, it is highly likely that he would have presented these ‘controversial’ views in a sensitive and compassionate way. The problem is that Brendan Barber wouldn’t know ‘sensitive and compassionate’ if they hit him in the face. Anything which may be interpreted as ‘phobic’ or ‘hateful’ will most certainly be; and anyone who dissents from the orthodox creed of egalitarianism is a bigot. So Roman Catholics are no longer permitted to teach that even the inclination toward homosexuality is an ‘objective disorder’ because to do so amounts to ‘homophobia’ or ‘gay hate’.

Jason Evert is married to Crystalina (really), and together the run Chastity.com and also contribute to Catholic Answers. Being Anglican, His Grace doesn’t agree with them on everything, but he is certainly of the view that if they wish to go around schools teaching their moral and meta-ethical views about homosexuality, masturbation, pornography, birth control and chlamydia, they should be free to do so. It is for headteachers, parents and governors to determine the curriculum, and this was clearly Michael Gove’s legislative intention and understanding.

There is a curious and irreconcilable tension between the DfE’s Whiggish desire to devolve and liberalise (indeed, abolish) the Tory National Curriculum – encouraging free schools to forge their own – and the simultaneous desire to impose a form of National Curriculum on the vast majority of schools. There is a manifest contradiction in the assertion that an autonomous free school should have imposed upon it a standardised syllabus of sexual ethics. Mr Gove cannot have it both ways. Either one trusts parents and teachers or one does not. Either one is prescriptively imposing a centralised national curriculum or one is not.

Interestingly, Mr Evert wrote two versions of his book: there is a Pure Manhood for believers and a Pure ManhoodSecular Version for use in public schools’. Comparing the contents, the only difference appears to be the cover (unless all mention of God is expunged in the ‘secular’ version, but His Grace really can’t be bothered to fork out for either booklet, even though we are told both are ‘a priceless gift’). Perhaps Brendan Barber might like to see if the secular version is more to his liking. Since there is to be no new British Bill of Rights to sort out this dog’s breakfast, perhaps, like Eric Pickles, Michael Gove might like to ‘clarify’ educational subsidiarity provisions or ‘strengthen’ devolved curriculum matters in an Act of Parliament?

157 Comments:

Blogger DanJ0 said...

To me, that's not homophobic or hate material at all. It is essentially propaganda though by the look of it. A Watchtower booklet of sorts for Faith Schools.

20 February 2012 07:45  
Blogger len said...

Roman Catholic Schools using a booklet by a Roman Catholic Theologian.....Well I never!.

I also do not agree with all Roman Catholic doctrine but I am totally with them on this one!.

The Human rights act is one that can only operate in Christian Countries who are seen as a soft' target' by those wishing to put forward their own agendas(mostly anti Christian.)

It is time that Christians stopped being pushed around by minorities who are trying to destroy our Christian heritage and bring about a Society which will descend into moral and social chaos.

20 February 2012 08:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Danjo pontified "chuckle* for us here 20 February 2012 07:45 with..

"To me, that's not homophobic or hate material at all. It is essentially propaganda though by the look of it. A Watchtower booklet of sorts for Faith Schools.

" Presumably the same way the 'God Delusion' is mere propaganda.hmmm!
With deceptive commenting like that you may have just missed out on cardinalisation from Pope Dawkin this weekend for being so damned obvious..Good effort for the bad guys,lad. Bad luck old egg?

Ernst agrees with Len regarding what he states 'I also do not agree with all Roman Catholic doctrine' but Ernst goes further, by seeing it as indeed sinful by act, whether in thought or action rather than as some disorder, anymore than bestiality must not be considered sinful by tinkering with the genitalia of beasts but is merely a wrongful expression of fondness for the creature from humans.

Ernst.

20 February 2012 08:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Sounds like good material. As a school governor I have been looking for some decent material to replace the truly amoral & prejudicial against all good sense material the school is currently using (produced by Channel Four - says it all really).

I thank Brendan Barber & Cranmer for bringing it to my attention.

20 February 2012 09:18  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

If you don't agree with Roman Catholic doctrine then don't send your children to a Roman Catholic school; if you do, then do so.

This of course means allowing parental choice, something antithetical to left-wing thinking (if you can properly describe it as thinking, that is).

20 February 2012 09:37  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

‘a boy dealing with "homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse'

What a ridiculous and dangerous set of unquantified assumptions to set in young minds. Not content with that, they cast a slur on unknown numbers of (including presumably Catholic) fathers everywhere.

Personally if I was the father of homosexual son receiving this 'education', I would sue these morons for every penny.

20 February 2012 10:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 February 2012 10:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld, I don't know what else to call it. It's just a feature of faith schools in general. Perhaps Muslim schools are handing out similar sorts of material encouraging girls to view Womanhood as home-oriented and subservient to men. Perhaps to wear hijabs or even full veils so as not to encourage men to have lustful and ungodly thoughts too. If so then who are we to worry about it? It's up to their parents, I suppose.

20 February 2012 10:40  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Dreadnaught ... "What a ridiculous and dangerous set of unquantified assumptions to set in young minds"

Why are they ridiculous? Why are they dangerous? How do you know they are unquantified [unqualified?]?

Does the truth of the assertions not matter?

20 February 2012 11:56  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Catholics consider homosexual activity (NOT homosexual orientation per se) to be sinful. Whether you agree with that or not, we are now at a Huxleyesque position where all values are imparted by the state, not the parent, and the "liberal" state decides right and wrong.

This must be a proud day for secularists.

20 February 2012 11:57  
Blogger rodney said...

@Corrigan. Just to clarify: yes Catholics consider homosexual activity sinful but orientation disordered. @ Dreadnought - I am not sure what an 'unquantified' assumption is, but there is in fact quite a lot of data to support Jason Evert's view though the politically correct and the ideologically blind try and pretend it doesn't exist: http://narth.com/

20 February 2012 12:07  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

The Way of Dodo the Dude said...
I see len has now teamed up with Atlas shrugged. All we need now is DanJ0 to join the happy little circle.

A libertarian atheist, an agnostic conspiracy theorist (I think?) and a confused, make it up as you go along, 'born againer'.

How can Catholicism survive all this?

'Nuff said!

19 February 2012 22:43

I can't answer for the other two, however for myself an agnostic conspiracy theorist is a fair enough description.

I beg you to consider this.

What is wrong with admitting you simply DON'T know the answer?

Are you sure that conspiracies either never happen, rarely happen, or even if they do none of them could possibly have had a detrimental effect on your own life or that of your nearest and dearest?

As for your question.

IMO Catholicism, more specifically the Roman Empires form, is as safe as houses, indeed more safe then the Bank of England. The future of Christians, most especially bible believing ones is far less certain, even more most especially on this material plain.

My dear Dodo please try harder not to attack the messenger, you often act like an football fanatic who has just had his beloved manager slagged-off in the pub.

Some of my best shags, indeed ALL of my best ones, have been Roman Catholics, my beef is with the actions of your church past and present, not with individuals, or their peculiar set of belief systems.

Doubt is a wonderful thing, it teaches us to look left and right before crossing roads, as well as grants us the FREE WILL, to think for ourselves. Dogma, most especially of The Roman Empires kind, teaches nothing but blind obedience to the will of The Mother Church, and therefore of The Holy Father; which incidentally is supposed to be GOD, not an elected official of a multi-national corporation.

Try leaning something about how your own religious institution has long since functioned. You may then be in a position to properly refute allegations against it; this in stead of making up your own conspiracy theories.

20 February 2012 12:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not convinced that it is really a matter for a theologian to decide on what is "pure manhood" (whatever that means) or for a church to decide what is and what isn't a disorder (whatever that means).

These are religiously motivated opinions: nothing more. It doesn't take a huge leap to see that any homosexual lads going to a school where this stuff was given to kids is not going to end up with a positive view of themselves - or a positive reaction from classmates either.

20 February 2012 12:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Some of my best shags, indeed ALL of my best ones, have been Roman Catholics,

Ditto. Filthy lot.

20 February 2012 12:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Anonymous (12:11) [Cranmer, I thought you'd changed your setting so anons couldn't post?]

I think you misunderstand the primary purpose of the gospel - and of education. It is not to give people a "positive view of themselves".

20 February 2012 12:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst despairs that

"Catholics consider homosexual activity (NOT homosexual orientation per se) to be sinful. " What gibberish stated, that could be best interpreted as meaningless within a discussion about sin ;

What about adultery, fornication, bestiality but only thinking them, mind you lad or 'orientated' towards them *Huge Guffaws and Sniggers*.

Heterosexuality is the correct way as defined within the Holy Bible but there are express ways the Lord commands us to behave that should not make us deviate to sin but homosexual thoughts or actions are never acceptable to Him, whether between one partner or many!

Well, if what you say is so, it's the exact opposite of what Jesus told us but then, what did he know..hmmm
Lust is the problem. If you’ve already committed adultery with someone in your heart over and over again, guess what is likely to happen when the opportunity arises. You’ll likely commit adultery with them in your bed.

A Person stated that a few years after becoming a Christian, he thought it would be harmless to enjoy daydreaming about certain sins, since he was sure he never would engage in the actual sins. That was a mistake, for the temptations grew and gained strongholds in his mind. By God’s grace, he said he didn't engage in those sins, but he had to fight to regain a pure thought life.

Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean (Matthew 23:26).
or
When you cherish sin in your heart, you put a wedge between yourself and God.

If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened (Psalm 66:18).

Perhaps we all need to learn the same thing about all immorality. “I’m just going to look at and think it, I’m not going to do anything about,” probably doesn’t in any scenario if it is wrong.

Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature (Romans 13:14).

Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (James 1:14-15).

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? (James 4:1).

Wrongful presuppositions lead the lost into eternal damnation. Who would want this!

Ernst

20 February 2012 12:37  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Did the Papal States have religious liberty?
"error has no rights".

20 February 2012 13:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

However, the school must still ensure that those issues are not taught in a way which subjects pupils to discrimination.

This amounts to a charge of heresy against the reigning anthropological orthodoxy. It essentially proscribes a Christian view of man from being taught. The guidance from on high becomes "You may teach anything you like so long as you teach it in accordance with the dogmas of our worldview." How does a Christian obey that law? He doesn't.

carl

20 February 2012 13:25  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The Papal States did not have religious liberty; is Manfarang suggesting that the government of the Papal States be taken as the model for modern democracy?

As for Mr Blofeld: I'm assuming English is not your first language. If it were, you would perhaps be able to use it with some degree of articulation. That might give you some cridibility when you accuse others of writing gibberish.

20 February 2012 13:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Corrigan1 said...

Well, to be fair, nothing of much worth in answer!

"God, why hath thou orientated me so!", reckon that will suffice at the Throne of God?

Our lifestyle is not judged on the basis of some genetic connection or mental leanings, but we are judged on the basis of God's commandments.
Our genetic makeup does not determine what is godly and what is ungodly; God's Word determines that. The Bible, for example, does not say it is ungodly to be lefthanded.
But God's Word does say it is ungodly to be greedy and a drunkard. The Bible also says it is ungodly to live any kind of homosexual lifestyle. It does not specify whether the lifestyle is "caring or uncaring."

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9,10).

As sinful humans beings, we are all born with the 'orientation' of all of the above. As someone has said quite thoughtfully and with honesty, "There's no sin so great we're not capable of committing it."

Ernst stands by his quote of Gibberish and is used as a tool/means of appearing to be all things to all men irrespective of the truth. What kind of love is this shown, that you would send somebody over the cliff/abyss?

How religiously quaint and people of faith wonder why the lost are staying lost in such great numbers!

Trust you will be there at the Judgment Seat, to account for their staying lost and in their sins, despite the emphatic verses that declare otherwise and that it need have been so. A Braver man than Ernst!

Ernst

20 February 2012 14:06  
Anonymous Perpetua said...

How dare this unwholesome ignorant fool Mr Evert place the homosexual act between two men and the heterosexual act in the same category.He is a disgrace to any Christian denomination and is not fit to answer any questions about Catholicism let alone deal with children. I wonder if the parents of children attending these schools are aware of the contents of this book he is pedalling.

20 February 2012 14:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer seems to think that a religious school should be able to teach what it likes in matters of morality and sexuality, unencumbered by the constraints of government policy. That might be so if, and only if, it is not using taxpayers' money to do so. I fail to see why the taxpayer should fund the teaching of Mr Evert's repellent nonsense.

In any case, if it is possible for sexual abuse to make a boy homosexual, and homosexuality is 'intrinsically disordered', then the Catholic Church must have created an awful lot of disordered people over the years.

20 February 2012 14:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>I think you misunderstand the primary purpose of the gospel.. It is not to give people a "positive view of themselves".

No. Its purpose is to promote the 2000 year old opinions of middle eastern goatherders as if they were facts relevant to the modern world.

As for education - as I said, it is not for theologians to decide what is or isn't a disorder.

20 February 2012 14:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Rebel Saint/Rodney

I made my remarks based on the information presented which include no information, references or definition to back the assertions. Unless of course they mean 'Father' in the sense of the Catholic priesthood - then they may well have made a point.

20 February 2012 15:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJ0
"To me, that's not homophobic or hate material at all. It is essentially propaganda though by the look of it. A Watchtower booklet of sorts for Faith Schools."

The gay lobby doesn't do propaganda in school literature then?

I think it does...

20 February 2012 15:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How on earth can anyone think that sticking your todger up another mans fundament is ever a "good thing"?

The Catholic Church is right on this - the people who defend homosexuality as an alternative and equal human relationship to that between two heterosexuals must be mad.

20 February 2012 15:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst despairs that ...

"Catholics consider homosexual activity (NOT homosexual orientation per se) to be sinful. " What gibberish stated, that could be best interpreted as meaningless within a discussion about sin ;
What about adultery, fornication, bestiality but only thinking them, mind you lad or 'orientated' towards them *Huge Guffaws and Sniggers*."


Dodo despairs at Ernst's despair!

Can he really not see a moral difference between a disorder that predisposes a person towards sinful behaviour and actually giving into this inclination? Can he really not see the difference between the temptation and actively dwelling on sinful acts or the moral difference between the two?

In Catholic teaching such serious acts are considered greviously sinful when committed with deliberate and complete consent i.e it is a personal decision to act on the inclination and actually commit the sin.

As for this:

"Our genetic makeup does not determine what is godly and what is ungodly; God's Word determines that. The Bible, for example, does not say it is ungodly to be lefthanded."

Are you saying then that homosexuality is determined by our DNA? And your evidence for this assertion is?

"But God's Word does say it is ungodly to be greedy and a drunkard ... "

Both acts of commission and not predispostions.

"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

Again all actions!

"As sinful humans beings, we are all born with the 'orientation' of all of the above."

For sure, we're human and damaged in our natures and inclined towards sin. Not quite sure we are all inclined to do everything on the above list! You will note too they all involve activities.

I return to the point that a sin is committed with deliberate and complete consent i.e it is a personal decision to commit the sin.

When Jesus said:

"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart", He meant more than a fleeting lascivious thought!

20 February 2012 16:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How on earth can anyone think that sticking your todger up another mans fundament is ever a "good thing"?"

How about sticking your todger up a woman's fundament? Is that ok?

20 February 2012 16:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "The gay lobby doesn't do propaganda in school literature then? I think it does..."

Ah, I see. Because I'm gay I always support what the 'gay lobby' does. Gotcha.

20 February 2012 17:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The title of that book really needs changing. It has something of Aryanism about it. I'd expect to see black and white pictures of young men in lines doing star jumps in a field wearing outdated gym whites and plimsolls.

20 February 2012 17:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Or one of those joyous, overly colourful, too good to be true illustrations from the Watchtower.

20 February 2012 17:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo kindly despaired at Ernst despair

"Can he really not see a moral difference between a disorder (Define the disorder here?)that predisposes (HE/SHE MUST?!)a person towards sinful behaviour and actually giving into this inclination? Can he really not see the difference between the temptation and actively dwelling on sinful acts or the moral difference between the two? "NO.NO.NO!
The first thing I want to say Dodo is that God is holy and righteous. Man (We), on the other hand, is/are sinful. Man's sinfulness is revealed in many ways, e.g. in his doing what he knows he ought not to do. Most people tell lies (AHEM..Nothing personal lad), others commit adultery or fornication, others are full of envy or are covetous, some steal small or big things, others gossip, some are proud and arrogant, some cheat, others give or receive bribes, others hate one person or the other. Some read dirty books, etc, etc. You catch Erns's drift?

The Bible says that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Even people, who have not openly sinned, have sinned in their hearts. According to the standard of Jesus Christ, if you look at a girl or boy or a man or woman with lust in your eyes, you are already guilty of immorality with her or him in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and if you hate someone, you have already committed murder in your heart (1 John 3:15). Was Our Saviour wrong or should you kindly state where He Erred on this?

So, sins that are committed in thoughts, words, and deeds are all serious before God. There is no one on earth that has never sinned. Some have sinned more than others, but because all have sinned, all are guilty before God. That includes you and old Ernst fella.

Sin separates man from God, since a Holy God cannot have a relationship with sinful people.

"In Catholic teaching such serious acts are considered greviously sinful when committed with deliberate and complete consent i.e it is a personal decision to act on the inclination and actually commit the sin." Then catholic teaching is in great error.

If anyone has been committing immorality or any other sin, they must be determined to stop. God will not forgive anyone if you have no desire to stop sinning at once, and this means stopping ALL sins that we have knowingly been committing.

Homosexuality is a sin (PERIOD!) such as bi-sexuality is, whether in thought or deed or is that an orientation and everything else is too.

Ernst

20 February 2012 17:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "Homosexuality is a sin (PERIOD!)"

According to Slimming World, so is a chocolate digestive.

20 February 2012 17:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo, there's an old joke in my family about someone's long dead Great Aunt, who once, whilst shopping in Brighton during a holiday, bought a proprietory bottle of shellac. Forever after, she always ordered her shellac from Brighton. She could not be convinced that shellac, of the same quality, could be purchased closer to home.

Alas, it appears that you are now to homosexuality, what Brighton is to shellac!

The analogy might have appeared seemingly less obvious/outré, had she holidayed at Porthmadog; but that's Great Aunts for you! :o)

20 February 2012 17:37  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Lots of things are sins, according to the Bible. The real question is why some people get more het up about some sins than about others.

20 February 2012 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. A tenet of Conservatism is minimal government. It has to be. Perhaps the party can organise a list of legislation like this to cull after the next election when the Libdems are destroyed at the polls, and we are shot of those secular pinkies. What !

Atlas Wept. Now that you are back, perhaps you can not trouble this august blog again with your ‘shagging history’. No class at all, have you…

20 February 2012 18:22  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I have no opinion on whether homosexuality is 'good' or not, primally because I have never practiced it. As a general rule men are not sexy, even to most women.

However one thing I have little doubt about is that ever growing amounts of homo-sexuality is not 'good' for society, neither is the promotion of same designed to be 'good' for it.

Indeed the positive promotion of homo-sexuality is designed to increase selfish individualism, materialism and consumerism, as well as to act as an important method of radically reducing the population of the western world.

However there is an even more sinister reasons for this ever more pervasive state sponsored promotion of all acts clearly contrary to biblical teaching. This being the undermining of the family as the basic underpinning of a cohesive society, thus dividing it into ever smaller disaffected, and competing factions.

It is a tied old phrase, but it is clearly an apt description of what this is really all about, and the phrase is WORLD COMMUNISM, as largely outlined by Karl Marx in his infamous publication The Communist Manifesto.

The mistake we tend to make is to believe that somehow communism died sometime during the late 20th century. When the truth is; World or International Communism, sometimes known as authoritarian socialism, or Fabianism, is the invention of the highest possible levels of The British Establishment, acting in collusion with The RCC/Vatican, and financed by The Worlds Financial, and political institutions, such as The World Central Bank, various establishment owned multi-national corporations, and organized crime syndicates, NATO, The UN, and EU.

Please be reminded that the most powerful member of the British Establishment is a self-confessed Marxist Communist, and so is his most favoured son.

He was also the chap who set up, and is still the main benefactor of The London School of Economics, which is a veritable hotbed of Marxist Communism, both politically , and of course economically.

After all you can't seriously believe that all of this virtually revolutionary stuff could have happened simply because of almost exclusively Labour Party politics, or the actions of a relatively tiny amount of politically and sexually active homosexuals, or do you?

20 February 2012 18:24  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Atlas. So you're saying that the Vatican is working against the teachings of the Catholic church.

Right.

20 February 2012 18:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

Sin we agree is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to to something ungodly.

And yes, I do agree with you it can be an utterance or a desire as well as a deed contrary to the eternal law of God.

How do we understand Jesus when He said:

"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Sexual attraction can cause a man to look at a woman with desire but that in itself surely isn't evil. Lust comes into the picture when he begins to dwell on the possibilities voluntarily and derive pleasure from such fantasies. If he dismisses the thoughts then how can there be personal fault?

Jesus' words are an imperative against setting one’s desire on things that are forbidden;
a moral imperative for the individual to exercise control over the thoughts of his mind and the desires of his heart. Resisting such temptation is what St Paul meant when he wrote:

"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."

Baptism confers upon the Christian purification of sins, the baptised must nevertheless continue to struggle against disordered desires and the lust of the flesh. By God’s grace he can prevail.

“When you are tempted (God) will provide a way out so that you can stand”."

So, as I said, the disordered
orientation of the homosexual that predisposes him/her towards sinful behaviour is not in itslf sinful. Actively dwelling on lustful thoughts or commiting such acts are sinful. It's the same with all sinful thoughts and disordered behaviour.

We are human and all wounded in our natures and inclined towards sin. I return to the point that a sin is committed with deliberate and complete consent i.e it is a personal decision to commit the sin or to dwell on the sinful desire.

20 February 2012 19:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. We have to remember that biblical women would have dressed modestly. Best not go overboard on ‘lustful thought sin’ in todays society when some women are pushing it in your face, or even offering it on a plate...

20 February 2012 19:16  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I agree with Atlas about the evils of Communism, the UN, the World banking system etc. Did you deliberately miss out Freemasonry? I find it strange that you included Catholicism in this list. It was the Catholic Church after all which condemned communism from its beginning. One month before the Russian revolution, Our Lady performed the great miracle of the Sun at Fatima in Portugal and this was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation “A great sign appeared in Heaven – a woman adorned with the Sun”. Google it, the evidence is not difficult to find. In addition Our Lady revealed that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world and that many nations will be annihilated. She also predicted World War II if people did not stop leading such sinful lives. The spiritual proofs are there is you want to listen but instead Atlas comes out with the age old hatred and lumps the Catholic Church with all these other secular institutions which are bringing the World to disaster. Why not include Methodism, or any other denomination – they have all rejected Our Lords command about divorce for example. Does that qualify them for criticism as being anti-christ?

Does it not strike people as odd that so called “fundamentalist” Protestants will agree with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, marriage, divorce etc. but will then still claim that the Catholic Church is the anti-christ. This is a house divided against itself and is why Christendom is so weak in the modern day. It requires a certain amount of double-think and this anomaly must surely be one of satan’s greatest victory in his war against Christendom. Those who perpetuate the division and slander will have to answer for it. Sr. Lucia who was one of the three children Our Lady spoke to at Fatima in 1917 said in 1957 that we are now in the End Times. I think the time has come from Christians to think very carefully when they accuse the Church Christ established as being the anti-christ because the time is short. Jesus himself said sins against the spirit cannot be forgiven and the evidence surrounding the message of Fatima is very clear, recent and well documented.

I will concede however that after Pope John XXIII criticism of Communism and Freemasonry stopped coming out of the Vatican and that is a cause of great regret. I think we have traitors in high places but that does not prevent the Holy Spirit guiding his church.

20 February 2012 19:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've just clicked on the link to one of the books and it claims to answer the age-old question for boys wondering about sex, dating and women:

"What if it’s just a swimsuit magazine?"

Lol.

20 February 2012 20:05  
Anonymous SIPP eligible investments said...

"and it is reported to discuss ‘a boy dealing with "homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse".’"
Or, is it possible - just possible - that the poor bloke's DNA is arranged in a certain way that he feels attracted to men, as reputable science increasingly teaches us. Of course, he could always go to a southern American state where they have "reconversion progrfams"...

20 February 2012 20:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

I did say:

"Lust comes into the picture when he begins to dwell on the possibilities voluntarily and derive pleasure from such fantasies."

Just ensure you have access to a cold shower! Thankfully, these days my own testosterone kevels are not what they once were.

20 February 2012 20:14  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

My dear Shacklefree condemning things is easy, as any politician, most especially one which wants you to vote for him.

Why would a very powerful established religion based on ancient Babylonian Mysticism wish to condemn an organization based on the exact same ideas?

Easy answer.

Because it became a threat to the former, most especially financially, and ultimately risked the beans being spilt.

I can absolutely assure you that The RCC has never been spiritually opposed to the mystical stone upon which Freemasonry rests.

In the same way that an Arsenal fan may hate a Spurs fan, and visa-versa, but still both love football.

20 February 2012 20:22  
Blogger David B said...

Does the literature also warn that foreplay within marriage is disordered?

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm

David B

20 February 2012 20:23  
Blogger Albert said...

"homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse".’

If this is a fair quotation from the book or a fair reflection of its contents, then I think there are real problems with such a book, especially as addressed to teenagers.

Firstly, we just don't know what causes homosexuality, so why link it to things which are or seem to be or are wrong, when it may have nothing to do with those things? All this will do is make boys worry about their relationships, feel worse about themselves and add fuel to bullies.

Secondly, orientation is not chosen. Therefore, it is not, in itself, of any moral significance. Far from choosing a homosexual orientation, a boy discovering this is likely to want to fight them. It makes no sense in Catholic thought to make someone feel morally culpable for that over which he has no control and which is very likely contrary to his will.

A boy who is struggling with his sexuality needs to be assured of God's unconditional love for him regardless of his orientation. He has enough to worry about without having to think about hypotheses which are not morally significant and may, in any case, be quite untrue.

"scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke"

Well obviously. Even when I was at school (state, non-faith), we were told that there is no such thing as "safe sex" only "safer sex". You only have to look at the pregnancy figures for couples using condoms to see that they are of limited value for those hoping to prevent transmission of disease.

20 February 2012 20:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...
"Does the literature also warn that foreplay within marriage is disordered?"

Depends what you mean by "foreplay" now doesn't it?

What specific acts in what context are you referring to?

And of course know you provided a link to a particularly 'hardline' position that is not entirely supported by the Church.

20 February 2012 22:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. The Inspector doubts that young married Catholic couples give a hoot as to what priests think about sex. A healthy attitude in his book; sure you'll agree, what !

20 February 2012 22:56  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Larks Tongues in Aspic said...
Atlas. So you're saying that the Vatican is working against the teachings of the Catholic church.

Right.

20 February 2012 18:52

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. Except that what the RCC teaches and what it practices have never had much to do with each other either then or now.

After all when did school teachers, politicians, social workers, police officers, lawyers, judges, and most notably BANKERS practice what they preach?

What makes you believe that The RCC, and its military wing encamped in the Vatican, is any less self-interested?

Saying one thing, and doing quite another is the very stuff of people in positions of power and influence, surely this is self-apparent. If not try reading a history book, say the ABC book of The History of Contemporary Religions, or Vatican Banksters Made Simple.

To institutions such as The RCC this kind of thing is simply seen as a divinely justified means to a divinely imperative end. The end being ever more establishing the Holy Father as Gods representative on Earth, until the real one eventually turns up.

Which if the RCC has anything to do with it, and for very understandable reasons, will be either never, or so far in the distant future that the poor old chap would have forgotten how to find his way here by then.

As for myself mentioning my shagging history. Yes, I agree it was a cheep shot, so to speak. However I am interested as to why the lady doth protest so much?

Was it because they were ALL Roman Catholic, or have I touched on an envious spot?

I don't know why all of the many Catholic girls I have known, turned out to be raging nymphomaniacs sometimes before they even told me their names. Perhaps it had something to do with the quality of Roman Catholic men in some regards or another?

Perhaps you could help he gain a clue.

21 February 2012 00:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

I think Catholic couples do try to adhere to morality in the bedroom!

Atheists seem to focus on what they mistakenly perceive to be the Catholic Churches preoccupation with matters sexual. They wrongly assume there are all sorts of 'laws' and 'regulations'.

Catholics do have moral principles for the expression of sexual love between married couples. They are quite simple really.

Catholic sexual morality gives us three guidelines. First, our sexual actions should be directed to our spouse for his or her benefit and pleasure - not selfish, but giving. Sex is a chance to give ourselves to our spouse in a uniquely loving and intimate way.

Second, each specific type of sexual activity must be of loving intent and action.

And third, during sexual union, male climax must occur during normal sexual intercourse (it has to be open to the possibility of fertility).

Disordered acts such as sodomy, the use of sexual toys, an exclusive focus on oral sex or mutual masturbation would be viewed as unnatural as the unitive and the procreative significance are excluded by the nature of these acts.

The unitive and procreative aspects are essential to make sexual acts within marriage good by their nature. Their absence makes the act intrinsically evil by its very nature. Unnatural sexual acts are non-unitive and non-procreative.

Now to my mind this still leaves plenty of scope for a happy, healthy and loving sex life!

And why on earth would the Church want to hold such discussions with children and fill their heads with such knowledge of such perversions as anal intercourse and the like as David B asks? Plenty of time for that when they become older and are considering marriage.

21 February 2012 01:01  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

The Way of Dodo the Dude said...
Inspector

I think Catholic couples do try to adhere to morality in the bedroom!

Oh, come on you surely don't believe that load of codds, or do you?

Perhaps it is time you spent a bit more attention what your Mrs gets up to during her over extended trips to the supermarket?

'Morality' ( whatever that means in the bedroom ) and Roman Catholic women ( if you can fight them off long enough to actually make it to a bedroom ) are as closely related to each other, as I am to the Holly Father himself.

Which judging by my experience of Roman Catholic women may not be as distantly as may seem apparent.

21 February 2012 01:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas

Shame on you if you behave like an animal on heat in your sexual behaviour.

Or is it just more mystical fantasy? If some Catholic girl succumbed to your 'charms' I'm sure it was out of a sense of charity and sympathy and God has long since forgiven her.

Having moral standards is what makes us truely human. Morality, if you are able to grasp the concept, means reflecting on our purpose and God's will for us. It's what seperates us from the beasts. And remember, we are all capable of sin, Catholic women included, that's why we need a Saviour.

21 February 2012 02:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Morality, if you are able to grasp the concept, means reflecting on our purpose and God's will for us."

So say you.

21 February 2012 06:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I wonder what will happen when someone brings out Pure Womanhood and it has a different view of gender equality than is currently in fashion, basing it on sexual differences and setting out a godly plan along traditional patriarchical society lines because of those.

21 February 2012 06:31  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Your post makes a good case for the abolition of religion-based schooling, in my view.

21 February 2012 07:11  
Anonymous livescore said...

Gorgeous dress and lovely fabric choice! Don't be sad about ผลบอล moving to London, think of all the lovely vintage social events you ผลบอลสด can go to. Also London has great fabric shops!

21 February 2012 07:47  
Blogger rodney said...

Dodo: You have stated the Catholic position very lucidly - and accurately I might add. As a young Catholic couple expecting our first child, whereas private religious schooling may have been a nice-to-have in previous years, it has become an essential part of raising children with a healthy sense of their human dignity as imago dei and concomitant wholesome, life-giving, moral values. The hijacking of the public schooling by amoral secularists is scandalous (I also pay taxes)The social experiment of desensitisation to depravity on children by those incapable of controlling their basest instincts has wrought untold havoc with epidemic rates of depression and suicide amongst the young. We are duty bound to protect them from this evil.

21 February 2012 08:12  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Reliogious Liberty" and the HR act are entirely compatible.

Except, the religious will try to impose their values on other people ... again, again, again.

Pathetic

21 February 2012 08:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

G. Tingey said...

Reliogious Liberty" and the HR act are entirely compatible (How so. An act such as you state that defines humanity, must be based on agreed values. Where did these values come from. It goes against the laws of nature you worship and you all should be viewed as heretics or cultural atheists!
Did you, DanJo David B or Dreadnaught just imagine them up yourselves or your descendants with no outside revelation. Prove it!

This utopian civilisation you and others here desire, where God is hidden or non existent, where has it ever happened in history.
Do show or is your desired utopia all that has ever been shown in violent Godless regimes such as China, Soviet, etc but the truth is your 'society' of fellow citizens can only exist as a malignant tumour eating from a host. The tumour needs a healthy host to feed on. Your society will always be malignant tumour and is deadly to the host..Scorpion and Frog scenario!

If we have evolved 'Tooth in claw' due to survival of the fittest where is the logic in a value.

Should I break into your property, do deadly harm to you and steal all your goods, am I not only doing what is right by my value for me even if it is wrong for you. My good appears to be your bad.
Where is the values inherent in Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest if all came from these..Ernst sees no other in the animal kingdom whereas values are a sgn of weakness and more likely to lead to the end of your own seed?
All values we have are from this world whether good or bad and from not another planet..all you and others do is remove all manufacturers details, emblems, name serial numbers, USERS HANDBOOK etc from the vehicle and claim its yours and that nobody made it but take advantage of what is in front of you and use it.
You can now use the vehicle as you so please, yes. Screw the true owner..you have the keys! Disingenuous or what?

Except, the [ir]religious will try to impose their values on other people ... again, again, again. DITTO likewise, Tingey, DITTO.

Pathetic

'You took the words right out of my mouth' as old meatloaf was prone to croon!

Ernst

21 February 2012 09:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha! It's rubbish like this that makes me sometimes wish that religion wasn't just a load of fairy tales. If it weren't, I get the feeling hell would be brimming over with 'christians'..

21 February 2012 10:02  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Ernst sees no other in the animal kingdom whereas values are a sgn of weakness

An 'Animal' with a god and a resulting value system? - Intriguing assertion for sure - do expand Mr Blowhard.

21 February 2012 10:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught misquoted @21 February 2012 10:25...

Ernst sees no other in the animal kingdom whereas values are a sgn of weakness [and more likely to lead to the end of your own seed?]

An 'Animal' with a god and a resulting value system? - Intriguing assertion for sure - do expand Mr Blowhard.

Dear fellow

1. Quote Ernst in full, there's a fine lad, as the implied answer is in the concluding line he gave!

We are not 'Animals', We are a distinct 'CREATURE', created in the image of God.

Clarification;

"The word creature refers to any living organism and is derived from the belief that everything was created by one or more deities. This includes all Manuals, Fish, Insects, Birds, Amphibians. Reptilians, Bacteria, Protozoa, Plants, and Fungus.

The word animal refers to any living organism that falls into the scientific classification, kingdom of Animalia. This excludes Bacteria, Protozoa, Plants, and Fungus."

So Ernst must do your leg work as well as thinking for you?
You appear to have difficulty with both! Must be an atheist disorder from the great evolution project.

Do 'try' to include some semblance of intellect within in your commenting, young man.

'Expelliarmus',(A word used to disarm an atheist, typically by causing the victim's stupid commenting to fly out of intellectual reach), as Harry Potter might say!
*Guffawing and Chortling loudly*

Ernst 'not even blowing hard at all' Blofeld

21 February 2012 12:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught said...

Ps

Looked at your fine avatar and profile 'about me' to see.. absolutely zilch.

"Nothing of interest here folks, Please move on!"

Oblige - Make (someone) legally or morally bound to an action or course of action.

Ernst will therefore kindly 'oblige'. *sniggers*

Ernst

21 February 2012 13:07  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Hilarious this. I didn't know Catholics were supposed to just lay there like sack of spuds. Thanks Dodo. Glad I've escaped from that and been able to have some fun before I die.

21 February 2012 14:48  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Atlas says “Why would a very powerful established religion based on ancient Babylonian Mysticism wish to condemn an organization based on the exact same ideas?”

In this scenario, Jesus comes to Earth to save mankind by his redeeming sacrifice on the cross and sets up the Catholic Church which immediately reverts to ancient Babylonian mythology. It suggests Jesus was pretty incompetent and it rejects his words that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his church. It also rejects the authority he gave to Peter when he said “You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of heal will never prevail against it”. Len has informed us that the translation of the word rock is actually pebble which simply substantiates the teaching that Christ is the sure foundation but here on Earth we have an authority which is built on stone and not on straw and defers in all things to Christ. Len has also been reading the same Babylonian myths you refer to but against the evidence of the gospels, miracles and prophecies which have continued for 2000 years they do not stand up very well.

If you are right in your accusations then you have nothing to fear beyond the grave but if you are wrong you are committing a sin against the Holy Spirit.

21 February 2012 16:35  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Mr. B @ 12:10 and 13:07.
This aspect of the discussion puts me in mind of the devolution of authoritarian government:

...
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said, 'Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand
Half-sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on those lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains, Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.' (Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "Ozymandias."** From The Examiner, no. 524. 11 January 1818. 24.)

(Never forgetting, of course, poor Percy, poor Mary, the vile Byron, and "Frankenstein.")


*Rameses II of Egypt, 13th. cent. BC.

21 February 2012 17:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. If some Catholic girl succumbed to your 'charms' I'm sure it was out of a sense of charity and sympathy and God has long since forgiven her.

Wonderful insight old chap. One does believe you have something there !

Atlas has returned to stalk this site like some wounded cat with paranoia issues. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to picture him ten times worse as a deranged spotty adolescent alarming young women with his pseudo suicidal thoughts. The gals concerned either thought they were saving his life, or more like it, didn’t want his topping himself on their conscience. Would say the only word missing from your assessment is ‘pity’…

21 February 2012 18:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've just read Dr Dodo's sex manual up there. Crikey. However, it's left me with one or two questions. For instance, is doing a 'wheelbarrow' acceptable or not?

21 February 2012 19:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

non mouse said...

Always a delight for Ernst to see you display your love of the classic's and that they still have relevance today.

Ernst is a lover of Longfellow and Walty Whitman (and the occasional Slim..'When I'm calling you ooouuuoooouuuoouuu'. Oh the sweet memories!) as well.

Ernsty, my lovely lass.

21 February 2012 19:21  
Blogger Oswin said...

non mouse @ 17:47 :

Fourteen lines indelibly printed in my head, heart and, quite possibly, on my backside too - my English Master having employed ancient methods to the problems of 'recall'!

Apropos the ''vile Byron'': My Grandmother said of him ''...the sort of fellow who'd piddle on the Turkey (carpet) and blame it on the Peke!''

21 February 2012 20:17  
Blogger non mouse said...

Oswin- you and my old Pa, too. I'm so glad to have a tape recording of him reciting it!

And Mr.B: My Ma quoted a fair bit of lit as well - so did all about us, in my youth! They loved the spirit, beauty, and wisdom woven into our insular language. I suspect a similar love contributed to our ancestors' response to Alfred in the first place. They wrote it down, so as not to lose it or the techniques; ever after, they kept revivifying them.


******
PS: Doubtless there was a measure of today's problem in the monasteries... In any case, I seem, long since, to have latched on to a notion that diverted creativity also played a part in conservation of culture.

21 February 2012 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The echo asked if Catholics are permitted to'do' a wheelbarrow? Why would anyone want to 'do' a wheelbarrow? Is there a technical term for such peculiar behaviour?

Larks
My good fellow if you understood from my post that Catholics have a boring sex life then you clearly misread it.

Going blind by any chance?

21 February 2012 21:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
I was tempted t use the term 'sympathy' but thought better of it.

At least he adds a bitof colour to the blog. I actually enjoy reading his mystical insights! How sad am I? Must be the professional in me.

21 February 2012 21:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. I actually enjoy reading his mystical insights!

As the former Chief Male Nurse at the former mad asylum of Coney Hill once said to the Inspector. “There’s many times more out there than we have in here”

21 February 2012 21:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Who knows who is and who is not ... The only line we draw is evidence of a recognised illness that is capable of treatment, and posing a danger to self or others.

Personally I think there are perfectly 'sane' people, medically speaking, who are a much greater threat to others than the poor souls in hospitals.

21 February 2012 22:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Rodney

Any relation of Albert's?

I've never been accussed on this blog of being either lucid or accurate, so thank you! It can at times be a bit of a snake pit on here for Christians and for Catholics.

God's Grace to you and your wife with your first child. A wonderful time lies ahead for you both a sparents and may He Bless and protect your family.

21 February 2012 22:43  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo I'm glad. Just somewhat short sighted at the moment, but the night is young!

21 February 2012 23:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Larks

I'm glad you're glad! Enjoy the night and please don't fret about the nature of a Catholic's sex life.

I can assure you the joy of love and giving between married couples is in no way constrained by the moral framework.

In 33 years of marriage I've never had cause to ask "Is this allowed by God?" And yes, DanJ0, if you're reading this, variety is permissible within the natural morality outlined. The 'missionary position' is not obligatory!

21 February 2012 23:44  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: one would imagine anything involving a stiletto, a black cowl and a length of knotted cord, to be just a tad suspect...

22 February 2012 01:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

OSWIN

Sadomasochism would most certainly be precluded from a healthy, giving and moral loving relationship.

22 February 2012 01:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Phew - thank heavens for that!

Mind you, it's perhaps wise to keep Mrs. Dodo from sharp, pointy weapons. Oh the TEMPTATION! :o)

22 February 2012 01:56  
Blogger rodney said...

Dodo - Thanks for the wishes! No relation of Alberts - I live in Australia. I just appreciate it when people actually accurately portray what the Church teaches - you have a lot of patience! As for the snake pit, it always baffles me that atheists frequent blogs such as these? I personally never frequent aetheist blogs trying to convert them? Anyway, whatever blows their skirt up. By the way my wife and I were both virgins when we married and we have an awesome sex life - within the enriching orthodoxy of Catholic teaching so I can also heartily recommend it! Take care. God bless.

22 February 2012 06:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

rodney: "As for the snake pit, it always baffles me that atheists frequent blogs such as these?"

You won't be the first religionist to be baffled by it. Those university debating societies must be completely bewildering too. The idea of actually testing one's arguments and opinions out must be completely weird. Why on earth would anyone want to subject their ideas to scrutiny by people vehemently opposed to them when they can hang around with like-minded people and wrap themselves up in warm, cosy platitudes. They must be crazy.

"I personally never frequent aetheist blogs trying to convert them?"

You ought to try it, they'd be as putty in your hands.

22 February 2012 06:31  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Weird use of question marks too. I know Australians speak as though their every sentence is a question but I didn't realise they wrote like that as well.

22 February 2012 07:08  
Blogger rodney said...

DanJO - I suppose you have a point about debates honing your beliefs, but I very rarely see any new arguments. And when you see the likes of Hitchens unceremoniously being demolished by tehir own admittance by guys like William Lane Craig, you realise that they are more fundamentalist than the supposed 'religionalists'. The same tired old arguments get trotted out as though they weren't answered by the early Church Fathers. Dodo has my respect because he has the patience to enagage with this groundhog day exercise. With all due respect I encounter the same kind of wilful ignorance by certain evangelical sects who accuse us Catholics of Mary worship etc.I just want to shout Tolle Lege! It would save us a heap of internet bytes! (Yawn)

22 February 2012 07:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"As for the snake pit, it always baffles me that atheists frequent blogs such as these?"


As the Sales Assistant remarked to the puritan campaigner at the till, who came in the shop daily 'For someone who is against this Sex Shop even being open, you sure spend a lot in here. Would you like that Dildo wrapped "

"The idea of actually testing one's arguments and opinions out must be completely weird. "

Carry on 'testing' my boy.
Would sir like those arguments and opinions gift wrapped or will a Cranny carrier bag suffice?

Don't you go a changing..WE WON'T!

Ernst

22 February 2012 12:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rodney, you can't have spent much time around here or you're quietly taking payment from Dodo to try to repair his tattered credibility. Dodo is the guy who was quietly using multiple IDs here to bolster support for himself and is still hanging around despite being caught red-handed.

22 February 2012 13:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJ0 said naively...

"Rodney, you can't have spent much time around here or you're quietly taking payment from Dodo to try to repair his tattered credibility. Dodo is the guy who was quietly using multiple IDs here to bolster support for himself and is still hanging around despite being caught red-handed."

Or indeed that you are having a conversational reply with him in this comment.?? "red-handed?", obviously NOT in your case.

He must be chuckling like crazy...'You Plonker', as his other alter ego's nephew might express.He's playing you as if you were 'Trigger' !
*Bellowing Guffaws*

Ernst has a slight soft spot for you Lad..
As you were, that man. Dismissed!

Ernsty

22 February 2012 13:53  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo @ 13:37 : did he really? Hahaha I must have missed that; DO tell! :o)

22 February 2012 16:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"Dodo is the guy who was quietly using multiple IDs here to bolster support for himself and is still hanging around despite being caught red-handed."

Now that is stetching the truth! Please stop fretting about this and do try to get a sense of humour and sense of proportion.

22 February 2012 17:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: yes, but is it true??????

22 February 2012 17:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "DanJo @ 13:37 : did he really? Hahaha I must have missed that; DO tell! :o)"

Yes. The blog owner can presumably see the IP addresses of people who post messages and it looks like he spotted multiple IDs posting from the same IP address and challenged him. Now, that could legitimately happen over time as most people are on dynamically allocated IP addresses in a local area but it wasn't in this case.

Dodo subsequently admitted to using a string of IDs, presumably in the style of 'taking other crimes into account'. Obviously there's less need now anyway as he has the Inspector to do a double act with, and some weightier theological support from elsewhere. Since the two of them try to collectively bully various people I've never let him forget it. :)

22 February 2012 18:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm pretty sure he was accusing various people of using multiple IDs, including Viking, not long before that too. But perhaps I misremember.

22 February 2012 18:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo: well, well, who'd have thought it eh? It just goes to show what some people are prepared to, just to get one over, on innocent folk.

I was prepared to be amused, or so I had hoped; but, if what you say, is as you say it; then the whole thing is decidedly sleazy.

22 February 2012 19:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "I was prepared to be amused, or so I had hoped; but, if what you say, is as you say it; then the whole thing is decidedly sleazy."

It's been systematic, as far as I can tell. Reinventing himself, multiple IDs, talking to himself through different IDs, flouncing as one ID and returning as another. All this is quite typical for a forum troll as I'm sure people who frequent forums will know. These are the IDs that I know about: Mr Eman, The Worker, Serpents and Doves, Man with No Name, Mrs Dodo, Irish Viking, and Chancellor More. I expect there's more too. He's been here a lot longer than you probably think.

22 February 2012 20:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJO
God what a drama queen you really are and your exaggeration has reached the point of lies!

If you have the time to investigate this and you do seem to have the inclination, (why is that?) then do read and count the posts. Having done so, then give an accurate and truthful account.

And, for the record, I've never accussed Viking of any such thing.

Oswin said ...
"I was prepared to be amused, or so I had hoped; but, if what you say, is as you say it; then the whole thing is decidedly sleazy."

Be amused - it was harmless fun in the main and was never directed at securing an advantage over innocent folk.

Ask yourself why he keeps bleating on and on and on about something that was over and done with months ago.

22 February 2012 20:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've just read one where he is badgering someone to answer Dodo and Albert. He's been hounding Len for a lot longer than I thought too by using a separate ID. After that, I can see his swapping of IDs and back after a few minutes to 'broadside' on another topic. Who knows how many of those anonymous posts sniping away were him before the blog owner switch that off?

22 February 2012 21:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Evidence - as in date,time and thread?

22 February 2012 21:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh blimey, look at this:

Dodo: "Oswin

Guess you'll have to disclose your identy (or identies) now. Oh well, it is true, the light does shine in darkness.

At least I'm not a sneaky, double-tougued twit who feigns good manners"

Actually, I'm feeling a bit soiled by all of this now.

22 February 2012 21:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Soiled? Yes but you're loving it!

Did you read the full thread and contextualise the comment?

Did you notice I was calling myself 'Dodo the Troll'? Doyou think there might be a clue in that? Are you aware of what was going on the thread and the blog in general at the time?

Mr Cranmer had written ...
" .... there are those who are intent on hijacking every thread for their own malignant and malicious purposes. When he has directly emailed the perpetrators and politely asked them to desist, he receives insult, invective, and condemantion that he is not prepared to tell 'the truth'."

Was I one of these malignant and malicious persons? Did I ever receive an email? Most certainly not! Did I post anonymously? No.

To put it in perspective, Dodo insulted everyone at the time! My 'false' identities said:

The Worker
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Man with No Name
"Viking
Be a warrior - fight on! Don't be a woose. You're running away.
Adapt your tactics to the 21st Century and use finese, not brutish force. Seek to persuade, not bully. And do tone your language down.
A friend."

Now hardly the material to run off in need of a bath - get a life!

22 February 2012 21:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 asserted ...

"I've just read one where he is badgering someone to answer Dodo and Albert."

Detail?

"He's been hounding Len for a lot longer than I thought too by using a separate ID."

Evidence?

"After that, I can see his swapping of IDs and back after a few minutes, to 'broadside' on another topic."

Evidence?

"Who knows how many of those anonymous posts sniping away were him before the blog owner switch that off?"

Assertion and speculation based on just what evidence?

You really do follow in the footsteps of a tabloid guttersnipe.

Put up or shut up. Come on lets have this over and done with once and for all.

23 February 2012 00:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

I tell you what. Substantiate you loathsome accusations and I'll go the way of the last Dodo. Think of the prize - you'll be rid of the Catholic Bird.

What will you offer in return? An apology will suffice.

23 February 2012 00:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Google is your friend, and not just to try to appear clever. It barely takes a minute or two. Or just use your memory, afterall you wrote it all. The chances of an apology from me for highlighting this is zero, and I have nothing else to apologise to you for. Finally, stay or go as Dodo, it's naught to me really.

23 February 2012 06:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"The chances of an apology from me for highlighting this is zero."

But of course it is!

Highlighting it? Your post at 22 February 2012 21:51 is a malicious distortion of the facts. No evidence at all for the assertions you made about my conduct or the motives imputed to me.

Your motives on this occassion? To discredit my good wishes and encouragement to a young Catholic couple who are expecting their first child. And all because the husband confirmed Catholics lead a fulsome sex life without the need to indulge in unnatural acts.

" ... stay or go as Dodo, it's naught to me really."

Really? Then why keep banging on in your uptight, puritanical manner about how I undermine the integrity of this blog?

You really are a piece of work - all fur coat and no knickers as my mother would say.

23 February 2012 09:22  
Blogger Oswin said...

Perhaps it is time to examine our individual consciences (myself included) draw a line, and proceed with a straight bat.

23 February 2012 15:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
You've nothing much to examine your conscience about. As I see it DanJ0 sought your support in his relentless decrying of my lack of blog etiquette months ago. Big deal!

My conscience is clear about it - actions acknowledged at the time, apology given for any harm caused and I moved on suitably chastened. Others did too after a bit of fun at my expense.

One or two (quess who?) sought to make a hugh fuss over it. One continues to do so and exaggerates and distorts it whenever it suits his purpose.

Straight bat? I doubt he knows how to play cricket. I place him in he field at silly mid-off.

23 February 2012 15:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

^
I'd place him in the field at silly mid-off.

23 February 2012 15:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, when you were posting using both the 'Mr Eman' and 'Chancellor More' IDs here your forum flounce as 'Mr Eman' ended with the lines "Yours, Mr.Eman et al.", exactly how many IDs were you using at that time to require an "et al" there? Presumably more than just the two as you posted that as 'Chancellor More'.

23 February 2012 17:14  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: no, DanJo did not elicit my support. He answered my question, is all. Indeed, I rather badgered him into to doing so; which I now rather regret. I was largely unaware of what had gone before.

As you have already apologised, as you suggest, then let us leave it at that, as I'm sure will DanJo too; that is, if you desist from haranguing him in kind.

Now, let us toss a coin and await ''play''.

23 February 2012 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "As you have already apologised, as you suggest, then let us leave it at that, as I'm sure will DanJo too; that is, if you desist from haranguing him in kind."

I'm just letting him indignantly flap around some more, demanding apologies, posting insults, and the like. As I can substantiate everything I've said, it's just a matter how much rope he wants really.

23 February 2012 17:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Our man Dodo here is switching between Dodo, Serpents and Doves, and Man with No Name to try to overwhelm Camera Shy with Catholic opinion to back up his chum Inspector, and Albert. All just 'a bit of fun' of course, it being an abortion thread and all.

23 February 2012 17:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 ....

"As I can substantiate everything I've said, it's just a matter how much rope he wants really."

Substantiate away! All you've demonstrated so far is a hystrical obsession with me.

I take it you don't do irony:

Mr Eman
"Mystery Man
This is my LAST POST as MR.EMAN."


And I signed off my other ID too:

Chancellor More
"Behave all of you.
God Bless.
You never know we might just meet again. Fingers crossed, as they say.
Yours, Mr.Eman et al."


You don't think there may just have been some small clue in these posts?

And the debate on abortion was serious.

Analyse it - of the total posts of 84 you contributed 22, pouring forth your atheist propaganda. I posted 12 as Dodo, 3 as Man with No Man and 2 as Serpents and Doves. And you say I was trying to overwhelm another blogger!

(Do check the numbers in case I miscounted.)

Any more? Not doing too well so far, are you?

23 February 2012 18:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, why were you using multiple IDs and switching between them?

23 February 2012 18:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

What business it is of yours and why the self righteous preoccupation? Is your life that dull?

Now, lets be done with this. Provide the evidence to back your assertions of 22 February 2012 21:51 or stop droning on about this.

23 February 2012 20:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Why were you using multiple IDs on that serious thread, Dodo, and switching between them to post comments?

You're squirming like a squirmy thing with squirm-like attributes and bluster is not going to help you.

23 February 2012 21:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Am I answerable to you?

What business it is of yours and why the self righteous preoccupation? Is your life that dull?

Now, lets be done with this. Provide the evidence to back your assertions of 22 February 2012 21:51 or stop droning on about this.

23 February 2012 21:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The more you refuse, the more you draw attention to it.

23 February 2012 22:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Here's another one where you systematically switch your IDs between Serpents and Doves, Dodo, and Man with No Name throughout the evening.

I have at least four others bookmarked where you are posting one minute with your Dodo ID and almost immediately switching to your Serpents and Dove ID to post more Catholic stuff again.

Now why would you do that, Dodo?

23 February 2012 22:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo

My you have been a good little student on this project!

Are you serious?

Have you read the thread you've just referenced. It had nothing to do with Catholicism and was a good hearted interchange with healthy banter - you missed out on this.

Ananlsis: 13 posts by Dodo, 3 from Man with No Name and 2 from x Serpents and Doves.

Hardly "systematically switch(ing) IDs between Serpents and Doves, Dodo, and Man with No Name throughout the evening."

And you missed one you know!

Here's the text:

Celtic Viking said...
Anglo Viking
I'd sooner share a pint of the good old black stuff with you and settle any differences we have amicably. Maybe a game of darts? Or an arm wrestle if you really must display your virility.

English Viking said...
Celtic,
OK, but none of that funny dancing. Or Guinness.

Celtic Viking said...
English Viking
Have you never had a Guiness mixed with Cider? Put hairs on your chest. If you prefer we can share a rare, fine Irish Malt. Dancing? Not in my local. A peat fire, comfortable seats and cheerful conversation.

Another identity for youto relentlessly hunt down. But which one?

23 February 2012 22:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said...

"Why were you using multiple IDs on that serious thread, Dodo, and switching between them to post comments?

"The more you refuse, the more you draw attention to it."


Oooooo, scary. "Please Miss. Dodo's been bad. Pretending to be someone else as well as an extinct bird!"

It's you who's being made to look like a small-minded, hysterical drama queen.

Evidence still not forthcoming of your wild accusations against me.

23 February 2012 23:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, why were you using multiple IDs and switching between them? Especially on serious threads during debates.

You can flap around and obfuscate and be shrill but all you're doing is showing how desperate you are to avoid answering.

24 February 2012 06:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Given up attempting to substantiate your untruths, exaggerations and lies? Want to switch the discussion into my justifying my behaviour, do we?

Let's examine your motives in seeking to discredit me? Let's see now, when this come up? Ah yes.

"Rodney, you can't have spent much time around here or you're quietly taking payment from Dodo to try to repair his tattered credibility. Dodo is the guy who was quietly using multiple IDs here to bolster support for himself and is still hanging around despite being caught red-handed."

A Catholic quest from Australia who was clearly proud that he and his spouses were expecting their fiirst child. And you in a mean spirited and contemptible manner, overlook all of this and in what can only be jealousy, launch a personal attack on me!

Why was that? And "tattered credibility"? You're the only one who ever raises this!

And then the immature, camp gossip in you came to the fore and, from your evident excitement you probably nearly wet yourself when Oswin asked for detail! You just couldn't contain yourself! At last someone had asked after all the other attempts in the past had fallen on deaf ears!

How long had you been waiting this moment?

And then with evident glee you say my behaviour was "systematic", that I was "talking to himself", "flouncing as one ID and returning as another" and then, "he's been here a lot longer than you probably think."

No evidence of worth to date to support this - just melodrama, hysteria and exaggeration.

And here's the real reason for all this - personal spite and vindictiveness

"I'm just just letting him indignantly flap around some more, demanding apologies, posting insults, and the like. As I can substantiate everything I've said, it's just a matter how much rope he wants really."

And you claim to occupy the moral high ground.

As to my motives - well what do you think? You've clearly invested considerable time and energy in 'researching' all this.

24 February 2012 11:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, why were you using multiple IDs here and switching between them during serious debates?

Why won't you answer?

I've no doubt you are sorry ... for being caught. I've no doubt you'd still be doing it too if it hadn't been spotted.

24 February 2012 11:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You want to frame it as a matter of etiquette but it's actually a matter of ethics. Not just context ethics either, it's core, personal ethics. Honesty, integrity, that sort of thing.

24 February 2012 12:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Ooooo, aren't we a good little moralist! You've really not done you're homework, have you? It's self evident from the posts. Never mind, you'll just have to live with not knowing.

You talk about, now what was it, oh yes, "personal ethics ... honesty, integrity, that sort of thing" and you have the gall to post malicious disinformation about me!

He's an interesting insight into your 'needs'. One of your first posts on this site that I can find:

DanJ0 said ...
"What does His Grace think about this?
Personally, I'm appalled but being a girly liberal I suppose that's to be expected."

(6 February 2011 19:21)

Indicative (as you would say) of a need for attention from older males and probably those in positions of authority. Is that why you're so, so interested in discussions with Albert and the Inspector? You get a thrill from the attention - any attention.

So, produce your evidence about my behaviour or, and please excuse me for saying this, do shut up.

Speak now for ever hold your piece - as they say! That is what they say, isn't it?

24 February 2012 12:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So much hot air expended just to avoid answering that simple question about why you secretly used multiple IDs and switched between them during debates.

24 February 2012 13:05  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - does your priest know you've been lying on the interwebs? How many "Hail Mary's" would one have to say for deceit and bringing the name of the church into disrepute? I imagine it would keep even your forked tongue busy... Actually, I doubt you ever go to confession - you're always right (your alter egos say so!), so why would you have need?

More relevantly to the underlying blog, is this the model of "pure manhood" that you're showcasing to the next generation in your Christian witness?

24 February 2012 13:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As an aside Dodo, if you're trawling all the way through my past comments trying to find something to use as an escape diversion, you could do worse than spend a little time working through my arguments about abortion. Damn, those arguments were majestic even though I say it myself. :)

24 February 2012 13:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 and Jon

What paradigms of male virtue you two are - a right bitchy and gossipy pair of old queens.

By the way DanJ0, why would I want to read your past posts? I just thought your very first one was "indicative" of your needs. Is that why you never hold discussions with Jon? You think him too young?

No diversion on my part. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your accussations against me.

Guess we now know who the real liar is on here.

24 February 2012 14:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lots of hot air again but still no explanation yet of why you were secretly operating multiple IDs and logging in and out of them to swap IDs during debates.

It's pretty clear why you won't answer, the answer reveals your character. Of course refusing to answer does the same thing too but you're hoping if you throw out enough chaff then it won't be so stark.

24 February 2012 14:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Am I answerable to you?

What business it is of yours and why the self righteous preoccupation? Is your life that dull?

Now, lets be done with this. Provide the evidence to back your assertions of 22 February 2012 21:51 or stop droning on about this.

Prove your case and I'll give you a full and frank answer. How's that for you?

24 February 2012 15:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Just to be clear about this. Removing all your hype and hysteria, I agree I was operating three or four IDs at a given point in time and swapping IDs during some debates.

What you've to substantiate is:

That I've done this to badger people.

That I've done so to hound Len for a lot longer than you thought by using a separate ID.

That I swapped IDs a few minutes apart to 'broadside' on other topics.

And that I also used anonymous posts to snipe before the blog owner switched that facility off?

So, as I've said previous, put up the evidence or shut up.

24 February 2012 15:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you don't need to agree that you were secretly running multiple IDs and swapping between them in debates. Those are established facts already. The evidence of it is throughout the blog comments and readily accessible directly or through a google search. It speaks for itself.

24 February 2012 16:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Yes they are the facts - and that's it. The rest is your furtive imagination and untruths.

Evidence the following:

That I did this to badger people.

That I did this to hound Len for a lot longer than you thought by using a separate ID.

That I swapped IDs a few minutes apart to 'broadside' on other topics.

And that I used anonymous posts to snipe before the blog owner switched that facility off?

All hype and fantasy on your part and to serve what purpose? And it all mame you feel soiled! What a delicate little creature you must be. Clearly you were getting some perverse pleasure from it.

Now do put or shut up! Prove the above and I'll answer any question you care to ask.

24 February 2012 17:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hey, here is an interesting one. See what Chancellor More does at the start. Len engages. Preacher quickly spots the trolling. Look at the ID switches there. Mr Eman (i.e. Dodo) comments to Chancellor More (i.e. Dodo) and takes the baton arguing with Len too. Srizels is now engaged. Chancellor More (i.e. Dodo) comments to Chancellor More (i.e. Dodo again) exhorting him in his Catholic struggle. Mr Eman (i.e. Dodo) responds to Chancellor More (i.e. Dodo) and is back to Len again. And on it goes. Now, I wonder what the reason for the multiple IDs is there?

24 February 2012 17:30  
Blogger Oswin said...

I've read through all of DanJo's links, and much else besides.

Dodo, you don't have a leg to stand on, so why argue the toss; he has you bang to rights. You are just making it worse for yourself.

I'll refrain from offering my opinion, except to say that I'm dismayed at my own naivety.

24 February 2012 18:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Thank you for finding this one. Interesting.

Now read through the thread again. Why do you describe it as 'trolling'? It's a good example and if you do go through it carefully and actually follow the discussion, you might begin to understand what was going on. There is one post of particular relevance to my motive. See if you can spot it.

No hounding or badgering of anyone on my part, by the way.

And for your further delectation, I was also Crusader and Tamborine Man that evening too. How shocking!

24 February 2012 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "Dodo, you don't have a leg to stand on, so why argue the toss; he has you bang to rights. You are just making it worse for yourself."

If you can see it that clearly too then I may as well call it a day here rather than be any more cruel than I have been already. Though in my defense, I have a reason for being so here.

Dodo, to answer one of your attempts at sidetracking, the reason I don't usually have discussions with Jon is that I don't want to appear to gang up on people during what are often heated debates.

24 February 2012 18:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

You are of course entitled to your opinion but "banged to rights"? On what exactly? What you need to understand is that the 'cowl and dagger' takes a diiferent form in these times.

If you have looked into this, as you say, you'll have noted I was on this blog in the two distinct periods - December 2010 to January 2011 and then returned after 2 months in March 2011.

24 February 2012 18:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo said ...

If you can see it that clearly too then I may as well call it a day here rather than be any more cruel than I have been already.

One swallow does not a summer make.

Cruel? Is that how you see it? How peculiar. It's causing me no discomfort at all.

To date you've demonstrated nothing of substance to back your claims about my behaviour despite what Oswin has observed.

24 February 2012 19:04  
Blogger Oswin said...

''What you need to understand is that the 'cowl and dagger' takes a different form in these times''

Reading that, I must thank you Dodo, for freeing me of the measure of guilt I felt at being a party to your humiliation.

DanJo: I think Dodo drew whatever 'cruelty' unto himself, many postings ago.

24 February 2012 23:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
Glad to have been of assistance. You were not a party to the actions of DanJ0. He's been desperate to use all of this for ages and seized the moment. Just consider his timing and motives.

As for 'humiliation', well I feel none. And if whatever has come my way has been 'cruelty' then one would have to have very thin skin to experience it as such.

So I used a few alternate ID's and made the occassional post with them. Big deal! What does this prove? No malicious intent has been demonstrated, whatever the conjecture. A simple look at the start and pattern of these is sufficient to satisfy anyone's curosity as to 'why?'.

So do stop all this bleeding heart 'holier than thou' nonsense. You're better than that.

And DnJ0, when you read this, just know that I question your motives for all the hype, hysteria and misrepresentation.

A matter of "personal ethics... honesty, integrity, that sort of thing" indeeed! That sounds convncing.

You revealed your true reasons:

"I'm just letting him indignantly flap around some more, demanding apologies, posting insults, and the like."

No indignant flapping around here and no substantiaton from you.

25 February 2012 00:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: ''holier than thou''?

Believe me, you would not have appreciated the unabridged version of my opinion.

I wipe my shoe of you; begone.

25 February 2012 01:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

It's all a matter of "personal ethics... honesty, integrity, that sort of thing"

Like this sort of comment from you?

" ... then a sycophant like you breaks off from rimming him to write stuff like that....
And Dodo, I hope you brushed your teeth afterwards. ;)"


Full of personal integrity and ... er ... what's that favourite word of your's ... indicative.

And your contributions are based on the concept that the:

" ... debates we have engaged in are basically strategy games, looking forward to likely replies and countering them beforehand ...

I think the first thing to argue about is whether sex, including a quick one off the wrist, is an inherent moral act and, if so, why."


Again, very wholesome and so strategic too.

So - still no hard evidence to present about my dastardly behaviour? Exaggeration, conjecture and speculation is all you have.

Oswin

Whatever.

You were on the blog at the time of my "confession" so either you do not read previous posts, have a poor memory or it left so small an impression at the time as to unworthy of comment. And you get all uppitty now!

25 February 2012 13:03  
Blogger len said...

Oswin, I think the outworking of these 'discussions 'is a descending spiral in which those who engage (with you know who) are tempted to discuss matters on a similar level.

The spider sits in its web waiting for the next victim to' engage.'

'disputandi pruritus ecclesiarum scabies'

26 February 2012 08:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

So I used a few alternate ID's and made the occassional post with them.< Big deal! What does this prove? No malicious intent has been demonstrated

The fact that this is submitted in mitigation is hysterical

1 - it's dishonest.
2 - it's dishonest.
3 - it's dishonest and desperate.

26 February 2012 12:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Wondered when you'd come along and join in. What took you so long?

You made your position clear back in October 2011 (yes it was that long ago):

"len said...
Dodo you being a self confessed fraud AND having multiple personalities why on Earth should I accept anything you say?"

(23 October 2011 21:10)

Now run along.

26 February 2012 13:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

Oh please!

26 February 2012 13:56  
Blogger Oswin said...

Len @ 08:29 : you are correct of course; I went where I shouldn't, against my better judgement. :o(

26 February 2012 15:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Yes, I'm quite sure discussions with DanJ0 will place you both on a fitting spritual plane.

This 'expose' is old news and was resurrected because of undisguised spite following his taunting of a Catholic visitor from Australia.

You carry on with supporting the likes of:

" ... then a sycophant like you breaks off from rimming him to write stuff like that....
And Dodo, I hope you brushed your teeth afterwards. ;)"


And:

" ... is a quick one off the wrist ... an inherent moral act and, if so, why."

And the worst of all a direct insult on the Eucharist:

"Dodo: "A simplistic caricature of the greatest gift given to us by Christ - His actual bodily presence."

Is it true that it tastes of pork?"

26 February 2012 16:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I know it's bad form to laugh at one's own jokes but that made me do it out loud. I'd forgotten that. One of my better one-liners, I think. :)

Dodo, matey. I've been here before on other forums when I've pushed someone's face in the own doodoo after their prolonged provocation of various people.

You're horribly humiliated and conflicted. You need to made it better somehow, and you need me to react badly to do so. I know that by not doing so I'm asking for sustained attempts at insult from you. But that's the way it is.

26 February 2012 17:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You are a grubby little man full of his own importance who has made mischief, that's all. Your motives are obvious to me.

You seriuosly believe I've been horribly humilitated? Or that you've pushed my face in my own doodoo? Do get a life.

You matey, are a liar.

26 February 2012 17:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yes.

This is why you're reacting the way you are here. You're becoming a bit shrill, actually.

26 February 2012 17:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dodo said ...
"You matey, are a liar."

DanJ0 said...
"Yes."

You have nothing of worth to say. Hype, exaggeration and misrepresentation and all driven by spite. Very noble.

26 February 2012 18:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You're embarrassing yourself again. I'm even cringing on your behalf now.

26 February 2012 18:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You the paradigm of honest, virtue and integrity?

The staunch atheist and practicing homosexual who was a God parent in a Christian Baptism!!!

And you dare call me a fraud for using a few ID's on a blog site!

26 February 2012 19:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older