Thursday, May 31, 2012

More Obnoxiousness from Moderators

Forum Message

Your account has been locked for the following reason:
circ

This change will be lifted: Never


Circ would be short for what I got when they tried that previous time: circumvention of moderator activity. Above was account hglundahl, below is account johngeorge:

Your account has been locked for the following reason: circumvention

This change will be lifted: Never


I just had enough time to repost previous* message, nrs I and VIII, under new screenname (no false name, straight translation of hansgeorg).

Let us put it like this: moderators seem to lack the verve needed to do actual debating and to have some irritation against those who have it. Their lack of that verve is then - with some help of for instance some women incapable of discussing among men and not knowing it - construed as a virtue about which they are quite humourless: circumventing moderator action is in itself a major offense to them, even if they cannot point or do not point to actual offenses in the things said.

One moderator gave me five points about a few precisely underlined words in a PM: I had not known that the recipient was a lady, or I would have worded it otherwise (not meaning one should be offensive to men, but that some words sound harsher if adressed to ladies. Apart from that moderator activity, which I am blamed for circumventing, has been a kind of irrational tyranny.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Library University of
Univ. de Picardie-Jules Verne
Beauvais
31 - V - 2012

PS: I did send the lady another PM to tell her I was sorry. And no, since she has a boyfriend (a Catholic, maybe her reason for being on those forums), she is not quite a love interest for me.

* "Invalid thread":
Is marriage of two people, one or both of whom is homosexual, but of opposite sex possible?
assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2012/05/invalid-thread-is-marriage-of-two.html

"Invalid thread": Is marriage of two people, one or both of whom is homosexual, but of opposite sex possible?

I
I was told not when discussing on the now closed thread homosexual marriage. Here is the answer I tried to post there:

---Quote (Originally by TarkanAttila)---
Ah... this can be true, in a sense. I wonder, though, does this mean that anyone who has had children can get married and never have children again? :confused:

But why would a homosexual man want to marry a woman? Part of being married is having sex. IIRC, a marriage can be annulled on the grounds that they never had sex.
---End Quote---


They would have to intend to have children.

The homosexual one would have to decide if sex with the mother of his child or total chastity is the heavier or lighter way of repenting for previous sodomitic life.

Both parties would have to know of his homosexual past.

I have in Swedish recommended Mr Gardell and Mr Levengood to separate, for Mr Gardell to marry the mother of Amos Gardell and Mr Levengood to marry the other woman in that lesbian relationship.

That was when I still believed Mr Gardell had had sex with the mother of Amos, and that therefore it was clear that he rather than Levengood was the father. Later a gay liberal who was also gay told me there was another possibility. It was the same guy whose hatred of John Paul II made me feel Karol Wojtyla was still dying a Christian death as he was cursed by those guys, even if he had not been Orthodox enough to be a Pope.

Anyway, I believe that scenario is licit. At least far more so than remaining in sodomitic relationships. And that is as already stated one of my grounds not to want such relationships to get status of marriage with all the divorce red tape that makes for.

Note: Gardell, Levengood and their son, and the fact that he the other weeks is staying "with two mothers" (but not who these are) is public knowledge in Sweden, it is not like divulging personal secrets. Gardell is a published author and a recognised gay icon in Sweden.

II
Posted by: St Francis
On: May 29, '12 8:20 am

Catholics do not believe in forced marriage. If a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage and the two parents marry only because of the child, then that can be grounds for annullment.

However, if a homosexual is able to complete the marital act with a spouse (obviously of the opposite sex), then a marriage is possible, and has apparently happened many times!

III
Posted by: rossum
On: May 29, '12 11:36 am

Indeed it has. There is even a word for it: beard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_(companion)

IV
Posted by: TheRealJuliane
On: May 29, '12 11:52 am

That term does not imply that the two people - the SSA person and the heterosexual person - are having sexual intercourse. They could be dating as a couple in order to throw off the "scent" of reporters hounding the SSA person. That used to happen in Hollywood although many times, it fooled absolutely no one.

It is a myth that gay men cannot have heterosexual sex. Many of them can. It happens.

But long-term, marriage to a gay person is not healthy for the straight person. Very difficult for the gay person to stay faithful, unless (and it's a very big unless) he has worked to leave that life behind. Otherwise, heartache, as well as possible exposure to life-threatening STDs will ensue.

V
Posted by: BlueEyedLady
On: May 29, '12 12:02 pm

That should never happen. It is devastating to the straight partner. I was engaged to a gay man and it destroyed me when he came out. Imagine finding out that the life you were building with the person you love was a complete and total lie. He was never even attracted to me. I feel even worse for peoe who find out after years of marriage and children.

I will say this though, he was a good and strong enough man to be faithful to me.

VI
Posted by: St Francis
On: May 29, '12 1:33 pm

I would definitely say that there should be total openness about this before the couple goes any further than simply considering marrriage.

I was thinking about the situation in the first post, not those where someone hides such an important fact from the other. If that is done, efforts must be made that the other never find out.

VII
Posted by: TheRealJuliane
On: May 29, '12 4:51 pm

---Quote (Originally by BlueEyedLady)---
That should never happen. It is devastating to the straight partner. I was engaged to a gay man and it destroyed me when he came out. Imagine finding out that the life you were building with the person you love was a complete and total lie. He was never even attracted to me. I feel even worse for peoe who find out after years of marriage and children.

I will say this though, he was a good and strong enough man to be faithful to me.
---End Quote---


It is devastating indeed. I'm very sorry that happened to you. It hurts to be rejected for another man, as well. A special kind of pain.

VIII
Myself on new thread after previous was deleted, my post is equal to here I + VIII:

Answering stray comments directed at this when the thread was previously up:

Catholics do not believe in forced marriage. If a woman becomes pregnant outside of marriage and the two parents marry only because of the child, then that can be grounds for annullment.


Forced marriage? No. If the father was takento that wedding under shot gun because of his child, that would be a ground for annulment. If he married the child's mother because it was his duty and he wanted to do that, and if he intended ordinary marital intercourse and being faithful, that would not be a ground for annulment.

That should never happen. It is devastating to the straight partner. I was engaged to a gay man and it destroyed me when he came out.


Saying one has feelings one has not if other partner is likely to build marriage or marriage intention on those feelings is of course a ground of annulment for the other person, since entering matrimony without knowing the intention of the other is doing it unvoluntarily, as when entering a trap.

I would not be very attracted to women who are so very feminine as to not realise what one was talking about: this one had a sad story but no idea it was another subject.

As for finding out one's wife is lesbian it may be less devastating to a man. Roy Campbell (according to a wiki article, I think) found that out about his wife, punished her, and the marriage went on.

http://www.webcitation.org/684BX8uqh

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

PM debate with a moderator

Sent: Apr 10, 2012 2:00 pm
by starkat


hansgeorg,

I have removed your post in [Narniaweb User]'s prayer request "..." from the forum. It is not your place to give her advice on whether or not counseling is a good idea or not. That is a decision for her and her parents. Please keep in mind this rule of the PR forum:

8. When posting in someone's prayer request thread, please keep in mind that this forum is intended to provide support to one another through prayer. It is not an advice column to guide a member through personal problems or trials.


If you simply wish to comment that you are praying for her, that's fine.

Starkat
Moderator Staff

Sent: Apr 10, 2012 3:36 pm
by hansgeorg


I suppose she will give my adivce to her parents.

I am not quite sure they are free to decide. My mother was not free to keep me homeschooled in ninth grade though that would have been best for me. But if they are, so much the better if they get my advice.

Sent: Apr 10, 2012 5:29 pm
by starkat


The rule for that forum is very specific. Please do not give her advice like that. Your posts will continue to be removed if you continue to do that.

Sent: Apr 11, 2012 9:06 am
by hansgeorg


Quite sure you prefer the username starkat to the username Trumpkin?

This is the second time you strike me as a blueprint of what the owls have to say about Trumpkin in the Silver Chair.

More seriously, you act as if going to counselling were something innocent, even if one is forced to it. You act as if shrinks were not idolaters, worshippers of Apollo Delphicus, better called Apollyon, at the worst, and at the very best Pharisees.

A Christian as a Christian has every right to discounsel going to counselling.

Sent: Apr 11, 2012 1:11 pm
by starkat


It is none of our business whether or not [Narniaweb User, same as above] and her family have chosen counseling as an option. I am removing your post again. It is a complete violation of the Prayer Request forum rules.

Sent: Apr 11, 2012 1:29 pm
by hansgeorg


The rule is a violation of what prayer requests are about and what human communication is about.

It is also being enforced by a forum chief who admits to enjoying counselling herself.

Sent: Apr 11, 2012 1:36 pm
From: starkat
To: hansgeorg


Then take it up with the gentleman who owns the forum. His screenname is Tirian. [It was not Tirian who posted them, and she who did posted advice pro-counselling] All I and the other moderator staff are doing are enforcing the rules. You agreed to abide by these rules when you joined the forum. The moderators do not have the authority to change the rules. [He deleted an answer in which I said agreement was by pushing a button and in blanco - meaning I was assuming rules to be reasonable - and that though he "had no authority to change the rules" he seemed to have it for applying them roughhandedly]

These are some things that go together, and when I was baptised, I agreed among other things to abide by this, according to my spiritual resources:

» Admonish sinners
» Instruct the ignorant
» Counsel the doubtful
» Comfort the sorrowful
» Bear wrongs patiently
» Forgive injuries
» Pray for the living and the dead

Spiritual Works of Mercy (page on a Catholic site)

(The Corporeal ones are another list, to which I am equally obliged: six of them we find in the passage "I was hungry and ..." and so forth, the seventh is burying the dead: that is to be applied by each, including me, according to corporeal resources.)