**
Jamesclsude wrote:
**
My work is based on pure fact - not malicious half-truths or what you choose to read into a news article.
**
James you sly dog. You love to jump around the Catholic Forums and stir up the soup. You know your"craft" well. here are some interesting tactics we see here:
Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent.
False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
A group that takes good men and makes them better…???
Oh, almost forgot - It’s a bishop’s mitre - NOT a papal tiara. ( There have been some AWFUL and tyrannical bishops in throughout history - kings, dictators and presidents, too! ) The language of these older versions referred directly to the bad ones - such as Borgia popes- and perhaps to bishops who knowlingly move child molesting priests from one diocese to another - to molest yet again - and again. Please refer to the latest version of this degree from around 2001 - it’s lots more ecumenical, although we still teach that tyranny and evil-doers are BAD things !
Masonry stands against ANYone who tramples upon the rights of human beings - even if they’re hiding behind the Church’s skirts.
Do you throw darts at a picture of a Pope or a Bishop in addition to desecrating their garb? tsk tsk.
**
…
At least He doesnt think its a piece of furniture.