I have a very disturbing situation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michcool125
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been some interesting replies, for sure. Opinions that are complete opposites. But I see a lot of people jumping to conclusions about me and I wish they would read my posts because it dismisses all this I’m being accused of.

I understand the need to give him the benefit of the doubt, I also understand it could be something. I will take the advice of one poster (sorry I forget your name) and mention the decremental effects this can have on one’s PC if left unchecked for Trojans or whatnot.

I appreciate being trusted by some people, but c’mon guys think… most trolls that make threads about this don’t go past a few posts, some are even just one and that’s it. I have a real concern here, and I really don’t appreciate being called fake after I tried to defend myself. Some of you guys have attitudes about people are are not in line with Catholicism IMO. I may not be the most knowledgeable person about Catholicism but I can recognize simple consideration or more accurately lack thereof.
 
whiteknite said:
It does state “failed to receive the correct information for his order on “camboys” and their was were pictures of naked guys”
Personaly i think its not spam as he doesnt mension spam folder!!

Wake up!!!

:knight1:
Click to expand...
My yahoo account regularly places yahoo groups email into the spam folder. And, I get really nasty stuff in my inbox! The filters change constantly, as does spam.

I’ve had that email account for about 10 years.

I have a small business too. We can’t have filters on them because orders and inquiries will get lost. My BF’s email filters at work periodically block what I send from yahoo.

It’s an imperfect world. I doubt church accounts have great spam filters too.
 
Michcool125 said:
well guys, I’ve been reading these responses, and I find it strange that even though I have an Associates in computer science, I’ve never once heard of spam that had a user name and said you had an order placed and a problem confirming it or whatever. 🤷 and I’d assume modern email technologies would eliminate at least these kind of more “personal” spam.
Click to expand...
Let’s pretend that it did have a real and valid username (not that you would know, because in my business account I get spam with order numbers…). Could it possibly be the result of a malicious prank?

How hard is it to make a userid, give an email, and submit a fake order? Not hard at all… I get fake orders from my webstore on occasion.

It’s killing you not to know? What if this wonderful priest is actively fighting against a leaning that he knows is a sin? Your curiousity seems unhealthy. Would you expose him to his bishop? What if he has gone to his bishop, burdened by his problems?

Bad idea…
 
Michcool125 said:
well guys, I’ve been reading these responses, and I find it strange that even though I have an Associates in computer science, I’ve never once heard of spam that had a user name and said you had an order placed and a problem confirming it or whatever. 🤷 and I’d assume modern email technologies would eliminate at least these kind of more “personal” spam.
Click to expand...
I’d be happy to forward you some of the junk that comes to my email box, complete with my first name (which is not even part of my email address).
 
Michcool125 said:
He said “oh, well thats nice” then “I have such a problem with spam” and “don’t delete it, I like to see just exactly where it’s coming from”

he also had only three emails, this being one of them.
Click to expand...
My service provider asks that these spam messages be them complete with headers to assist in blocking. Reasonable request.
 
It is possible that some people might particularly target priests with such spam…

On the other hand, do not feel untrusting regarding all priests, most of whom try to live their vocation well.
But do remember that one of the twelve that Jesus chose was a traitor to Him. The remainder of these, Christ’s first priests, gave their energies and lives to Him fully.

It is therefore not unlikely that in the priesthood there are some traitors who do not safeguard their people …and I’ve met a couple…but the vast majority of priests are sincerely to live according to the gospel and doing the best they can for souls.

I** ask God to heal you of this disturbance to your peace of mind and pray that your faith remains buoyant, and your actions discerning**. Bless you, Trishie
 
Sheeniac said:
I do find this statement somewhat ironic, all things considered.
Click to expand...
If you read back of my previous quotes, you would see I have much respect for this priest and the last thing on my mind is exposing him. I just want to get to the bottom of it and remove all doubt. eesh.
 
Michcool125 said:
If you read back of my previous quotes, you would see I have much respect for this priest and the last thing on my mind is exposing him. It’s truly a fine line. I just want to get to the bottom of it and remove all doubt. eesh.
Click to expand...
 
Hey I just remembered my Bayesian probability forumlas if anyone cares.

P(e1|e2) = P(e2|e1) * P(e1) / P(e2)

In english…
The probability of event 1 happening conditional on event 2 happening = The probability of event 2 happening conditional on event 1, times the probability of event 1 in general, divided by the probability of event 2 in general.

Now event 1 is that the priest is doing something bad. Event 2 is the spam mail.

The probability that the priest is receiving the spam mail, assuming that he is doing something bad, is of course 100%. So P(e2|e1) = 1.

The probability that the priest is doing something bad in general, is equal to the number of priests who would do something like this, divided by the number of priests in the world. Say one in a thousand? I don’t really know. So P(e1) = 0.001

The probability of receiving this kind of spam mail in general, would be equal to the number of email accounts on that server that recieve such spam, divided by the number of accounts on that server. I’m sure at least 1 in 10 accounts get spam like this. So P(e2) = 0.1

Therefore, the probability of the priest doing something bad, given that we know he is receiving these emails, is P(e2|e1) = 0.01

By my numbers there is a 1% chance that this priest is doing something wrong and a 99% chance he is innocent. “Benefit of the doubt” hardly even seems like the right phrase to use.
 
Flopfoot said:
Hey I just remembered my Bayesian probability forumlas if anyone cares.

P(e1|e2) = P(e2|e1) * P(e1) / P(e2)
Click to expand...
Okay, so what makes that a Bayesian statement in particular? That seems like a regular old conditional probability statement of some sort. :hmmm:
 
Good Grief

this is RIDICULOUS

I believe Michael is legit…at least I hope he is

As far as this spam stuff…I believe the priest does have spam. I have an account with my university and it filters all of my spam but I can go into my spam folder to pick out emails that were put in there by mistake

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen emails exactly as the OP describe the priest had…Homosexual and heterosexual and I’m a female. The majority are trying to enlarge the male genitalia that I do not have. They have my name and claim that I have an order…also some ask for order confirmations. Others use my own email to send it to me, which is quite disturbing.

The fact that you are so quick to judge this priest (Regardless of your protestations of the opposite) just shows where your mind lays. Show some Christian Charity. Understand this is something that happens to all of us. My best friend has a Master’s in Computer Science and this stuff happens to him too. So claiming knowledge in computers doesn’t mean anything really

To go SNOOPING is beyond wrong! How would you like the priest seeing your computer have spam go snooping for sin in your private files. It does NOT justify the means! Pray about it, Trust in God to out him if he is indeed doing this but don’t just make assumptions based on SPAM.

This is just SILLY!!!
 
Pug said:
Okay, so what makes that a Bayesian statement in particular? That seems like a regular old conditional probability statement of some sort. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m getting my words mixed up. I remember learning that formula in statistics though. You should be able to prove it by drawing a square with a cross in it. (Like Jesus’ cross, not an X. The left part represents event 1 happening, the right represents it not happening, the top represents event 2 happening, the bottom represents event 2 not happening. Then calculate the relative area or something). For some reason I associate it with learning about Bayesian things. I’ve pretty much lost the talent and good memory I used to have so I can’t tell you for sure everything I learned back then.
 
Flopfoot said:
Maybe I’m getting my words mixed up. I remember learning that formula in statistics though. You should be able to prove it by drawing a square with a cross in it. (Like Jesus’ cross, not an X. The left part represents event 1 happening, the right represents it not happening, the top represents event 2 happening, the bottom represents event 2 not happening. Then calculate the relative area or something). For some reason I associate it with learning about Bayesian things. I’ve pretty much lost the talent and good memory I used to have so I can’t tell you for sure everything I learned back then.
Click to expand...
Yep. I know about all that good education going out some large drain I seem to have in my, uh, what’s that, uh, tip of my tongue, uh, MEMORY, yeah. 😦

I never learned any Bayesian Stats, so I was curious. I can prove the formula, though, that is something! Not all is lost!
 
Michcool125 said:
I understand the need to give him the benefit of the doubt, I also understand it could be something. I will take the advice of one poster (sorry I forget your name) and mention the decremental effects this can have on one’s PC if left unchecked for Trojans or whatnot.
Click to expand...
That was me…Glad I could help. I think the most important thing is to be as upfront and honest with him as humanly possible. Your job as his tech is to protect his computer. It is no coincidence, I think, that porn spam is dangerous to the computer not just the user.

I mean really what your goal is, is to protect him from viruses coming to his computer. Your job as a Christian is to protect him from temptation as best you can while still allowing him his free will. Offer him as much protection as possible and hopefully he will take you up on it. And I agree with a previous poster who said he is due more than just the benefit of one doubt. He is due the benefit of several (hundred) doubts.
 
I think that if it was spam and it was mail that was already read, he should have deleted it. Why keep spam unless it is not really spam…

Annie
 
I think the right thing here is the most difficult. If it was a different issue or time it should be left alone as something between him and God.

That being said.

The issue has deep ramifications as your state of mind makes clear. You owe it to him , yourself and your Parish to talk to him about what happened and how it has disturbed you. If he is innocent he will have no problem explaining why they were there and doing what is necessary to clear himself for your sake.

If he has a problem he is hiding he will either explain away what you saw without doing much in the way relieving your anxiety by showing you that they weren’t solicited or he’ll break down and tell you the truth and wish to do what is required of him as a Priest.

Even if you find that the man is not what you thought, going to him with this anxiety is the best thing to do. You will have done what is good for him yourself and your Parish.
 
For heaven’s sake, if you haven’t discovered by now, any e-mail address that is publicly posted on the internet and has been in active use for a few days, has probably been also harvested by the spammers. The only way to put a temporary halt to it is to change your e-mail address once or twice a year.

If you’re going to say anything to the bishop, why don’t you ask if the diocese has some recommendations for blocking e-mail spam? This will both give them the chance to deal with what is most likely the real problem (the spam), and put them on notice that there is another potential problem. It’s easy enough for a knowledegable person to verify when the problem is spam, and when it’s something worse.

Hackers create nasty little tools called “spiders” for the sole purpose of surfing the net and building a database of anything that looks like an e-mail address, just so they can have new spam targets. Even worse, chances are 99%++ that at some point your priest has e-mailed someone technologically unsophisticated enough to be themselves infected with PC virus that harvests e-mail address books.

Your priest is not a computer geek. He is a priest. He’s trained in theology, not in computers. And he was probably just as shocked as you to find this filth in his e-mail inbox.
 
I forgot to add that if he was soliciting these sites I doubt he would allowed an aquaintance to work on his computer. He would have been discreet. Most likely he would hire someone completely anonamous and would have appeared as an anonamous client .
 
whiteknite said:
If you think that much about as i can see, You was helping him with him Email?? Do you have his password??
try logging in to his email account and see if he gets other stuff like that.
Sound wrong but personaly i would like to know as would the rest of your parish.
Who knows what hes upto.

:knight1:
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is not ethical to snoop in his email.

Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer used to say that there is only one judgment day and only one judge. Don’t try to be a judge. Don’t snoop. Nobody has died and appointed you “god.”

Further, you may open yourself to a charge of libel if you spread false rumors about this priest. And, you may also be liable for identity theft if you “steal” mail as this poster has suggested.

In spite of all this, if you feel compelled to do anything, go to the police. Be aware that even this pornography may not be illegal, even if it may be immoral to possess it. Again, you may be liable to identity theft if you steal this priest’s information,

…if this information you present is even true in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top