The Catholic Cindy Sheehan

[Marie]

shockerfan:

OK. My next sarcastic reply to someone will include a hockey analogy.

I don’t want to discriminate against my cold weathered friends!

Hockey is fine. Just keep that Hockey stick away from my car. (Oh! Sorry, just thinking about the bratty neighbor who whacked my new car and dented it. )

 

[Debunkerman]

Ani Ibi:

gilliam has provided you with evidence that Ms Sheehan has said the war was for oil. So, now you have heard. gilliam is very skilled with the search window, by the way.

So what? I said I didn’t know of her saying the war was for oil. So what if Mrs Sheehan said the war was for oil? Maybe oil was a factor? The war against the people of Iraq was not about WMDs and 911.

Good for gilliam.

 

[Debunkerman]

Ani Ibi:

1. Do you expect others to read your posts then?

I don’t care if YOU read my posts. I don’t like reading your posts. You are somewhat offensive and I don’t like the flashing smilie heads. I know each one has some special meaning for you but they are not in my vocabulary.

Sorry I don’t share your enthusiasm for searching for and re-reading some of your previous 5,860 posted messages

 

[Ani_Ibi]

shockerfan:

OK. My next sarcastic reply to someone will include a hockey analogy.

Yay! I shall try to remember my baseball.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Debunkerman:

So what? I said I didn’t know of her saying the war was for oil.

Yes, that is correct; to be precise you said:

Debunkerman:

As far as I have heard and read I have not found an instance where Cindy Sheehan said the war was for oil

Then gilliam offered you several links and quotes where Ms Sheehan did say the war was for oil.

So the point is that, although you could claim no knowledge of Ms Sheehan’s position on war-for-oil before gilliam’s post, now you do know that Ms Sheehan said the war is for oil.

Debunkerman:

So what if Mrs Sheehan said the war was for oil?

Asked and answered.

Debunkerman:

Maybe oil was a factor? The war against the people of Iraq was not about WMDs and 911.

This is an unsubstantiated claim; one that has been covered in previous threads by the way. Moreover this thread is about The Catholic Cindy Sheehan. If you are interested in pursuing WMDs and 911, perhaps you could resurrect those previous threads. I am pretty confident that two or three posters at least might want to pick up on those discussions with you.

 

[koda]

Debunkerman:

You are somewhat offensive and I don’t like the flashing smilie heads. I know each one has some special meaning for you but they are not in my vocabulary.
Sorry I don’t share your enthusiasm for searching for and re-reading some of your previous 5,860 posted messages

Here, here! Ani lbi: The posting rules also say not to use sarcasm and not to be rude. Making fun of others is not a Christian virtue. IMO, Debunkerman’s posts are heartfelt and sincere. You may not agree with him but you don’t have to belittle him.

 

[aimee]

koda:

Here, here! Ani lbi: The posting rules also say not to use sarcasm and not to be rude. Making fun of others is not a Christian virtue. IMO, Debunkerman’s posts are heartfelt and sincere. You may not agree with him but you don’t have to belittle him.

You might want to re think that…look at whose post you quoted

 

[koda]

aimee:

You might want to re think that…look at whose post you quoted

So there is no confusion, I am giving my opinion on the treatment of Debunkerman by Ani lbi. I find it offensive and immature.

 

[aimee]

koda:

So there is no confusion, I am giving my opinion on the treatment of Debunkerman by Ani lbi. I find it offensive and immature.

Ani is never immature or offensive…but she is correct…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Debunkerman:

I don’t care if YOU read my posts. I don’t like reading your posts.

I suspect you may be crossing some sort of boundary between respect and disrespect.

Debunkerman:

You are somewhat offensive

This does have the appearances of a personal attack. So please bear with me while I respond to that.

While it may at times be legitimate to say that my words are offensive, it is never legitimate to say that*** I*** am offensive.

If you believe that my words are offensive, then would you please be so kind as to point out exactly what has offended you and why? Otherwise how am I to amend my ways if I am at fault?

Debunkerman:

and I don’t like the flashing smilie heads.

I have been suspecting for some time that, not only have you not read the Sheehan thread to which you referred in the OP, but some of your more exuberant statements appear to have been made imho without having read the forum rules and guidelines.

As for flashing smilie heads: the guidelines advise us to re-read what we write before posting it and, where there may exist a possibility that someone might take offense, then it is useful to include smileys.

On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice.

Now, I have not intended sarcasm. I think I have actually bent over backwards to be courteous, even to the extent of appearing pedantic. And so the smileys I have included have been in a spirit of cooperation and good will.

Debunkerman:

I know each one has some special meaning for you but they are not in my vocabulary.

This demonstrates yet again the appearance of not having read the guidelines.

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
**
The smileys I have used have absolutely no special meaning for me.

Debunkerman:

Sorry I don’t share your enthusiasm for searching for and re-reading some of your previous 5,860 posted messages

Forgive me if I am unconvinced of your remorse or regret. I tend to respond to people’s actual behaviour and not so much to what they profess.

As for your reluctance to pay respect to those posts which preceded your contributions on Sheehan: duly noted.

On a concluding note, I think it is best to draw in one’s horns somewhat or the moderator might decide to close this thread as he has closed the one you declined to read.

 

[Debunkerman]

NWUArmyROTC:

I am also delighted to see that you know my faith. That you know just from a few posts that I trust the Press and not God. You do NOT know me. You do not know yourself. If you bothered to look at what you’ve posted, it is a false god, it is Cindy Sheehan you have placed your trust in. Take a step back. You need to trust Christ and recognize that Cindy is not some prophet.

I have not placed my faith in Cindy Sheehan. I agree with her that the war in Iraq is wrong. It does not follow from that to conclude therefore I regard her to be a prophet.

I did not say you did not trust in God. Please don’t attribute statements to me that I did not make.

Perhaps we both share a trust in God.

“It is the Soldier, not the Journalist who has guaranteed freedom of the press”

Perhaps I misunderstood this quote you posted. What is is the point to guarantee freedom of the press?

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

• Always abide by the forum rules.
• Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
• Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
• Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
• It is acceptable to question policies and practices
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
• If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Dredging up embarrassing historical incidents in the history, unless it is for valid discussion of the effect these have on current policy or practice serves no useful purpose.
• Expecting members of a mainstream political party to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of fringe bodies is a technique that causes like retaliation and should be avoided.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word “avowed.” Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms. Do not abbreviate terms.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

koda:

Here, here! Ani lbi: The posting rules also say not to use sarcasm and not to be rude. Making fun of others is not a Christian virtue.

I have, to give you the benefit of the doubt, gone back and re-read all my posts on this thread. None of them were offered in the spirit of sarcasm. None of them approached being rude. And none of them made fun of others.

Now, granted, there may have been some other factors contributing to your misunderstanding.

(1) Perhaps, for example, mistaking overly cautious language for sarcasm. As I have explained in my last post, where I thought I might have come across as overly formal, I included a smiley.

(2)Perhaps, for example, being unfamiliar with irony or humour.

koda:

IMO, Debunkerman’s posts are heartfelt and sincere.

I cannot comment on that, basically because I cannot know what his thoughts are or what he needs. From the guidelines:

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

I have set out the difficulties I have had with Debunkerman’s part of this discussion thus far. In a nutshell they are that it appears that the discussion is to be on his terms imho – it is an exclusive discussion – and, when Debunkerman is challenged, he sometimes responds in a brusk manner, sometimes even making personal attacks.

koda:

You may not agree with him but you don’t have to belittle him.

Are you thinking about his comments to me?

Now, as I have already said, I believe that folks would do well to draw their horns in – instead of piling on – in order to get the discussion back on a friendly – and equal – footing.

The thread is on The Catholic Cindy Sheehan. Granted, the thread may well have been started with an intention to promote anti-war thought. Again, I can’t comment on intentions, only on what the OP actually says.

What the OP actually says is about Ms Sheehan’s Catholicism and about hearing her speak. Hearing her speak seems to have been a non-starter, because so far only Mr Debunkerman has heard her speak. So Ms Sheehan’s Catholicism it is then.

 

[gnjsdad]

NWUArmyROTC:

You are not in reality if you do not believe that she said this war was for oil or for Israel or blood. Hate permeates her speech. Her loss, which was grevious has turned into hate and she speaks it again and again. Witness her allegation that the US Military is occupying the city of New Orleans. She is not mentally stable anymore, her loss has really impacted her.

NWUArmyROTC:

Well this was enough for me. You support terrorism. You support suicide bombers in Iraq. I guess the Iraqi people deserve to die for exercising new freedoms. I guess soldiers should die because they are “evil occupiers.”

NWUArmyROTC:

You have embraced the radicalism and irrational thought that Cindy has. If you really think we don’t have Freedom of Speech, go to North Korea, go to Iran. You will feel at home in those countries. And yes, you support terrorism. When you call terrorists freedom fighters you become party to their violence. You become a willing accomplice in the murder of innocents. You become one of them.

You Hate America. You hate America because people can disagree with you. That is what makes this nation great, is that we can have a free press that disagrees. That you and I can have quite a disagreement. But the minute you attack that as false, that no such rights exist, you become no better than a Stalin or a Mao.

Inflamatory statements and personal attacks are prohibited in these forums. You should check the forum guidelines before posting.

 

[Robert_Bay]

EVERYONE

Calm down, take a walk and enjoy the real world.

Come back when you can post without attacking each other.

Then read the guidelines one more time before you post.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

gnjsdad:

Inflamatory statements and personal attacks are prohibited in these forums. You should check the forum guidelines before posting.

Inflammatory perhaps, personal attack, I think not. Rather I was drawing a logical conclusion based on the individuals posts. Considering he said I worship the False God of the Press and don’t follow Christ, a more serious accusation and attack.

Pointing out that Hate is implicit in Cindy Sheehan’s statements is not a personal attack on her. It is truth.

Considering the poster called the insurgents freedom fighters, I believe the second point you quoted from me is correct.

The Third post merely builds off the second and the posters own rhetoric.

So my statements were neither unsubstantiated nor personal attacks, but observations. Saying someone hates America is not a personal attack. In so doing, I guess we could not on this forum say, that UBL hates America, because that is a personal attack.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

And a final note. When service members get attacked and are called warmongers, I take it personally. When I get told that I must enjoy killing, I take it personally. That is a personal attack, and something that deserves a response.

 

[gilliam]

NWUArmyROTC:

And a final note. When service members get attacked and are called warmongers, I take it personally. When I get told that I must enjoy killing, I take it personally. That is a personal attack, and something that deserves a response.

Cool down. Choose the hill you wish to die on very carefully.

Some useless advice from a proud parent of a tanker.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

gilliam:

Cool down. Choose the hill you wish to die on very carefully.

Some useless advice from a proud parent of a tanker.

I believe you meant useful. Thank you. Standing Down. In reality, this thread isn’t worth the time of day. Got my dander up and a little hot and bothered.

 

[gilliam]

NWUArmyROTC:

I believe you meant useful. Thank you. Standing Down. In reality, this thread isn’t worth the time of day. Got my dander up and a little hot and bothered.

Huuaa! … that’s what I like about this generation, they have common sense!