SkipCaptcha
951
edits
Changes
new message "Your proposed posting to an alternative Catholic-oriented site"
God bless.[[User:LaMarina|LaMarina]] ([[User talk:LaMarina|talk]]) 18:00, 28 August 2020 (EDT)
God bless.[[User:LaMarina|LaMarina]] ([[User talk:LaMarina|talk]]) 18:00, 28 August 2020 (EDT)
:Hi LaMarina, I made a reply to this message on your talk page. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Friday, 18:06, 28 August 2020 (EDT)
:Hi LaMarina, I made a reply to this message on your talk page. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Friday, 18:06, 28 August 2020 (EDT)
== Your proposed posting to an alternative Catholic-oriented site ==
::'''Liberaltears''', the site recommended by you as one that "'''''seems''''' [to you] a more Catholic-oriented alternative to Conservapedia" opposes Catholic doctrine regarding the Pope, the Magisterium, and the authority of the ''Ecumenical Councils'' of [[Council of Trent|Trent]] through [[Second Vatican Council|Vatican II]]. (I'll post this paragraph on Liberaltears' talk page.) As for feeling that "debating other editors here" gets "nowhere", you totally miss the fact that a firm defense of the truth of the doctrine of the Church on Conservapedia is not for the purpose "winning" a debate or getting people ignorant of the actual doctrine to admit they were in error (perhaps misinformed by others who did not really know what they were talking about, or perhaps reaching erroneous conclusions on their own based on a badly uninformed reading of the Bible without knowledge of what the original language texts really say by not knowing that some words are not metaphors but only literal in meaning—like ''trogon'' in John 6 "eat, chew, gnaw, crunch my flesh"). Conservapedia "welcomes all points of view" ''officially'', but too often some of the Sysops/administrators are hostile even to the point of violating Conservapedia standards in order to ridicule, insult, and drive the Catholic contributors away by a vigorous vendetta against Catholicism, by using insults and outrageous misrepresentations based on [[Confirmation bias]], making Conservapedia more and more Protestant than it was ten years ago (''according to Dataclarifier''—he says it was more friendly then). Occasionally postings and contributions have been utterly deleted as being intolerable spamming with "irrelevant Catholic garbage". But most of the time not, just being treated with bullying contempt and hostility instead. "Catholics not wanted" is the hidden message. And it's pervasive. Much of what Dataclarifier has contributed has survived almost intact. My own brief contribution to some of the articles on the popes, and what I did adapting the Harmony of the Gospel conservative version to audio read aloud, has apparently been left untouched. So, if what I've edited or contributed to Conservapedia does in fact convince anyone that the actual Catholic doctrine of the ''Catechism'' is from the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through them leading into all the truth, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Dataclarifier says he was too zealous for the Church when he first entered, and that Father Nelo Leto asked him, "Were you talking with anyone when you decided to become Catholic?" and he said, "No." And Father Leto said, "Then why don't you let the Spirit do his work? I don't really think He needs your help."<br>So, whether or not it "gets nowhere" is moot, because after I finish up with the Debate on whether the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded or not, both Dataclarifier and me will retire from Conservapedia for the most part. He didn't want to "butt heads" with anti-Catholics on that Debate page but just wanted to see what would happen. When I looked at it I couldn't stand the fact that no one was defending the Church and the "No, it hasn't happened" section was empty. As I said, he didn't want to participate, but I sure did! And so it's reached a point where there's no point to it. '''Conservative''' wanted Debate pages to be organized with straightforward "Yes" and "No" sections, each one presenting a particular side of the the Debate and leaving it at that. But it got bogged down and obscured by constant interruptions of inserted opposing comments and insults and scriptures cited again and again and contradictions with scriptures cited in opposition to other scriptures again and again and each side denounced by the other as posting "irrelevant spam intended to obscure the purpose of the debate and deflect it into other issues not relevant to the stated topic of the debate in violation of the rules of the debate" (''whew, that's a mouthful''). <br> OK that brings us to today. I will go ahead this afternoon with what I recommended ("24 hours after making the Recommendation) and revise the layout of the Debate page,
::*getting rid of unnecessary repetitious "spam" and disruptive insertions into contributing users' arguments that chopped them up by cutting and interrupting their text at multiple places above the contributing user's signature line and essentially obscuring the point being made,
::*and moving comments "yay" to the now named "Protagonist" section, and comments "nay" to the now-named "Antagonist" section of the Debate. That should streamline the whole page.
::If it's promptly reverted afterward I won't be at all surprised, even if the revised layout '''''is''''' according to the form Conservative insisted should be maintained for a debate page. If it is, I won't stick around to contest it. A reversion would only prove that revision of the page into the form of a fair debate clearly stated without obscuring the topic is unacceptable to someone. <br> '''''Nuff said!''''' (too much!) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (EDT)