| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:25:39 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,611 |
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful
person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying.
I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks >(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em.
Just when I thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come
back again.
The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by
a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material.
...............................................................
[Todal]
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful
person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying. >>>>
[Me]
I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV
[Todal]
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em. >>
[Me]
Just when I thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come
back again.
On 26/07/2025 07:42, Martin Harran wrote:
The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by
a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material.
...............................................................
[Todal]
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful >>>>>> person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying. >>>>>
[Me]
I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV
[Todal]
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em.
[Me]
Just when I thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come
back again.
Maybe you see yourself as a bed bug, or a louse.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:40:50 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 26/07/2025 07:42, Martin Harran wrote:
The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by
a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material.
...............................................................
[Todal]
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful >>>>>>> person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying. >>>>>>
[Me]
I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>>> less than 100% reliable.
YMMV
[Todal]
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em.
[Me]
Just when I thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come
back again.
Maybe you see yourself as a bed bug, or a louse.
Nah, just someone who can recognise a Trump-wannabe who thinks he can
use his administrative powers to eliminate those who criticise him.
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law-
related material. You know that.
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law-
related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
On 27/07/2025 18:23, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:40:50 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 26/07/2025 07:42, Martin Harran wrote:
The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by >>>> a moderator.
This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.legal.moderated
or has insufficient law-related material.
...............................................................
[Todal]
The woman I have referred to is 82. She is a reliable and truthful >>>>>>>> person and I find it offensive of you to imply that she must be lying. >>>>>>>
[Me]
I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>>>> less than 100% reliable.
YMMV
[Todal]
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em.
[Me]
Just when I thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come
back again.
Maybe you see yourself as a bed bug, or a louse.
Nah, just someone who can recognise a Trump-wannabe who thinks he can
use his administrative powers to eliminate those who criticise him.
As a Catholic you must surely be accustomed to unquestioning obedience
to authority. I am surprised to see you complaining about ex cathedra >decisions now. Perhaps you have spunk after all. I don't think you need
to display your spunk as often as you do.
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient
law-related material. You know that.
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is
an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law-
related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law-
related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law-
related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
Or the legal content ?
We see your sanctimony too. Hypocritical cant (sic)
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
Or the legal content ?
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable."
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em.
Just when I thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come
back again.
As a Catholic you must surely be accustomed to unquestioning obedience
to authority.
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >> >> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Martin in response provided no argument of any kind.
HTH.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>>>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Which was not at all my claim.
Martin in response provided no argument of any kind.
Apparently it was beyond your understanding.
HTH.
Todal's post contained no argument let alone legal content, it was
just more of his regular anti-Catholic ranting. That's fair enough, I
accept people's right to rant, but I also regard others as having the
right to call it out for what it is. Where the double standards come
in is Todal abusing his position as moderator to try to shut me down
from calling out his rant. Fortunately, we have UNNM as a place to
highlight such hypocrisy.
On 30/07/2025 09:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules
applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They
forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring.-a Let's gaslight the lot >>>> of 'em.
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Which was not at all my claim.
Martin in response provided no argument of any kind.
Apparently it was beyond your understanding.
HTH.
Todal's post contained no argument let alone legal content, it was
just more of his regular anti-Catholic ranting. That's fair enough, I
accept people's right to rant, but I also regard others as having the
right to call it out for what it is. Where the double standards come
in is Todal abusing his position as moderator to try to shut me down
from calling out his rant. Fortunately, we have UNNM as a place to
highlight such hypocrisy.
I think I might be joining you soon.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:I think it's time you understood that you need to improve your powers of communication and not assume that everyone will understand the sentence
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to >>>>>>> your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Which was not at all my claim.
On 29/07/2025 in message <ptug8k1eu431n1b9j4tpm6qm1g4g7a9i54@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is
an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Why don't we move into the 21st century and stick to English, the courts seem to be doing so.
Why don't we call a personal attack a personal attack instead of some
poncy Latin name :-)
Op 28/07/2025 om 17:36 schreef The Todal:
As a Catholic you must surely be accustomed to unquestioning obedience
to authority.
Surely not in Ulster.
On 29/07/2025 09:33, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <ptug8k1eu431n1b9j4tpm6qm1g4g7a9i54@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is
an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Why don't we move into the 21st century and stick to English, the courts
seem to be doing so.
Why don't we call a personal attack a personal attack instead of some
poncy Latin name :-)
What's more, the phrase "ad hominem" is misused more than it is
correctly used. Martin thought he had identified an ad hominem in what I >said but he was wrong. It was, if anything, a reductio ad absurdum. If
you disagree with Martin he takes it very personally and sees it as an
ad hominem.
I picture you in short
trousers as a choirboy in your catholic church, admiring the fake tears >produced by the statue of the Virgin Mary.
However, I think your personal notion of "love" might be rather
different from the notion used by non-believers. Yours probably
resembles the love shown by an angry schoolmaster wielding the cane to >punish a disobedient schoolboy.
Come off it. You're a Catholic. You never challenged anybody. If your
priest was a predatory paedophile you'd quietly advise the choirboys to >avoid being alone with him and leave it at that.
But you failed to understand that point, because you really aren't an
expert on very much. If it isn't in your catechism, it's invisible to you.
I think most Christians are rather better at displaying humility and the >ability to acknowledge their mistakes. Truly it is they who will enter--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
the kingdom of heaven.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:35:25 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:33, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <ptug8k1eu431n1b9j4tpm6qm1g4g7a9i54@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is
an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Why don't we move into the 21st century and stick to English, the courts >>> seem to be doing so.
Why don't we call a personal attack a personal attack instead of some
poncy Latin name :-)
What's more, the phrase "ad hominem" is misused more than it is
correctly used. Martin thought he had identified an ad hominem in what I
said but he was wrong. It was, if anything, a reductio ad absurdum. If
you disagree with Martin he takes it very personally and sees it as an
ad hominem.
You choose not to indicate what you actually said that you believe I
wrong labelled ad hominem. Was it any of the following? If not,
perhaps you might give some indication of what it was:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 10:59:20 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
I picture you in short
trousers as a choirboy in your catholic church, admiring the fake tears
produced by the statue of the Virgin Mary.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:28:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
However, I think your personal notion of "love" might be rather
different from the notion used by non-believers. Yours probably
resembles the love shown by an angry schoolmaster wielding the cane to
punish a disobedient schoolboy.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:52:32 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Come off it. You're a Catholic. You never challenged anybody. If your
priest was a predatory paedophile you'd quietly advise the choirboys to
avoid being alone with him and leave it at that.
On 07/06/2025 16:01, The Todal wrote:
But you failed to understand that point, because you really aren't an
expert on very much. If it isn't in your catechism, it's invisible to you.
I think most Christians are rather better at displaying humility and the
ability to acknowledge their mistakes. Truly it is they who will enter
the kingdom of heaven.
On 30/07/2025 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensI think it's time you understood that you need to improve your powers of >communication and not assume that everyone will understand the sentence
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual
argument on the point
of 'em.Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Which was not at all my claim.
that is in your head.
You wanted to discredit the genuine memories of my elderly female
relative because it didn't fit with your personal faith in the quality
of Catholic teachers.
To claim that old people have unreliable memories is an effective way to >shut down allegations of historic sexual abuse.
What we do often find, however, is that abusers who are in their 80s
will often conveniently claim to have forgotten the assaults they
carried out and to say they have genuine doubts about whether the
assaults ever took place. Abusers are not only Catholics and not only >Christians and not only religious, which should go without saying.
And I
never claimed that my elderly female relative was assaulted by teachers, >only that she heard some distasteful dogma.
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
On 31/07/2025 07:59, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:35:25 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:33, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <ptug8k1eu431n1b9j4tpm6qm1g4g7a9i54@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is >>>>> an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Why don't we move into the 21st century and stick to English, the courts >>>> seem to be doing so.
Why don't we call a personal attack a personal attack instead of some
poncy Latin name :-)
What's more, the phrase "ad hominem" is misused more than it is
correctly used. Martin thought he had identified an ad hominem in what I >>> said but he was wrong. It was, if anything, a reductio ad absurdum. If
you disagree with Martin he takes it very personally and sees it as an
ad hominem.
You choose not to indicate what you actually said that you believe I
wrong labelled ad hominem. Was it any of the following? If not,
perhaps you might give some indication of what it was:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 10:59:20 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
I picture you in short
trousers as a choirboy in your catholic church, admiring the fake tears
produced by the statue of the Virgin Mary.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:28:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
However, I think your personal notion of "love" might be rather
different from the notion used by non-believers. Yours probably
resembles the love shown by an angry schoolmaster wielding the cane to
punish a disobedient schoolboy.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:52:32 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Come off it. You're a Catholic. You never challenged anybody. If your
priest was a predatory paedophile you'd quietly advise the choirboys to
avoid being alone with him and leave it at that.
On 07/06/2025 16:01, The Todal wrote:
But you failed to understand that point, because you really aren't an
expert on very much. If it isn't in your catechism, it's invisible to you. >>
Those are ad hominems.
This one wasn't.
"Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks >(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of
'em. "
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
I think most Christians are rather better at displaying humility and the >>> ability to acknowledge their mistakes. Truly it is they who will enter
the kingdom of heaven.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensI think it's time you understood that you need to improve your powers of
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual >>>>>> argument on the point
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks >>>>>>> (especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget >>>>>>> all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot >>>>> of 'em.
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Which was not at all my claim.
communication and not assume that everyone will understand the sentence
that is in your head.
You wanted to discredit the genuine memories of my elderly female
relative because it didn't fit with your personal faith in the quality
of Catholic teachers.
I said nothing whatsoever about your aunt, I simply stated a general principle that peoplerCOs memories get less reliable as they get older, especially when they get into their 80s+. Do you seriously want to
disagree with that principle?
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule and individuals
certainly donrCOt all suffer memory decline at the same rate. That is
why I specifically added rCLYMMVrCY to acknowledge that I havenrCOt a clue
as to how reliable your auntrCOs memory is and, unlike you, I donrCOt make judgements about people I have never met or had any dealings with.
To claim that old people have unreliable memories is an effective way to
shut down allegations of historic sexual abuse.
What we do often find, however, is that abusers who are in their 80s
will often conveniently claim to have forgotten the assaults they
carried out and to say they have genuine doubts about whether the
assaults ever took place. Abusers are not only Catholics and not only
Christians and not only religious, which should go without saying.
I challenge you to give an example rCo just one will do rCo of me ever suggesting that people claiming to be abused should not be believed
because of memory issues; or, indeed, should not be believed for *any* reason.
Or even give an example of any person claiming abuse by priests or
religious whose claim was dismissed by investigators because the
accused claimed they had no recollection of it.
And I
never claimed that my elderly female relative was assaulted by teachers,
only that she heard some distasteful dogma.
I never mentioned anything about abuse, you were the one who
introduced it when you went off on one of your ill-formed rants.
--
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
snip
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 09:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:42:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensI think it's time you understood that you need to improve your powers of >>> communication and not assume that everyone will understand the sentence
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 10:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-29, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> wrote:Here is the Todal idiot's text quoted:
On 29/07/2025 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:50:49 +0100, BrritSki <rtilbury@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 28/07/2025 17:36, The Todal wrote:
The rejection was, of course, totally justified. Insufficient law- >>>>>>>>>>> related material. You know that.
I totally agree. The problem was that exactly the same rules applied to
your post that he was replying to. You know that.
Correct. That is where the double standards come in.
Exactly.
You know that, he knows that, we all know that.
Except we don't, because it isn't true. Todal's post was an actual >>>>>>> argument on the point
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks >>>>>>>> (especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot >>>>>> of 'em.
Where is the "actual argument on point" in that ?
It's pointing out that, contrary to Martin's claim, you can't just
airily dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old.
Which was not at all my claim.
that is in your head.
You wanted to discredit the genuine memories of my elderly female
relative because it didn't fit with your personal faith in the quality
of Catholic teachers.
I said nothing whatsoever about your aunt, I simply stated a general
principle that peoplerCOs memories get less reliable as they get older,
especially when they get into their 80s+. Do you seriously want to
disagree with that principle?
It is simply untrue. As people age their short term memory degrades, >ultimately in a retrograde way. But childhood memories if anything get more >vivid with frequent recapitulation. Just a factual aside; you can ignore it if >you want.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule and individuals
certainly donrCOt all suffer memory decline at the same rate. That is
why I specifically added rCLYMMVrCY to acknowledge that I havenrCOt a clue >> as to how reliable your auntrCOs memory is and, unlike you, I donrCOt make >> judgements about people I have never met or had any dealings with.
To claim that old people have unreliable memories is an effective way to >>> shut down allegations of historic sexual abuse.
What we do often find, however, is that abusers who are in their 80s
will often conveniently claim to have forgotten the assaults they
carried out and to say they have genuine doubts about whether the
assaults ever took place. Abusers are not only Catholics and not only
Christians and not only religious, which should go without saying.
I challenge you to give an example rCo just one will do rCo of me ever
suggesting that people claiming to be abused should not be believed
because of memory issues; or, indeed, should not be believed for *any*
reason.
Or even give an example of any person claiming abuse by priests or
religious whose claim was dismissed by investigators because the
accused claimed they had no recollection of it.
And I
never claimed that my elderly female relative was assaulted by teachers, >>> only that she heard some distasteful dogma.
I never mentioned anything about abuse, you were the one who
introduced it when you went off on one of your ill-formed rants.
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
snip
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
On 31 Jul 2025 13:30:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>snip
wrote:
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
Are any of us except Todal claiming to decide how God will treat
anyone?
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 13:30:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>snip
wrote:
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
Are any of us except Todal claiming to decide how God will treat
anyone?
You certainly claimed that someone is better placed to decide.
On 31/07/2025 02:30 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
snip
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
Surely that should have been "But is any one of us well-placed?"?
On 31 Jul 2025 13:30:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 13:41:58 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:30:21 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
snip
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
Are any of us except Todal claiming to decide how God will treat
anyone?
On 31 Jul 2025 at 15:41:09 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 02:30 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
snip
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an
"itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the
opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will
treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
Surely that should have been "But is any one of us well-placed?"?
The two statements are identical in meaning. The 'one' is implied. The singular verb establishes that.
On 31/07/2025 05:56 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 15:41:09 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 02:30 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
snip
Now, time for you to say your usual bollocks about how I've got an >>>>>> "itch" that needs "scratching". A patronising way to discredit the >>>>>> opinions of others. God punishes liars, Martin.
I donrCOt think you are the best placed person to decide how God will >>>>> treat anyone.
But is any of us any better placed?
Surely that should have been "But is any one of us well-placed?"?
The two statements are identical in meaning. The 'one' is implied. The
singular verb establishes that.
They are questions, rather than statements (that had to be pointed out - mistaking one for the other is a common usenet error), and are *not* identical in meaning.
One (yours) asks whether any of "us" (however defined) is better placed
than The Todal to offer religious advice. It was a question of comparison.
The other (mine) asks whether one of us is even competent to offer
advice on God's intentions in the first place. No comparison made or necessary.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 09:48:10 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 31/07/2025 07:59, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:35:25 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:33, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <ptug8k1eu431n1b9j4tpm6qm1g4g7a9i54@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is >>>>>> an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Why don't we move into the 21st century and stick to English, the courts >>>>> seem to be doing so.
Why don't we call a personal attack a personal attack instead of some >>>>> poncy Latin name :-)
What's more, the phrase "ad hominem" is misused more than it is
correctly used. Martin thought he had identified an ad hominem in what I >>>> said but he was wrong. It was, if anything, a reductio ad absurdum. If >>>> you disagree with Martin he takes it very personally and sees it as an >>>> ad hominem.
You choose not to indicate what you actually said that you believe I
wrong labelled ad hominem. Was it any of the following? If not,
perhaps you might give some indication of what it was:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 10:59:20 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
I picture you in short
trousers as a choirboy in your catholic church, admiring the fake tears >>>> produced by the statue of the Virgin Mary.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:28:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
However, I think your personal notion of "love" might be rather
different from the notion used by non-believers. Yours probably
resembles the love shown by an angry schoolmaster wielding the cane to >>>> punish a disobedient schoolboy.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:52:32 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Come off it. You're a Catholic. You never challenged anybody. If your
priest was a predatory paedophile you'd quietly advise the choirboys to >>>> avoid being alone with him and leave it at that.
On 07/06/2025 16:01, The Todal wrote:
But you failed to understand that point, because you really aren't an
expert on very much. If it isn't in your catechism, it's invisible to you. >>>
Those are ad hominems.
This one wasn't.
"Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of
'em. "
I canrCOt find anywhere that I said that was ad hominem, please correct
me if IrCOve missed it.
Perhaps *you* are suffering memory issues and are getting confused
with me telling Jon Ribbens that it was just more of your regular anti-Catholic ranting.
Or maybe confused with your follow up post that I did label as
ad-hominem where you said
rCLAs a Catholic you must surely be accustomed to unquestioning
obedience to authority. I am surprised to see you complaining about ex cathedra decisions now. Perhaps you have spunk after all. I don't
think you need to display your spunk as often as you do.rCY
To give credit where it is due, having previously admitted to
quote-mining, you now admit to frequent use of ad hominem. Maybe you
might complete the hat-trick by admitted that when your arguments run
out of steam, you switch to attacking stuff I never said.
On 31/07/2025 13:55, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 09:48:10 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 31/07/2025 07:59, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:35:25 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 09:33, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <ptug8k1eu431n1b9j4tpm6qm1g4g7a9i54@4ax.com> >>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is >>>>>>> an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
Why don't we move into the 21st century and stick to English, the courts >>>>>> seem to be doing so.
Why don't we call a personal attack a personal attack instead of some >>>>>> poncy Latin name :-)
What's more, the phrase "ad hominem" is misused more than it is
correctly used. Martin thought he had identified an ad hominem in what I >>>>> said but he was wrong. It was, if anything, a reductio ad absurdum. If >>>>> you disagree with Martin he takes it very personally and sees it as an >>>>> ad hominem.
You choose not to indicate what you actually said that you believe I
wrong labelled ad hominem. Was it any of the following? If not,
perhaps you might give some indication of what it was:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 10:59:20 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
I picture you in short
trousers as a choirboy in your catholic church, admiring the fake tears >>>>> produced by the statue of the Virgin Mary.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:28:53 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
However, I think your personal notion of "love" might be rather
different from the notion used by non-believers. Yours probably
resembles the love shown by an angry schoolmaster wielding the cane to >>>>> punish a disobedient schoolboy.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 13:52:32 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Come off it. You're a Catholic. You never challenged anybody. If your >>>>> priest was a predatory paedophile you'd quietly advise the choirboys to >>>>> avoid being alone with him and leave it at that.
On 07/06/2025 16:01, The Todal wrote:
But you failed to understand that point, because you really aren't an >>>>> expert on very much. If it isn't in your catechism, it's invisible to you.
Those are ad hominems.
This one wasn't.
"Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of
'em. "
I canrCOt find anywhere that I said that was ad hominem, please correct
me if IrCOve missed it.
Perhaps *you* are suffering memory issues and are getting confused
with me telling Jon Ribbens that it was just more of your regular
anti-Catholic ranting.
Or maybe confused with your follow up post that I did label as
ad-hominem where you said
rCLAs a Catholic you must surely be accustomed to unquestioning
obedience to authority. I am surprised to see you complaining about ex
cathedra decisions now. Perhaps you have spunk after all. I don't
think you need to display your spunk as often as you do.rCY
To give credit where it is due, having previously admitted to
quote-mining, you now admit to frequent use of ad hominem. Maybe you
might complete the hat-trick by admitted that when your arguments run
out of steam, you switch to attacking stuff I never said.
You haven't attempted to justify your juvenile remark: "Just when I
thought you had got rid of that itch, it's clearly come back again".
Now, that's ad hominem. You responded to a perfectly reasonable remark
from me, then when your remark was rejected you complained how unfair
that was.
I suppose whenever anyone mentions priests sexually abusing children you
are duty bound to take it very personally and deny that such things
happen.
(And you will claim that the preceding sentence is ad hominem,
when it is accurate criticism of your behaviour)
You need to see an optician about the beam in your eye. I think Jesus
would say that it would be best if you were tied to a millstone and cast >into the sea.