Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Chris H on 13 Apr 2010 07:02 In message <2010041309531316807-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> writes >On 2010-04-13 02:43:36 +0100, tony cooper said: > >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:09:05 +0100, Pete >> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-04-12 12:58:10 +0100, tony cooper said: >>> >>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel >>>>>belittled >>>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>>> Ambiguous? Vague? >>> Excessive. >> That's an ambiguous answer, Pete. > >My reply had multiple meanings - go figure... > >> Excessive in evasiveness or >> excessive in quantity? > >Multiple choice doesn't work very well when the correct answer isn't in >the list. > >Your failure to address salient points (even snipping some out - cool) >is not being evasive, it is deflection - a totally inappropriate coping >strategy considering the enormity of the issue being discussed. Was >that unambiguous enough? No, it wasn't. > >Here are some facts: > >Deflection, along with asking closed questions, are two primary factors >causing victims of abuse to feel they must endure it rather than report >it. The abused becomes a life-long victim instead of a survivor, >leaving them open to the many forms of abuse. This in itself is a >tragedy, but it gets worse. Humans are attracted far more by what is >familiar than what is good for them, leading the abused to unwittingly >seek abusers as friends, bosses, and partners - all at a subconscious >level. Despite what is offered by therapists there is no cure, the >damage is permanent. Therapy, for those fortunate enough to eventually >receive it, offers only coping mechanisms. > >Spelling and grammar correction therapy would be appropriate for >victims who actively seek to make their condition worse. It works by >invalidation via belittling (more abuse), as I stated in a previous >post. > >I find it inconsiderate and offensive to highlight spelling and grammar >while discussing child abuse. The only time I think it would be >appropriate is during the preparation of a legal or technical document. Thanks for that. I have been trying to point out that Tony will discuss anything but the responsibility of the RC Church and avoid any responsibility on his own part for continuing to support the Church which has harmed so many. As many have said here by not signing up for the Parish church or his wife (and children) attending would have been the lest he could have done. As for sending, by choice, his children to a Catholic school because it has a "good academic record" totally ignores their horrendous record of institutionalised child abuse in general (not just peadophilia) show that he is still conditioned by the Church. I note he is a "lapsed Catholic" most are and most of them do not say they are atheists of agnostic but "lapsed Catholics". Still under the influence and still in denial. As many have said if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Standing by and letting it happen (or not stopping it) is a crime in itself. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: tony cooper on 13 Apr 2010 07:17 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:53:13 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-04-13 02:43:36 +0100, tony cooper said: > >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:09:05 +0100, Pete >> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-04-12 12:58:10 +0100, tony cooper said: >>> >>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >>>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>>> >>>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>>> >>>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>>> Ambiguous? Vague? >>> >>> Excessive. >> >> That's an ambiguous answer, Pete. > >My reply had multiple meanings - go figure... > >> Excessive in evasiveness or >> excessive in quantity? > >Multiple choice doesn't work very well when the correct answer isn't in >the list. > >Your failure to address salient points (even snipping some out - cool) >is not being evasive, it is deflection - a totally inappropriate coping >strategy considering the enormity of the issue being discussed. Was >that unambiguous enough? No, it wasn't. > >Here are some facts: > >Deflection, along with asking closed questions, are two primary factors >causing victims of abuse to feel they must endure it rather than report >it. The abused becomes a life-long victim instead of a survivor, >leaving them open to the many forms of abuse. This in itself is a >tragedy, but it gets worse. Humans are attracted far more by what is >familiar than what is good for them, leading the abused to unwittingly >seek abusers as friends, bosses, and partners - all at a subconscious >level. Despite what is offered by therapists there is no cure, the >damage is permanent. Therapy, for those fortunate enough to eventually >receive it, offers only coping mechanisms. > >Spelling and grammar correction therapy would be appropriate for >victims who actively seek to make their condition worse. It works by >invalidation via belittling (more abuse), as I stated in a previous >post You seem to saying that Chris is a victim of abuse. That, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case. > >I find it inconsiderate and offensive to highlight spelling and grammar >while discussing child abuse. The only time I think it would be >appropriate is during the preparation of a legal or technical document. Chris is offering opinions on an issue that he has no direct connection to as far as I know. They aren't any kind of reasoned discussion, they don't present any insight or solution, and they often include false information or misstatements. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris H on 13 Apr 2010 08:08 In message <f6k8s5pdukulepo6bpukotb9c07p57nr9i(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:53:13 +0100, Pete >>Spelling and grammar correction therapy would be appropriate for >>victims who actively seek to make their condition worse. It works by >>invalidation via belittling (more abuse), as I stated in a previous >>post > >You seem to saying that Chris is a victim of abuse. That, to the >best of my knowledge, is not the case. He is saying I could be. You are assuming I am not. I have made no comment either way >>I find it inconsiderate and offensive to highlight spelling and grammar >>while discussing child abuse. The only time I think it would be >>appropriate is during the preparation of a legal or technical document. > >Chris is offering opinions on an issue that he has no direct >connection to as far as I know. You are making assumptions to suite your case and ignoring anything that does not help. Much like the Catholic church when dealing with Pedophile Clergy. Actually, you are wrong that I have no direct connection. However I do not want to discuss what my connection(s) is/are in an open forum like this. In any event it does not excuse your blind-eye support of the pedophiles in your church. And for the Record for many thousands images of RC Churches and religious imagery do signify child abuse to many thousands. > They aren't any kind of reasoned >discussion, they don't present any insight or solution, and they often >include false information or misstatements. And you have been seen to do that often. Come back to reality. You will do anything to avoid the elephant in the room -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: tony cooper on 13 Apr 2010 08:11 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:02:01 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >I have been trying to point out that Tony will discuss anything but the >responsibility of the RC Church and avoid any responsibility on his own >part for continuing to support the Church which has harmed so many. The discussion hasn't turned to the responsibility of the church. You haven't discussed it or brought it up at all. You have led the discussion only to the actions of the people in the church organization. I have no problem discussing the responsibility of the church. They have the responsibility to root out any priests who are or have committed any form of sexual abuse and to liacize them. They have the responsibility to cooperate with civil authorities in any investigations in this area. >As many have said here by not signing up for the Parish church or his >wife (and children) attending would have been the lest he could have >done. Another misstatement. No one else here, let alone "many", have said anything about it being a mistake for me to have joined the parish or to have sent my children to Catholic schools. You don't get support for your opinions by falsely claiming support. You don't prove a point with fabricated inflated figures or references. You try, but it doesn't work. >As for sending, by choice, his children to a Catholic school because it >has a "good academic record" totally ignores their horrendous record of >institutionalised child abuse in general (not just peadophilia) show >that he is still conditioned by the Church. Catholic schools do not have horrendous record of institutionalized child abuse. Incidence of sexual abuse in Catholic schools has not been suggested anywhere that I know of. As I have pointed out in other posts, priests were not involved in the schools my children attended in the 70s and 80s. Those of us who have attended Catholic schools might claim some abuse, but not sexual abuse. Back when nuns were teaching in Catholic schools, they could be very abusive and disciplinarian. > >I note he is a "lapsed Catholic" most are and most of them do not say >they are atheists of agnostic but "lapsed Catholics". Still under the >influence and still in denial. You don't understand the distinction between being a "lapsed Catholic" and being an atheist or an agnostic. "Lapsed Catholic" simply means that one has been baptized a Catholic but no longer attends a Catholic church or participates in any of the rites of the Church. Some lapsed Catholics join other churches and some reject religion completely. >As many have said if you are not part of the solution you are part of >the problem. Standing by and letting it happen (or not stopping it) is a >crime in itself. I wouldn't consider not joining a parish or sending your children to a public school to be anything at all in the way of being part of the solution. You can only be part of the solution by some active form of protest. There is currently a horrendous problem in the UK over the organ donor program. If you refuse to sign up for the organ donor program you are not being part of the solution. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Pete on 13 Apr 2010 08:28
On 2010-04-13 12:17:02 +0100, tony cooper said: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:53:13 +0100, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2010-04-13 02:43:36 +0100, tony cooper said: >> >>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:09:05 +0100, Pete >>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-04-12 12:58:10 +0100, tony cooper said: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0100, Pete >>>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Those who have been on the receiving end of abuse will feel belittled >>>>>> when the discussion turns to spelling and grammar. Abuse is vile, an >>>>>> outrage, and terribly damaging. In comparison, spelling and grammar are >>>>>> totally insignificant. You postings invalidate the abused, which is >>>>>> atrocious. That is why I asked you to stop. >>>>> >>>>> It is not insignificant when you write something that can be >>>>> misleading because you have not used the right word. There are >>>>> readers here who do understand the meaning of words. When those >>>>> people read that someone has been "equivocating", they take that to >>>>> mean the person has been evasive in their responses. >>>>> >>>>> Would you say my responses in this thread have been evasive? >>>>> Ambiguous? Vague? >>>> >>>> Excessive. >>> >>> That's an ambiguous answer, Pete. >> >> My reply had multiple meanings - go figure... >> >>> Excessive in evasiveness or >>> excessive in quantity? >> >> Multiple choice doesn't work very well when the correct answer isn't in >> the list. >> >> Your failure to address salient points (even snipping some out - cool) >> is not being evasive, it is deflection - a totally inappropriate coping >> strategy considering the enormity of the issue being discussed. Was >> that unambiguous enough? No, it wasn't. >> >> Here are some facts: >> >> Deflection, along with asking closed questions, are two primary factors >> causing victims of abuse to feel they must endure it rather than report >> it. The abused becomes a life-long victim instead of a survivor, >> leaving them open to the many forms of abuse. This in itself is a >> tragedy, but it gets worse. Humans are attracted far more by what is >> familiar than what is good for them, leading the abused to unwittingly >> seek abusers as friends, bosses, and partners - all at a subconscious >> level. Despite what is offered by therapists there is no cure, the >> damage is permanent. Therapy, for those fortunate enough to eventually >> receive it, offers only coping mechanisms. >> >> Spelling and grammar correction therapy would be appropriate for >> victims who actively seek to make their condition worse. It works by >> invalidation via belittling (more abuse), as I stated in a previous >> post > > You seem to saying that Chris is a victim of abuse. That, to the > best of my knowledge, is not the case. I'm not implying that at all. >> I find it inconsiderate and offensive to highlight spelling and grammar >> while discussing child abuse. The only time I think it would be >> appropriate is during the preparation of a legal or technical document. > > Chris is offering opinions on an issue that he has no direct > connection to as far as I know. They aren't any kind of reasoned > discussion, they don't present any insight or solution, and they often > include false information or misstatements. Totally irrelevant to my reply. My posts are about your behaviour, in this public forum, on the topic of abuse. Learn what being correct *really* means. I can imagine you at a job interview: pointing out language errors then wondering why you didn't get the job. Many of us could easily explain it to you (albeit in less than perfect wording). -- Pete |