A&A Catholic bashing

mrsbyrne

A poster bumper234 did a fyp on a post of mine to change it into a totally offensive post. I reported the post and the moderator merely ticked me off for complaining. I want to take this further . I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you.

mrsbyrne

Sorry sorry, the thread is 800 unmarked graves in tuam.

Insect Overlord

You got a perfect explanation from an Administrator already. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90669740&postcount=432

What more do you want?

Legs.Eleven

IN fairness, Mrs Byrne, you're not all sweetness and light yourself. If I remember correctly, you accused me of wanting to ethnically cleanse Irish schools (of Catholic I presume) as well as accusing me of not speaking out against Islam to appear to be "not racist" (suggesting I am, in fact, racist) on a similar thread in AH.

Shruikan and legs.eleven don't worry. We get it. Your on a campaign to remove all traces of organised christian religion from Irish life. Your not too sure about other religions as wanting to eradicate Islam in particular might leave you open to accusations of racism and you wouldn't like that.
Despite your best efforts the majority of your countrymen don't appear to have the same interest in this ethnic cleansing as you do, this is frustrating and disappointing and seems to be keeping you awake at night. Lives like that, if its not one bloody thing its another.

Lovely.

That was a very heated thread in AH and a lot of words were exchanged and you certainly don't come out innocent from it, so it's a little rich starting a special thread devoted to one poster who did exactly as you did on a similar thread. I didn't report your post but I should've. Hopefully you'll get at least a warning for the above as you deserve.

As you said yourself on the AH thread:

Don't be so angry shruikan. Your on a thread in an internet forum having an argument with a stranger on a sleepy Sunday morning. Expect others to disagree with you and find your opinions disagreeable.

Enjoy your day.

mrsbyrne

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

IN fairness, Mrs Byrne, you're not all sweetness and light yourself. If I remember correctly, you accused me of wanting to ethnically cleanse Irish schools (of Catholic I presume) as well as accusing me of not speaking out against Islam to appear to be "not racist" (suggesting I am, in fact, racist) on a similar thread in AH.



Lovely.

That was a very heated thread in AH and a lot of words were exchanged and you certainly don't come out innocent from it, so it's a little rich starting a special thread devoted to one poster who did exactly as you did on the same thread. I didn't report your post but I should've. Hopefully you'll get at least a warning for the above as you deserve.


Enjoy your day.

Thanks legs eleven for your kind wishes and for paying such close attention to my movements around the Boards. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to reciprocate. I hope you enjoy the rest of the day too!

Legs.Eleven

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Thanks legs eleven for your kind wishes and for paying such close attention to my movements around the Boards. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to reciprocate. I hope you enjoy the rest of the day too!

I came upon your post by chance. Don't flatter yourself.

Yet you've time to start special threads complaining about individual posters who you find offensive in Feedback instead of simply complaining directly to mods. I don't need a response immediately. I have time.

Turtwig

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Sorry sorry, the thread is 800 unmarked graves in tuam.

That thread has turned into a serious clusterfck. Been following it on the phone throughout the day. Two massive thread derailments have occurred. Which we've moved to other threads. Whataboutery has sprung up all over the place. Thread is moving at a lightning pace. Core topic itself is an emotional one and tensions are high in places. Your own posting in the thread hasn't exactly being constructive either. The only reason the thread is remaining open is because of the serious nature of the topic at hand. We'll tidy it up as best we can.

Regarding Catholic bashing. That works two ways. Some posters have being towing the line between down playing the events. If a poster has the appearance of downplaying the events, then that's obviously going to antagonise others. Note: it doesn't matter what they actually mean. All that matters is what they appear to others to be saying. That determines the reactions by others. Vague and cryptic remarks don't exactly help a discussion develop.
It would be nice if the side swipes stopped and people when asked would clarify their position. As it is though things are heated, nobody wants to accept wrongdoing and hence the clusterfck.

Benny_Cake

Having had a quick scan of that thread (my sympathies to the mods) and the post in question, I really didn't appreciate bumper234's remark about regular posters in the Christianity forum not giving a toss about children dying in the care of the Catholic church. This poster certainly does.

That said, I don't think that remarks such as this:

What it says to me is that the A&A forum despite its title is absolutely consumed with religion, no, Christianity, no, Catholicism and the regular posters on the Christianity forum couldn't give a toss about the atheists.

are really helpful. They do nothing for the tone of the debate and it risks turning this into a "them and us" debate and given that the Christianity forum has had it's own share of threads going completely off the rails, I think it would be appreciated if we weren't used as a stick to bash the A&A forum. A&A is different to Christianity which is different to After Hours.

Treatment of people using "FYP" seems to vary across forums. Although bumper234's use of it was to make a generalised slur, it was in the context of a reply to a highly general remark that you made. Again, moderating threads such as that one can be a huge headache and the A&A mods have responded to it in as fair a way as is possible given the volume of posts.

Best to build a bridge here and get over it, I think.

mrsbyrne

I thank everyone for their feedback. Food for thought indeed. I must say the fact that both a mod and an admin appeared to condone the fyp has been a huge disappointment to me. I have had one other fyp on AH which I in actual fact took in good sport , but I received several PMS from other posters imploring me to complain. I did complain but never got a reply. I mightnt have followed procedure on that occasion, I'm not sure.
I doubt ill ever post on A&A again. The level of venom , to my mind totally irrational, is almost suffocating. I genuinely don't understand how the posters don't get that wild speculating about a possible criminal case maybe hurt full to any possible survivors. Its very clear to me. Thanks again.

Turtwig

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Having had a quick scan of that thread (my sympathies to the mods) and the post in question, I really didn't appreciate bumper234's remark about regular posters in the Christianity forum not giving a toss about children dying in the care of the Catholic church. This poster certainly does.

That said, I don't think that remarks such as this:



are really helpful. They do nothing for the tone of the debate and it risks turning this into a "them and us" debate and given that the Christianity forum has had it's own share of threads going completely off the rails, I think it would be appreciated if we weren't used as a stick to bash the A&A forum. A&A is different to Christianity which is different to After Hours.

Treatment of people using "FYP" seems to vary across forums. Although bumper234's use of it was to make a generalised slur, it was in the context of a reply to a highly general remark that you made. Again, moderating threads such as that one can be a huge headache and the A&A mods have responded to it in as fair a way as is possible given the volume of posts.

Best to build a bridge here and get over it, I think.

These "bilateral" wars are unfortunate but such is the sentiment of anti-theist (and anti-atheist & anti-anti-theist) that some posters espouse. Don't see an obvious solution to it either.

Regarding the slur at the Christianity forum. It was unwarranted, but as you pointed out, it was also in response to a slur on the A&A forum. Fighting, fire with fire, not desirable by any means but also somewhat understandable given the 1-up nature of exchanges. Clearly both should be punished here or none. In this case, leniency was shown.

Overheal

I get the smelly suspicion looking over posts in that thread and the post history of some of the involved, prolific posters, that the problem stems from taking things too personal. Attack the Post, not the Poster. There are many forms of this. The obvious ones, that mods will card and ban for, are direct verbal insults, remarks, personal abuse, that sort of thing. But it's also attacking the poster rather then the argument in cases like this example:

smokingman wrote: »

Are you really that wilfully ignorant that you don't think the people running the place were responsible? Really? Are you seriously trying to say that with a straight face? Are you really, honestly trying to say that?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Get the fcuk down off your moral high horse.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I apologize for that. Civility and tolerance are in short supply when you inaccurately infer that I support the repugnant actions of reprehensible human beings as if I think they are in any way representative of anything the RCC represents.

<quotes>

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I see, so you can't. How embarresing for you.

Such examples of posting are very much the reasons I don't involve myself in most of the emotive threads that appear on site involving rape, murder, homocide, human tragedy, etc. because lots of times the arguments that get made stem from personally relating the subject manner in a way that is going to get people defensive, and then suddenly you have the thing off the rails with multiple posters bickering at each other. Because in general, people really suck at communication when they are trying to discuss such things. It starts with questions being viewed as accusations, and from there it all goes downhill. A simple post asking for a link suddenly becomes an insinuation that you're a rotten liar or that your heart is bleeding less blood over the issues. Or something to that nonsensical effect.

As a friendly reminder to anyone reading this far,



In my opinion, once you get down to Argumentum Ad Hominem, you've already crossed below the threshold of reasonable discussion, in most cases.

Posters should keep this heirarchy in mind when creating posts. Address the poster, but address their argument. Refute their point, not just calling an argument 'slanderous' or really bothering about the personal affiliation of the poster.

PS. Honorable Mention, favorite post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90666854&postcount=291

Benny_Cake

Turtwig wrote: »

Regarding the slur at the Christianity forum. It was unwarranted, but as you pointed out, it was also in response to a slur on the A&A forum. Fighting, fire with fire, not desirable by any means but also somewhat understandable given the 1-up nature of exchanges. Clearly both should be punished here or none. In this case, leniency was shown.

I'd agree, and the problem with busy threads like that one is that by the time a mod gets around to cleaning up the offending posts, there are another 30 replies to get to and it's nearly impossible to tidy up. In case there was any doubt, I've no issue with the response of the A&A mods. At the very least it was an education to some in the meaning of FYP!

RDM_83 again

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

IN fairness, Mrs Byrne, you're not all sweetness and light yourself. If I remember correctly, you accused me of wanting to ethnically cleanse Irish schools (of Catholic I presume) as well as accusing me of not speaking out against Islam to appear to be "not racist" (suggesting I am, in fact, racist) on a similar thread in AH

Should a posters behavior on a different thread on a different forum really make a difference on the question they ask about other posts being tolerated?

Overheal wrote: »

I get the smelly suspicion looking over posts in that thread and the post history of some of the involved, prolific posters, that the problem stems from taking things too personal. Attack the Post, not the Poster. There are many forms of this. The obvious ones, that mods will card and ban for, are direct verbal insults, remarks, personal abuse, that sort of thing. But it's also attacking the poster rather then the argument in cases like this example:

I am sure this will read as stirring the pot but the impression I often get is that certain groups of (not including the type of posters like Seamus for example!) the most prolific posters, who should be the really be the "best" posters on boards.ie in terms of the rules and general posting etiquette are actually some of the worst but their skirting of the rules is tolerated in a way newer posters are not which encourages this behavior.

edit: for example its pretty easy to pick out prolific posters that are involved in on thread spats really regularly, this tends to be tolerated though because its generally the "less experienced" poster who will overstep the invisible line of whats tolerated and get actioned by the mods first.

Friend Computer

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Should a posters behavior on a different thread on a different forum really make a difference on the question they ask about other posts being tolerated?

When it exposes hypocrisy? Yes it should. Don't dish it out if you can't take it, etc..

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Should a posters behavior on a different thread on a different forum really make a difference on the question they ask about other posts being tolerated?

If its non relevant no, but it seems a similar topic and it gives an indicator of a users style of posting and if they have "form" on particular issues, can also indicate soapboxing, which is frowned on the site in general.

I am sure this will read as stirring the pot but the impression I often get is that certain groups of (not including the type of posters like Seamus for example!) the most prolific posters, who should be the really be the "best" posters on boards.ie in terms of the rules and general posting etiquette are actually some of the worst but their skirting of the rules is tolerated in a way newer posters are not which encourages this behavior.

edit: for example its pretty easy to pick out prolific posters that are involved in on thread spats really regularly, this tends to be tolerated though because its generally the "less experienced" poster who will overstep the invisible line of whats tolerated and get actioned by the mods first.

Plenty of users with 10's of thousands of posts get site banned, they plead that their history on the site should be taken account of, and you know what? It actually stands against them as they should know better.

Post counts don't really matter, style of posting does.

Overheal

By prolific I did not mean popular, I meant the posters with the higher post count in-thread. You can click on the post count on any thread in the forum view and get a popup that has a breakdown of the posts in the thread per user. It regularly reveals that on average only about 3-5 posters make up half the thread

keith16

I never realised Aviation & Aircraft was so hostile to the catholic church!

Nody

keith16 wrote: »

I never realised Aviation & Aircraft was so hostile to the catholic church!

They be flying to close to the sun; hubris of trying to fly so high and all as our history has taught us :pac:

OldGoat

keith16 wrote: »

I never realised Aviation & Aircraft was so hostile to the catholic church!

Perhaps the link is that military chaplains in the British army were referred to as "Sky Pilots". It was their radio call sign.

Dades

I think I know why...

Fudge You

Wait a minute, a Father Ted joke was quoted. Lets laugh.

O, a mod/admin did it, well then its fecking hilarious.

RDM_83 again

Friend Computer wrote: »

When it exposes hypocrisy? Yes it should. Don't dish it out if you can't take it, etc..

K-9 wrote: »

If its non relevant no, but it seems a similar topic and it gives an indicator of a users style of posting and if they have "form" on particular issues, can also indicate soapboxing, which is frowned on the site in general.

I agree with the above, but I am not talking about how the user should be treated e.g if they deserve a warning or whatever, I am saying what other users post in reply should be held to its own standards, we are constantly reminded, "don't feed the trolls" "attack the post not the poster" etc, if you get sanctioned other posters behavior on the actual thread isn't allowed as an excuse.
The OP might be disingenuous but her point is still valid.

K-9 wrote: »

Plenty of users with 10's of thousands of posts get site banned, they plead that their history on the site should be taken account of, and you know what? It actually stands against them as they should know better.

Post counts don't really matter, style of posting does.

As far as I have seen when that happens they have tended to have gone onto another forum where they aren't regulars and its escalated from their or they aren't in agreement with the general viewpoint of the mods, its really easy to pick out prolific posters that have way more than would be expected interactions where the people they are arguing against get banned for overstepping themselves, I am not saying that those posters should not have been sanctioned but it often seems like a bit of goading or baiting is tolerated if the poster is 'popular' and posting from the viewpoint of the forum 'standard'.

Brown Bomber

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Yet you've time to start special threads complaining about individual posters who you find offensive in Feedback instead of simply complaining directly to mods. I don't need a response immediately. I have time.

I think you'll find that she did complain to the mods initially.


This comment,

What it says to me is that the A&A forum despite its title is absolutely consumed with religion, no, Christianity, no, Catholicism and the regular posters on the Christianity forum couldn't give a toss about the atheists.

when changed to

What it says to me is that the A&A forum despite its title is absolutely consumed with religion, no, Christianity, no, Catholicism and the regular posters on the Christianity forum couldn't give a toss about children that died while in the care of the catholic church.

breaks all kinds of forum/site rules.

My experiences in that forum tells me that the rules only apply to one side. Hint: Not side that the "objective" mod is posting petitions on.

I'd be surprised if a single member of their clique there has ever been banned from that forum - and I could provide countless examples of posts that would warrant it.

Mrs Byrne, my advice to you is not to expect a fair deal in that forum, it's never going to happen and any of your efforts here for fair treatment will be white washed, so don't waste your time.

mrsbyrne

I'll never post there again. If your not toeing the agreed party line they will actually change your posts to make it look as if you are. A more discontent unhappy bunch you'd be hard pushed to find anywhere else on boards anyway, so why would anyone bother? Thanks for the advice.

Dan_Solo

mrsbyrne wrote: »

A poster bumper234 did a fyp on a post of mine to change it into a totally offensive post. I reported the post and the moderator merely ticked me off for complaining. I want to take this further . I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you.

That's nothing, I was called "ignorant" "****ing dumb" and "your head up your ass" and the poster, a Catholic like you, just got a warning.
Evens out then, huh?

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think you'll find that she did complain to the mods initially.


This comment,

when changed to

breaks all kinds of forum/site rules.

And yet multiple mods and admins are OK with it as long as it isn't happening all of the time. Unless there is a rule you wish to point out to the admins?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My experiences in that forum tells me that the rules only apply to one side. Hint: Not side that the "objective" mod is posting petitions on.

So wanting an investigation makes a mod objective? Does being a Christian make a mod objective on any of the forums?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd be surprised if a single member of their clique there has ever been banned from that forum - and I could provide countless examples of posts that would warrant it.

I'm assuming you reported these and took it up with an admin if you weren't happy with how it was dealt?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mrs Byrne, my advice to you is not to expect a fair deal in that forum, it's never going to happen and any of your efforts here for fair treatment will be white washed, so don't waste your time.

Fair deal? I see people getting away with far more than I do on the Christianity forum and 2 of the most active mods I see are mods for both. Why is it the Christianity forum is far more strict when these mods are so biased? A person making some sort of generisation and then crying when called out on it is a common occurrence. The people you see being banned are often the same people who return and keep doing the same thing.

Brown Bomber

shruikan2553 wrote: »

And yet multiple mods and admins are OK with it as long as it isn't happening all of the time. Unless there is a rule you wish to point out to the admins?

I am quite sure any mods or admins don't need the self-evident pointed out to them.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So wanting an investigation makes a mod objective? Does being a Christian make a mod objective on any of the forums?

No and no. Although I never said anything about "wanting an investigation". Using your mod powers to lobby through petitons obviously makes you impartial.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I'm assuming you reported these and took it up with an admin if you weren't happy with how it was dealt?

I'm assuming, as you've changed the subject that you can't name a single poster from A&A who is part of the clique and has ever been banned.

Put it down to coincidence shall we?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Fair deal? I see people getting away with far more than I do on the Christianity forum and 2 of the most active mods I see are mods for both. Why is it the Christianity forum is far more strict when these mods are so biased? A person making some sort of generisation and then crying when called out on it is a common occurrence. The people you see being banned are often the same people who return and keep doing the same thing.

It seems quite apparent that mrsbyrne's major gripe is not simply being insulted in the first place, it is the perceived double wrong of being insulted and then when she turns to the officers of the forum she is patronised and given no help.

Better and objective modding nips this in the bud. All that is required is a simple public slap on the wrist for bumper and then everyone is happy.

Brown Bomber

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I'll never post there again. If your not toeing the agreed party line they will actually change your posts to make it look as if you are. A more discontent unhappy bunch you'd be hard pushed to find anywhere else on boards anyway, so why would anyone bother? Thanks for the advice.

Best of, you'd have an easier time and be hated less for who you are than being a mixed-race Jew on Stormfront.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm assuming, as you've changed the subject that you can't name a single poster from A&A who is part of the clique and has ever been banned.

Put it down to coincidence shall we?

For someone who has complained about people breaking forum/site rules, it's a bit hypocritical to start singling out posters in a feedback thread. Pretty sure it's also against the rules.

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am quite sure any mods or admins don't need the self-evident pointed out to them.

But you seem to be suggesting they do, about 2 mods and 2 admins (I may be missing someone) have said they see no issue.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No and no. Although I never said anything about "wanting an investigation". Using your mod powers to lobby through petitons obviously makes you impartial.

Im not seeing how pointing out there is a petition to sign is an issue.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm assuming, as you've changed the subject that you can't name a single poster from A&A who is part of the clique and has ever been banned.

Put it down to coincidence shall we?

A coincidence that those who post regularly understand what will and won't get a mod warning? I post on a few forums and have learnt that there are different limits to what is allowed depending on which forum.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It seems quite apparent that mrsbyrne's major gripe is not simply being insulted in the first place, it is the perceived double wrong of being insulted and then when she turns to the officers of the forum she is patronised and given no help.

Better and objective modding nips this in the bud. All that is required is a simple public slap on the wrist for bumper and then everyone is happy.

She made a remark about the forum being obsessed and continues to do so in AH afterwards and in here. Any patronising (if you can even call it that) is probably created due to the fact this person has no issue claiming others wish for ethnic cleansing, takes part in some atheist bashing and then complains to a mod when someone says something that wasn't even aimed at her directly.

No action was taken against her (that I saw at the time of this thread being created) so there was no double standard.

bumper234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am quite sure any mods or admins don't need the self-evident pointed out to them.


No and no. Although I never said anything about "wanting an investigation". Using your mod powers to lobby through petitons obviously makes you impartial.



I'm assuming, as you've changed the subject that you can't name a single poster from A&A who is part of the clique and has ever been banned.

Put it down to coincidence shall we?


It seems quite apparent that mrsbyrne's major gripe is not simply being insulted in the first place, it is the perceived double wrong of being insulted and then when she turns to the officers of the forum she is patronised and given no help.

Better and objective modding nips this in the bud. All that is required is a simple public slap on the wrist for bumper and then everyone is happy.

Have stayed out of this thread so far because i don't see the point in inflaming the op more but felt i should reply to yourself. I did an edit of the ops post and highlighted the words i added and stuck in an FYP. Mods and admins agreed that i did no wrong but if they feel i should give the op a public apology in this thread to appease some sort of hurt felings then i will oblige.

You on the other hand come into the thread, complain about people "breaking forum and site rules" by breaking forum and site rules

Am i supposed to be part of this "clique" that you keep mentioning? Calling for someone to be banned or infracted for a minor indiscretion that only you and the op see as an issue is (imo) kinda childish and small minded. As i say if mods/admin want me to apologize for my little FYP then i will, but if they still feel i have done no wrong then maybe it's time for yourself and the op to get over it and move on.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm assuming, as you've changed the subject that you can't name a single poster from A&A who is part of the clique and has ever been banned.

TBF, not everyone is privy to who in your mind belongs to this 'clique', so that's a tough ask.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think you'll find that she did complain to the mods initially.


This comment,

when changed to

breaks all kinds of forum/site rules.

Not so. "fyp"-ing is generally used as a quick way of making a point by pointing out a flaw in another poster's argument. If the poster makes it clear that they've edited the post they quoted (usually by replying "fyp"), it's clear to all that some of the quoted text is not what the poster originally said, but which the poster replying feels is implied or ignored in the original post.

If the mods themselves edited the original post to change the meaning of it without good reason, that would be a definitely against the rules. Another poster doing it without the original post itself being edited (and making it clear that they're doing it by saying "FYP") doesn't break "all kinds of forum/site rules" in and of itself. It could possibly be considered trolling or being a dick, but again it depends on if it's being done to be insulting or demeaning, or if an actual salient point is trying to be made.

For what it's worth, I generally despise "FYP"-ing. But it can be used within the rules to make an effective point in a discussion.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think (...............) waste your time.

Here to continue your vendetta I see.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=300048&threads=1&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=82

Cabaal

Nodin wrote: »

Here to continue your vendetta I see.
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=300048&threads=1&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=82

"Its not a conspiracy if they are actually out to get you"

atleast thats the only conclusion I can come to regarding his thinking and continued feedback threads

Dav

If you go to the GAA forum, you can't bash the GAA. If you go to the Christianity forum, you can't bash Christians. If you go to the LGBT Forum, you can't bash LGBT people. If you go to the Ladies Lounge, you can't bash feminism. Do you see a pattern here? These forums are deliberately biased towards their subject and are considered "safe havens" for people who subscribe to their "beliefs" for want of a better word.

Outside of these forums, such matters are most definitely up for debate (although we do have a few topics of discussion that we don't allow on the site). If religious practises say that non<insert denomination> people are sinful and are supposed to be pitied at best or burnt at the stake and guess what? That pisses a lot of people off - it's the sort of thing people go to war for.

If an organisation, institute, lobbying group or even individual says it's in charge of any given belief (or non-belief) system and wants to claim to be some sort of moral authority then they can answer for their actions when an angry public has every right to demand accountability - be they Christian, Muslim, Pro-Life, White Supremacist, Corrupt Politician, Richard Dawkins or any other individual or organisation that puts their neck on the chopping block by making claims of superiority.

In this particular case, when Rome starts to answer for it's crimes, then people will be able to move on. That's not going to happen until we start seeing this though and so this issue will keep coming up. If you don't want to be taking flak for association with any organisation or individual, then you either distance yourself from it and/or take up the fight against it's corruption from within.

So Christians of all denominations (and especially Roman Catholics of Ireland), if you want to stop the absolutely justified criticism and out right hostility towards your church(es), then *you* do something about it. I am not going to tell the members of an Atheist and Agnostic forum that they're not allowed point out and talk about the atrocities committed in your name. As long as no one is being personally abused then carry on I say. There's nothing wrong with being a Christian - the teachings of Christ are universal and are generally a good way to live your life - the problem is that someone made a business out of it and called it "The Church" and it's the church who's to blame for this backlash, not Christians.

[EDIT]
I should at the opposite of that last sentence is also true - comments on these topics need to make sure they're not making it personal and aren't singling out posters here for abuse or ridicule - it works both ways.

That's the end of that. This thread is done.