Shrap wrote: » OOh, loving this:http://bocktherobber.com/godsquad/godsquad.html They've missed out a number of notable connections but it's a good start. Get in there and pull some Ionanists out of place....
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Shrap wrote: » OOh, loving this:http://bocktherobber.com/godsquad/godsquad.html
robindch wrote: » Interesting to see that they've connected with the tiny Benedictine outpost in Stamullen. Popette is a big fan of them and unlike many Benedictine outlets, appears to house hardline fundamentalists. Their website is here, while a more informative blog lives here.
Shrap wrote: » I'm imagining it's because they are *probably* at the heart of it all, but their members are top secret and always have been. Likewise their funding. Here's an interesting article from 1983 with some connections that can still be made to current politicians, judges, etc. http://politico.ie/archive/secrets-opus-dei
volchitsa wrote: » I presume that's not the only case - as you say, the fact that they refuse to acknowledge membership makes it a bit risky to "out" them without written proof. I'd say many or even most of the people on the diagram may in fact be linked to OD, as some of those organizations are IMO a front for OD.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Who's Desmond Connell?
Desmon Connell wrote: Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So, mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying.
Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So, mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying.
robindch wrote: » Connell became an hit when he explained that the inaccurate statements he'd previously made were actually instances of "mental reservation", which he defined as follows:
Pherekydes wrote: » If you can persuade others that you are not lying, then you are not lying? Is that it?
Pherekydes wrote: » If you can persuade others that you are not lying, then you are not lying?
Some guy wrote: Imagine you are a housekeeper for a priest and somebody comes to the door whom the priest does not wish to see. You open the door, you exchange pleasantries, then say "Ah, you want to see Father Bob, but Father Bob is not here" and you complete the sentence by adding, inaudibly to yourself, "...at the door with me.". In this way, you have said something which is true ("Fr Bob is not here at the door with me"), but the recipient will have understood something else (that "Fr Bob is not here", 'here' meaning the house, with the implication "that Fr Bob cannot see you"). It's called "mental reservation" because the speaker "reserves" certain words "mentally", and the ambiguity caused by their omission leads the listener to understand something other than the primary meaning of the words spoken.
"All additions and corrections welcome" Bocktherobber
volchitsa wrote: » Absolutely. I wasn't referring to Ronan Mullen, btw - but I'd imagine he's certainly likely to be one of them too. The article described accurately the way I saw vulnerable students being targeted by Opus Dei members, invited to special meetings the rest of us (the more difficult ones, I guess!) weren't invited to, and they fairly quickly started either coming back before the holidays are over, or just actually staying in the residence and not going home at all. Definitely cult-like behavior, imo.
lazygal wrote: » Says the man who thinks people who have enough money should be able to get around adoption checks and who adopted two children from a different country.
Bad Horse wrote: » Correction; "heterosexual married" people. Anyone else will ruin the child's life, make them cry and long for their biological parents (even though the adopted parents aren't the biological parents anyway) and destroy everything society considers to be a family.
fisgon wrote: » Wow, dormant thread... Has Iona not been up to anything recently?..... Anyway, just reading an extract from the How the Yes was won, book, charting how the Yes movement won the referendum. "The reasearch.... showed that having the Iona Institute as the most prominent opponent was an advantage for the Yes campaign. Potential swing voters did not warm to Iona's leading spokespeople who were seen as standing for an 'uptight', 'old world', 'down with that sort of thing', 'reactionary' position that did not appeal to uncertain voters." Made me smile. Note that the responses were from swing voters, not those already voting Yes.
