JHunt777 wrote:It seems that your primary claim is that TOC/GOC members are being silenced on Paradosis for their affiliations and ecclesiological positions (as opposed to some being moderated for list rule violations), in a focused effort by ROCOR, and those in communion with ROCOR, to promote a pro-“World Orthodoxy” list. You claim also that Seraphim uses other moderators to silence the TOC/GOC posters by deleting their messages and/or banning them without cause. I simply do not see evidence from the list that Seraphim has had help moderating since 2009, nor does it appear that posters from TOC/GOC groups are prevented from expressing their views on the list as long as the rules are followed. I’m not saying that you are trying to intentionally deceive in making these claims, but I do think your position is without foundation. The fact that you helped Seraphim start the list over a decade ago, or the fact that other moderators helped enforce list rules up until at least a couple of years ago, is not at all relevant to the claims you are making about how the list is operated currently.
Considering the Fr John from my quote of Seraphim's letter says almost nothing on the Paradosis list, and in only one message states that he uses the deletion method for moderating, I do not believe you are correct. However, you are playing a game, and intentionally trying to accuse me of deception, when you qualify your own words.
You wrote the following, along with Seraphim's two posts in March and September, trying to prove your point: "Again, if you look at the archives you will see that he laments not have a “board of moderators” to consult with, which obviously leaves him open to accusations of bias. So, I think there is little reason to believe that other moderators are involved, but if you believe this then who do you think is serving in this capacity?"
However, once it became clear that in fact another moderator was involved, in May (with members of the list still addressing Fr John as a moderator as late as November last year-- ironically, protesting over an inability to condemn ecumenism) your story changed to the above-- that in fact Seraphim hasn't had a second moderator since at least 2009. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that Fr John is not a moderator. In fact, all you've done is qualified your own story and then began to accuse ME of deception.
I don’t actually post there very much; neither do I think posting on that list is something to be proud of. I did not mention by ability to freely post there, however, but rather mentioned the fact that TOC/GOC members aside from yourself freely post on the list their condemnations of “World Orthodoxy”, a fact which calls into question your conspiracy theory.
Yet a review of the list over the past few years reveals hosts of complaints, many about the tone of the list becoming unhinged, as pseudo-traditionalists were given free rein. Which fits right into my argument (not a conspiracy theory, since everything I am pointing to is factually based).
Your next response is telling:
If most current participants are from “World Orthodoxy”, this is not necessarily because TOC/GOC members have been banned or moderated. Some stop participating because they do not find the discussions beneficial,
or....
others simply don’t know how to respond when members of “World Orthodoxy” contest their claims,
In other words, ignorant...
some are only capable of angry diatribes and rants (under the guise of “Confessing”, or “Testifying” if they are a convert from the Baptists) and find open discussion impossible,
or delusional....
and others are just incapable of supporting their positions without personally attacking others.
or hostile....
There are also TOC/GOC members, however, who know how to stick to their position without acting indecently and without violating list rules. If it is a “World Orthodox” list because TOC/GOC members have been kicked off solely for their positions and without violating list rules, then perhaps former TOC/GOC participants on the list can chime in on the other thread you have started and express their grievances there.
Why, thank you for your permission! I hope your endorsement helps that thread grow and grow!
If a visitor to Paradosis gets the impression that the TOC/GOC groups are “disjointed schismatics”, this does not mean that there is a “moderatorial goal” of making you look like “disjointed schismatics”. In fact, on December 24 of last year you submitted a TOC/GOC apologia which specifically contested the claim that the TOC/GOC groups are fragmented, and you encouraged the list members to seek out a TOC/GOC church in which to celebrate the upcoming Feast of the Nativity. You even provided a link to your TOC/GOC directory. Nobody prevented this post or similar posts from appearing, and there were responses both supporting and criticizing your apologia.
Actually, it was at the point of defending my essay that posts once again began to slow down. It was then that I began, once again, to become suspicious as I had in the past.
In the same message you mentioned that you do not post much on the list for various reasons, for instance that it is spiritually draining to constantly argue with people from “World Orthodoxy”. This, and the other reasons you cited for not participating more frequently, were valid and understandable. I do not post much on the list either, and I agree that such debates are typically unproductive and not spiritually beneficial.
This has not stopped you from having one almost every one of the few posts I've made in the past few years.
However, in this particular apologia from Dec 24th of last year, where you explain the reasons for your infrequent participation on the list, you nowhere suggested that there was a conspiracy to silence TOC/GOC participants, which leads me to believe that you have imagined this theory only very recently. I did find it very strange, when I responded to your Dec 24th message on the list, that you ran off and posted an open response on your own blog where I wouldn’t be able to reply in detail. This gives the impression of cowardice, or of simply not being able to handle discussing matters in a forum which you do not control and where your words can be challenged.
Oh, what a load of garbage. You remember full well why I did that. I had said I was posting no further on the list because I was literally getting besieged with posts from about four people, one of which was yourself. At that point, Fr Steven Webb and others began goading and further stating that I'd be back on the list, as though I respond like an automaton to your collective requests. The fact that I did not subject my response to the Paradosis moderators' approval (and possible pre-emptive sharing before release) was simply-- like this-- a demonstration that we do not have to post where you tell us to in order to be heard. You can ignore my words just fine, but my sense is that you can't deal with the fact-- even though you superficially claim you do--that we don't have to go through a World-Orthodox approved channel.
I will not be able to respond to your response for a while: as I made the mistake of stating on oc.net that the MP was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox, I now must document and substantiate a well-known claim, because if not, a GOA moderator will suspend me within 72 hours.
That is more important than arguing with someone covering up deception, accusing me of doing the same, and inviting everyone to a ROCOR-MP controlled list.
The fact that Fr. John McCuen clearly helped moderate the list at least until 2009? I did address this. Please re-read my previous message.
How ironic; the man who claimed Seraphim moderated alone admitted the last name of the moderator in Seraphim's post. I would never have had a clue you were even aware of his existence....EDIT: Oops. I see you mentioned his name the first time I brought up the post!
You seem to be applying this argument that "if it doesn't talk, it isn't there". But I know it's there, and I have to show proof of admission it's there. Then you qualify the claim.
First Paradosis was heavily moderated by Seraphim alone.
Then it was moderated by Seraphim alone.
Then it was moderated by Seraphim alone since 2009. (This claim you have no evidence to submit, so you use a lack of vocal moderation as "proof". Absence of proof doesn't make proof-- if he was a mod in 2009, there is no reason to believe he and others are not moderating now).
What's next?
