Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Why Am I Not A Phatmasser?


Anastasia13

Recommended Posts

Deleted reply to some thing on a prior page awaiting better editing.

Edited by Light and Truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am unsure something said out of ignorance 'may be' much worse (nor how would prove that) so let's dismiss that...but undoubtedly 1) the ignorance would be evident/manifest in the writting as a whole, and/or 2) someone would attempt to correct said ignorance.  If I said something out of ignorance (lol, like that would happen), and you were to correct me, I could either A) stand corrected and admit it, B) stand corrected and not admit it, or 3) say I was not ignorant and keep going.

 

Choices A and B are cool and 'would' not need a tag (assuming if it was B I did not go somewhere else to spout the same ignorance), if it were C, i could see a discussion for a 'non' tag.

 

Given that (A) and (B) do "not need a tag", but (C) does: How would a tag help in the case of (C)? All I have to do to keep insisting I am not ignorant is to say in my profile that I'm Catholic when I'm not. No one would know the difference. I could even give myself a super-Catholic username to make myself look even more legit. The real way people would judge whether I am Catholic or not is by what I say. And if many people correct me, then innocents will begin to doubt. But either way, the tag is irrelevant.

 

Everyone is unmarked.  That's what a Phatmasser is. (when your post count gets to a certain mark).  All other tags are a function (sans clergy/religious and regulator) of the content of your posts, or as in my case, extreme coolness and power.

 

The CM tag is given after one is 'nominated' by other CM's and other stuff...

 

A Scholar tag is given by the admin after discussion with mods and other members.

 

A Regulator tag is given when you are a mod.

 

A Clergy/Religious tag is given if you are one of those......

 

A Non-Catholic tag is also given on the content of your posts.  I will admit this tag and the Phisy tag can carry with them certain ambiguities and/or crossovers that are confusing (to me) and that I personally may or may not agree with (ie Kujo's phishy tag).  But I understand the intent of the tag and the 'authoritah' of the one giving the tag; so cool beans.

 

I believe it is this ambiguity that leads to most of the angst.  I think it is this ambiguity that has led you to argue for no tags at all (save your exceptions).  I think defining THROUGH any ambiguity would be the answer.

 

Is this accurate? Light and Truth's OP in this thread asked why she is not a Phatmasser, and Basilisa Marie's immediate response was: "Because you're a non-Catholic.  Phatmasser is the general user who isn't Church Militant, Non-Catholic, or Phisy or a mod." So I was of the understanding that, no matter how many posts a non-Catholic makes, s/he will never be made a Phatmasser. Is this wrong?

 

Are non-Catholics given that tag based upon the content of their posts, or based upon their self-reported religion?

 

Either way, shouldn't non-Catholics who are long-time members of PM, well known, and much loved get the "Phatmasser" tag? I mean they are, aren't they, regardless of their religion? I haven't been here long, but from what I've seen, everyone considers Hasan part of the "Pham", so why shouldn't he get the tag? I mean, I don't think anyone would confuse him for a Catholic (for example)! ;-)

 

Really bad analogy, bordering on a reverse quasi straw man.  I realize all analogies limp; but this one's on life support.  There are zero functionality consequences of a 'non' tag.

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/09/reverse-straw-man.html: "Reverse Straw Man is an extreme version of this [the Straw Man] where your opponent takes you to be arguing for not-A, proceeds to demolish not-A and slaps A in your face as complete and irrefutable. Even though you were arguing for A all along."

 

A: Tags are helpful/necessary/good on Phatmass.

not-A: Tags are not helpful/necessary/good on Phatmass.

 

You argue A. I argue not-A. Where, exactly, is the reverse straw man?

 

All I am saying is that, in a Communion line, it matters who is Catholic and who is not. On a website, it does not. Therefore, we should not treat people on a website as if they were in a Communion line by pointing out who is Catholic and who is not. If they wish to point that out for themselves (or do so inadvertently), then so be it.

 

The tags are not meant as punishments, but as a quick guide/reference/clue/hint/safety-precaution for those who don't know us all as well as we all do.

 

At least, that is how I always saw them as, or read them explained.

 

I recognize that they're not meant that way, but I think that, for some, they may feel that way. From what I've seen, there are a lot of posters in here who have been around for a long time (a lot longer than I), who know almost everyone, and whom most people love. It just seems cruel to me to not call those people part of the "pham". That is my whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize that they're not meant that way, but I think that, for some, they may feel that way. From what I've seen, there are a lot of posters in here who have been around for a long time (a lot longer than I), who know almost everyone, and whom most people love. It just seems cruel to me to not call those people part of the "pham". That is my whole point.

 

yes, because that's what that means. lulz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How?

 

Suppose the initative would be with dUSt.

 

For everything your Church is, you reject the Catholic Church.  Whatever the disagreements are (I am no scholar), there is a schism between us. 

 

Being lumped in with people who reject God isn't fair, i will grant you that. 

 

But we didn't ask you not to be Catholic, either.  We didn't ask for your dissent.

 

You have started many a thread about your choice of Church, and how it is not Catholic.  Now you are upset you have a tag that says you are not Catholic.  This is ironic to me.

 

I (personally) think it would be better to have an Eastern tag; because clearly, as you say, you should not be lumped in with atheists.

 

But then.. this begs the question... do we need an atheist tag, a confused tag, a cafeteria catholic tag, a convert tag, a revert tag, an apologist tag, a troll tag, etc.....

 

Perhaps (though i really don't want to speak for dUSt) dUSt sees this and says, 'hey homie, that's too much work...i'll keep it as is, thank you, bro''?  maybe..maybe not...

 

One solution would be not to have any tags.

 

:-P

 

Now I'm just kicking the dead horse.

 

Sorry. :-)



I don't like a lot of groups. If you can think of a better term to describe people who are not Catholic that is better than "non-Catholic", I'm all ears. A little history, that tag use to be called "Separated Brethren", but some people were offended by that--so we changed it to the more generic and bland "non-Catholic".

 

What if we call them "Phriends" or "Phriends of PM"?



yes, because that's what that means. lulz

 

That's what what means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 From what I've seen, there are a lot of posters in here who have been around for a long time (a lot longer than I), who know almost everyone, and whom most people love.


Aww, thanks. You are too kind. :proud: Red does not like me much though. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what what means?

 

that because they have a certain tag means that they aren't part of the phamily. sorry, that's just flooping ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT ARE THE GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????

 

At least I'm not the only one who doesn't know.

Edited by Byzantine
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aww, thanks. You are too kind. :proud: Red does not like me much though. :|

 

 

my opinion doesn't matter around here anymore since I don't have the force of the moderator tag to enforce people to agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MissScripture
I recognize that they're not meant that way, but I think that, for some, they may feel that way. From what I've seen, there are a lot of posters in here who have been around for a long time (a lot longer than I), who know almost everyone, and whom most people love. It just seems cruel to me to not call those people part of the "pham". That is my whole point.

I have never seen anyone limit who they include in "the pham" to those marked "Phatmassers" only. I consider anyone who is part of the phorum as part of "the pham." Some are definitely closer than others, but it's never occurred to me to limit "the pham" by what tags people have, or even what they believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my opinion doesn't matter around here anymore since I don't have the force of the moderator tag to enforce people to agree with me.

The reign of terror is over. For now. But I have my eye on you.

 

im%20watching%20you%20-%20copia.jpg

 

I am the hero Phatmass deserves, but not the one it needs right now. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least I'm not the only one who doesn't know.

Oh sorry, thought I'd replied to Cartermia, so will here for both of you.  We had games at one point with guilds.  I forget most of them, but I think one was Pope Wars, or something similar.

 

my opinion doesn't matter around here anymore since I don't have the force of the moderator tag to enforce people to agree with me.

 

I actually didn't notice you had a CM tag instead of a mod tag, which is ironic given the topic of this thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that because they have a certain tag means that they aren't part of the phamily. sorry, that's just flooping ridiculous. :rolleyes:

 

Uh... I don't think so. I think that when you call 95% of posters "Phatmassers" and 5% of posters "Non-Catholic", the implication is that these "Non-Catholics" are not "Phatmassers". If they were, we would call them "Phatmassers", or at least "Non-Catholic Phatmassers".

 

I don't see what we have being read any other way. Though I can see how you think it's ridiculous, since you know it isn't meant to be read that way.

 

If you're deep into Phatmass, and you know people, then you DO know better. And I'm sure it doesn't matter even to a lot of the "Non-Catholics", because they feel like (i.e., KNOW that) they're part of the Pham anyway (Hasan has said as much in this thread). But I think that, to a newbie or anyone not paying attention, it could easily be read to mean that. And it does seem to bother some—correct me if I'm wrong, Light and Truth (or anyone else out there who hasn't spoken up yet...).

Edited by curiousing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basilisa Marie

oh my gosh. 

 

Phatmasser applies to everyone. 

 

A tag other than "phatmasser" is just an adjective to "phatmasser."  

 

 

If anything, the Phisy people should be the ones feeling victimized, because they're the only ones with that tag that means that they think they're Catholic but we don't think the things they say are in union with the Magisterium.  

Edited by Basilisa Marie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...