Those poor, poor priests...
-
I thought the post was mostly about institutionally approved pedophilia. The discussion of religion wasn't really brought up. No god, just people who happen to be priests, etc. What they do for a living is ancillary to what the top is really about IMHO.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
As soon as it mentioned the church, it became about religion. The problem here, is that you can't separate religion from the church because the church is the institution of the church. If it had just been denouncing the paedos, then I doubt anybody could have any argument - they should be chemically castrated, actually sod that, all it needs is a bit of biblical eye for an eye, and a couple of bricks; job done.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Ah - a 1 vote. Must be someone is upset that the priests can no longer diddle little boys with impunity.
Maybe somebody downvoted you for what they perceive as you violating the rules of this forum. "The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas, or endless debate about climate change, religion and US politics. Anything inappropriate for this forum will be deleted immediately." [Edit]There. Because people didn't bother to read the context of what I wrote, I'll clarify it. I offered an opinion aw to why somebody might have done this. Now, if you want to disagree with me, you can at least start off from a point of informed opinion.[/Edit]
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Saturday, April 3, 2010 5:16 AM
Well, if that's the case, I guess I find myself in agreement w/ Fat_Boy re this forum. What's the point? And, uh, the criteria says 'endless debate'. Where's the context that makes this 'endless'? Where is the last thread on this topic, for instance?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Well, if that's the case, I guess I find myself in agreement w/ Fat_Boy re this forum. What's the point? And, uh, the criteria says 'endless debate'. Where's the context that makes this 'endless'? Where is the last thread on this topic, for instance?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Endless debate has to start somewhere, and this started it. Oh, and thanks for the 1 vote - you seem to be a wee bit sensitive, possibly you need to man up a bit. I only offered an opinion about why somebody might have downvoted you - if you can't take it then perhaps you shouldn't be posting. As I said in my reply above, had you confined it to slagging off the paedos then nobody could have argued, but you had to drag the whole church into it; and that turned it into something that leads to religious debate.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Well, if that's the case, I guess I find myself in agreement w/ Fat_Boy re this forum. What's the point?
It's for the bits that are not suitable for the Lounge, but are too tame for the Back Room. Perhaps that's where you should put it.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Endless debate has to start somewhere, and this started it. Oh, and thanks for the 1 vote - you seem to be a wee bit sensitive, possibly you need to man up a bit. I only offered an opinion about why somebody might have downvoted you - if you can't take it then perhaps you shouldn't be posting. As I said in my reply above, had you confined it to slagging off the paedos then nobody could have argued, but you had to drag the whole church into it; and that turned it into something that leads to religious debate.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Well, if that's the case, I guess I find myself in agreement w/ Fat_Boy re this forum. What's the point?
It's for the bits that are not suitable for the Lounge, but are too tame for the Back Room. Perhaps that's where you should put it.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Oh, and thanks for the 1 vote - you seem to be a wee bit sensitive, possibly you need to man up a bit. I only offered an opinion about why somebody might have downvoted you - if you can't take it then perhaps you shouldn't be posting.
Maybe you better read that back to yourself, Pete. I disagreed with your post and so 1-voted it. It seems to me that's the purpose of the vote, isn't it? Just who's being sensitive, huh? And as for endless debate, there has thus far been ZERO debate about religion in this thread. The only debate is about your interpretation of the forum rules. So why don't you rethink your position.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
that turned it into something that leads to religious debate.
So we've gone from 'endless debate' to 'something that leads to religious debate'. Jumping the gun a bit, aren't you?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Oh, and thanks for the 1 vote - you seem to be a wee bit sensitive, possibly you need to man up a bit. I only offered an opinion about why somebody might have downvoted you - if you can't take it then perhaps you shouldn't be posting.
Maybe you better read that back to yourself, Pete. I disagreed with your post and so 1-voted it. It seems to me that's the purpose of the vote, isn't it? Just who's being sensitive, huh? And as for endless debate, there has thus far been ZERO debate about religion in this thread. The only debate is about your interpretation of the forum rules. So why don't you rethink your position.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
that turned it into something that leads to religious debate.
So we've gone from 'endless debate' to 'something that leads to religious debate'. Jumping the gun a bit, aren't you?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
I don't see how you could disagree with it. I offered an opinion as to why somebody (and no, it wasn't me), might have thought to downvote you. I didn't say I disagreed with your opinion, so your argument with me is over my interpretation over somebody else's motives? That sounds perverse.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So why don't you rethink your position.
Nope. You mentioned the catholic church, and that's religion. There was no reason for you to actually slag off the whole catholic church, but you chose to do so. There was no reason for you to do this - you could have confined it purely to an attack on the paedophiles.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So we've gone from 'endless debate' to 'something that leads to religious debate'. Jumping the gun a bit, aren't you?
No. There is a clearly defined forum for topics like this, and you chose to ignore it and post here instead. I feel sorry for fat_boy because he gets slammed here for doing something that you seem to think you are immune to. He gets slammed for ignoring the rules of the forum. Oh well, I really can't be bothered to debate the point anymore - neither of us is going to change our minds on this; we are both opinionated arseholes, but only one of us is self aware enough to know this.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
I don't see how you could disagree with it. I offered an opinion as to why somebody (and no, it wasn't me), might have thought to downvote you. I didn't say I disagreed with your opinion, so your argument with me is over my interpretation over somebody else's motives? That sounds perverse.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So why don't you rethink your position.
Nope. You mentioned the catholic church, and that's religion. There was no reason for you to actually slag off the whole catholic church, but you chose to do so. There was no reason for you to do this - you could have confined it purely to an attack on the paedophiles.
LunaticFringe wrote:
So we've gone from 'endless debate' to 'something that leads to religious debate'. Jumping the gun a bit, aren't you?
No. There is a clearly defined forum for topics like this, and you chose to ignore it and post here instead. I feel sorry for fat_boy because he gets slammed here for doing something that you seem to think you are immune to. He gets slammed for ignoring the rules of the forum. Oh well, I really can't be bothered to debate the point anymore - neither of us is going to change our minds on this; we are both opinionated arseholes, but only one of us is self aware enough to know this.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I don't see how you could disagree with it. I offered an opinion as to why somebody (and no, it wasn't me), might have thought to downvote you. I didn't say I disagreed with your opinion, so your argument with me is over my interpretation over somebody else's motives? That sounds perverse.
It seemed to me you were endorsing the position you cited. Every word you've written since demonstrates that you do endorse it. It wasn't someone else's position, it was your own.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Nope. You mentioned the catholic church, and that's religion. There was no reason for you to actually slag off the whole catholic church, but you chose to do so. There was no reason for you to do this - you could have confined it purely to an attack on the paedophiles
And therein lies the point of debate, which has nothing to do with religion. Criticism of the institution is completely warranted; the entire public debate is about institutional responsibility. It doesn't have anything to do with religion.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Oh well, I really can't be bothered to debate the point anymore - neither of us is going to change our minds on this; we are both opinionated arseholes, but only one of us is self aware enough to know this
Ah, such a gracious withdrawal. Nothing like falling back on personal insult when you realize you're making no sense at all. I really would have expected better of you. :rolleyes:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Ah - a 1 vote. Must be someone is upset that the priests can no longer diddle little boys with impunity.
Maybe somebody downvoted you for what they perceive as you violating the rules of this forum. "The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas, or endless debate about climate change, religion and US politics. Anything inappropriate for this forum will be deleted immediately." [Edit]There. Because people didn't bother to read the context of what I wrote, I'll clarify it. I offered an opinion aw to why somebody might have done this. Now, if you want to disagree with me, you can at least start off from a point of informed opinion.[/Edit]
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Saturday, April 3, 2010 5:16 AM
-
NY Times story - At Vatican Service, Persecution of Jews Is Invoked[^] Just plucks at your heartstrings, doesn't it? Suffering as the Jews have suffered, they are. Why, it must be terrible to see their opportunities for serial sexual abuse of children just slipping away. Sinead O'Connor deserved huge kudos for calling the pigs what they are. (Washington Post editorial[^]) It's not a church, it's an international organization of child molesters. And the Poop has been revealed to be just as guilty as the worst of them. Yup, my heart bleeds for the suffering of the priests. :mad: X| Ah - a 1 vote. Must be someone is upset that the priests can no longer diddle little boys with impunity. ;P [edit] grammar tweak [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 2:31 PM
As a confirmed Anglican I can find fault with Rome going back to the first council of Nicaea. But to call all Catholic priests "pigs", as you did, deserves rebuke. I would encourage you to go and meet with Catholics, engage in their communion and be involved in their worship before you post again on a subject that you don't understand, have no intention of understanding and would rather post Tabloid commentary on. Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
-
As a confirmed Anglican I can find fault with Rome going back to the first council of Nicaea. But to call all Catholic priests "pigs", as you did, deserves rebuke. I would encourage you to go and meet with Catholics, engage in their communion and be involved in their worship before you post again on a subject that you don't understand, have no intention of understanding and would rather post Tabloid commentary on. Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
martin_hughes wrote:
Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
It is entirely appropriate to question the integrity and sincerity of an institution that has engaged in methodical abuse and protected the criminals. And that's what this is about. It's not about religion, Catholicism or Anglicism. It's about criminal abuse and a institution that thinks it's above secular law. And as long as the hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved, the entire institution is implicated. Trying to beg off by insisting it's the fault or responsibility of a select few bad apples is disengenuous in the extreme. If there is a silent majority of good priests, it's time they spoke up and forced change. Until that happens, they are complicit in the crimes of their organization. [edit] And the Vatican's attempt to portray it's hierarchy as victims comparable to Jews of the Holocaust is repulsive. Nauseating. And completely indicative of how far removed they are from an honest appreciation and appraisal of their position. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 7:14 PM
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
It is entirely appropriate to question the integrity and sincerity of an institution that has engaged in methodical abuse and protected the criminals. And that's what this is about. It's not about religion, Catholicism or Anglicism. It's about criminal abuse and a institution that thinks it's above secular law. And as long as the hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved, the entire institution is implicated. Trying to beg off by insisting it's the fault or responsibility of a select few bad apples is disengenuous in the extreme. If there is a silent majority of good priests, it's time they spoke up and forced change. Until that happens, they are complicit in the crimes of their organization. [edit] And the Vatican's attempt to portray it's hierarchy as victims comparable to Jews of the Holocaust is repulsive. Nauseating. And completely indicative of how far removed they are from an honest appreciation and appraisal of their position. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 7:14 PM
-
As a confirmed Anglican I can find fault with Rome going back to the first council of Nicaea. But to call all Catholic priests "pigs", as you did, deserves rebuke. I would encourage you to go and meet with Catholics, engage in their communion and be involved in their worship before you post again on a subject that you don't understand, have no intention of understanding and would rather post Tabloid commentary on. Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
-
I agree. And don't forget the Roma who never even got the recognition the Jews did.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
That's another pet peeve. When I was in school, it was commonly acknowledged that 12 million died in the camps. 6 million of those were Jews. But in the last few decades, the latter figure has been cited so often that the whole picture is getting lost. The fact is that the Jews weren't the only ones who suffered under the Nazis. They just have better PR than most groups.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
It is entirely appropriate to question the integrity and sincerity of an institution that has engaged in methodical abuse and protected the criminals. And that's what this is about. It's not about religion, Catholicism or Anglicism. It's about criminal abuse and a institution that thinks it's above secular law. And as long as the hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved, the entire institution is implicated. Trying to beg off by insisting it's the fault or responsibility of a select few bad apples is disengenuous in the extreme. If there is a silent majority of good priests, it's time they spoke up and forced change. Until that happens, they are complicit in the crimes of their organization. [edit] And the Vatican's attempt to portray it's hierarchy as victims comparable to Jews of the Holocaust is repulsive. Nauseating. And completely indicative of how far removed they are from an honest appreciation and appraisal of their position. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 7:14 PM
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it. I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. You have no evidence of:
LunaticFringe wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
LunaticFringe wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
LunaticFringe wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
other than you've read in the popular press. Your opinion is baseless, without merit and lacking in anything like original thought. And I say again that your "opinion" that all Catholic priests are "pigs" deserves rebuke.
-
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it. I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. You have no evidence of:
LunaticFringe wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
LunaticFringe wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
LunaticFringe wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
other than you've read in the popular press. Your opinion is baseless, without merit and lacking in anything like original thought. And I say again that your "opinion" that all Catholic priests are "pigs" deserves rebuke.
martin_hughes wrote:
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it.
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
martin_hughes wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
martin_hughes wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
martin_hughes wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
On this you are correct; I have no proof or indication that such a majority may exist.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 8:22 PM
-
But isn't the point that the majority do nothing about it?
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Complete rubbish, of course, Elaine. Are you stopping the paedophile/drug dealer/swindler in your community? Are they coming up to you and saying "Hi, I'm a paedophile/drug dealer/swindler - report me at your leisure"? Of course not. Would you want your boss to know what you get up to hour by hour, minute by minute? Of course not. It's ridiculous to expect the Church to know what individual priests are up to, but unforgivable if they attempt to cover up crimes. But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it.
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
martin_hughes wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
martin_hughes wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
martin_hughes wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
On this you are correct; I have no proof or indication that such a majority may exist.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 8:22 PM
LunaticFringe wrote:
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
No. I'm saying that those who are clueless and ignorant should be chastised and disabused of their false beliefs. According to you all Catholic priests are pigs[^]. Should all black people be considered drug-dealers just because some black people are drug dealers? Your logic suggest that they should, and thank God I don't follow it.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
It's an "iron clad" proof of nothing but your inability to be an impartial judge.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
Are you being deliberately stupid to quote the New York Times as "evidence", or do you truly believe such "news" is better than personal experience and would sway me to your point of view?
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
No. I'm saying that those who are clueless and ignorant should be chastised and disabused of their false beliefs. According to you all Catholic priests are pigs[^]. Should all black people be considered drug-dealers just because some black people are drug dealers? Your logic suggest that they should, and thank God I don't follow it.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
It's an "iron clad" proof of nothing but your inability to be an impartial judge.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
Are you being deliberately stupid to quote the New York Times as "evidence", or do you truly believe such "news" is better than personal experience and would sway me to your point of view?
You are SERIOUSLY in denial, aren't you? If you can't even admit that protection of abusive priests hasn't been an isolated phenomenon, you're not going to be particularly objective of the clearly documented role of the pope in particular instances in Bavaria. And yes. The New York Times has a pretty sterling reputation for integrity. Trying to pass of a clearly documented instance as a 'tabloid story' is a clear indication of your own intransigence in the face of incontrovertible evidence. And I admit I'm no expert, but to the best of my knowledge, being born as a member of a particular race is a little different from voluntarily joining and continuing to belong to an organization which, in spite of your pathological denial, is now known the world over to have been an institutional abuser of children. [edit] spelling. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 9:14 PM
-
NY Times story - At Vatican Service, Persecution of Jews Is Invoked[^] Just plucks at your heartstrings, doesn't it? Suffering as the Jews have suffered, they are. Why, it must be terrible to see their opportunities for serial sexual abuse of children just slipping away. Sinead O'Connor deserved huge kudos for calling the pigs what they are. (Washington Post editorial[^]) It's not a church, it's an international organization of child molesters. And the Poop has been revealed to be just as guilty as the worst of them. Yup, my heart bleeds for the suffering of the priests. :mad: X| Ah - a 1 vote. Must be someone is upset that the priests can no longer diddle little boys with impunity. ;P [edit] grammar tweak [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 2:31 PM
We don't appear to see eye-to-eye on much but I mostly agree with you on this one.Perverted priests abusing their 'god' given position of trust to abuse young boys is beyond disgusting and then to compare the vilification they are rightly receiving to the suffering of the Jews shows that they are morally bankrupt. Have a 5 for me: presumably a random visiting priest gave you one...
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
As soon as it mentioned the church, it became about religion. The problem here, is that you can't separate religion from the church because the church is the institution of the church. If it had just been denouncing the paedos, then I doubt anybody could have any argument - they should be chemically castrated, actually sod that, all it needs is a bit of biblical eye for an eye, and a couple of bricks; job done.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
While I disagree with you on the appropriateness of the topic in this forum I approve of you two bricks policy. Leave the chemicals to the captain, two bricks just seems like the right thing to do.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Got to disagree with you on this one Pete, this isn't about religion. It is about abuse (in many senses) of power. Faith does not come into it.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Jeez. Will people read what I actually said? I said somebody might have done this for that reason. It wasn't me - I just tried to come up with a reason why somebody might have 1-voted. You see, this is why this type of thing is always contentious - people immediately take polarized views and don't bother to actually review the facts.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.