Thread: Hell: Proud to be Anglican Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001088
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I had thought when Our Friend Cosmo decided to depart this ship that would be an end to it.
But it seems not. The Coot has taken up his mantle.
Now I am not just "Un-Anglican", but "Anti-Anglican".
And I am getting just a little bit tee'd off with it.
I am an Anglican by choice, not by default in any way. Not because my family were, not because it was the nearest church, but by choice. Aparently this makes me "unanglican".
I have sought office within the church, and currently hold the office of reader within the Anglican church. At no point in any of my selection process was there any suggestion that I wasn't Anglican enough. At no point during my training was my Anglicanism in question. But apparently I am "anti-anglican". Obviously I am such a master of disguise that my subversion was not detected at any stage.
Maybe my understanding of and interpretation of Anglicanism is different to yours. That's a good thing, because diversity is in the nature of Anglicanism. You may not like it, but then I don't ask you to agree with me. I may not like your approach, but that doesn't warrant me calling you un-anglican.
This ship is a ship of unrest. That is one thing I love about it. I am unrestful in what I do, and how I approach my faith and my denomination. Does that make me un-Anglican? I hope not, because I love the Anglican church too much to consign it yet.
[ 10. March 2003, 01:10: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Errrrr..... what's the problem here? Who said you are not Anglican? In what way might you not be Anglican?
I'm confused ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This ship is a ship of unrest. That is one thing I love about it. I am unrestful in what I do, and how I approach my faith and my denomination. Does that make me un-Anglican? I hope not, because I love the Anglican church too much to consign it yet.
The wonderful thing about being an Anglican, for me, is that you are allowed to question and challenge for yourself and engage with others what it means to be an Anglican-to be comfortable with the journey of exploration and deep questioning-to be restful in the very nature of unrest.
Keep on trucking, Schroedinger's Cat. Don't let the bastards grind you down! ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Steve, while I sympathise with your point of view, are you not being a wee bit too hard on the Coot?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
SC - any chance of a link here, or a quote, so that the rest of us can see what you are annoyed about?
I'm very confused - I think I need to go to bed.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Since this seems to be a call into hell, I assume you have PMd or e-mailed the Coot? If you haven't done so, please do so.
tomb
hellhost
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I'll take "give me the damn link" for $100, Alex.
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I had thought when Our Friend Cosmo decided to depart this ship that would be an end to it.
Rumours of our friend's demise are greatly exaggerated. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
Rumours of our friend's demise are greatly exaggerated.
glad to hear it.... the op here had me a bit concerned for him
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
There are many people who point out with apparent pride that they are "cradle Anglicans [Episcopalians]". I fail to see that this is of any significance whatsoever.
As to the Cosmo aspect of the opening post, I think we should know by now that it is folly to attempt to predict what such a wonderfully complex person will say or do. There even appears to be disagreement on whether or not he is a person of color.
Greta
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
As to the Cosmo aspect of the opening post, I think we should know by now that it is folly to attempt to predict what such a wonderfully complex person will say or do. There even appears to be disagreement on whether or not he is a person of color.
(wipes eyes and composes self)
You're either the funniest person I have ever met of simply not very bright.
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
There even appears to be disagreement on whether or not he is a person of color. Greta
"Person of color"? Are we not all persons of color? I, for example, am a kind of pinky salmon beige with very muted olive undertones. If that's not color, what is?
Posted by Royual Peculiar (# 3159) on
:
SC, I am very concerned about your post as you are obviously saddeed by your experience of the board and.or Anglicanism. I am a cradle anglican, although I hav ein the past flirted with Catholicism and Quakerism, and attende Orthodox liturgies and Methodist,Baptist URC and independent worship.
I find ithe C of E a difficult place at times, but it is the richer for your valuable contribution as a reader - and as you rightly say if you have chosen to be an Anglican and gone through the various hoops to become a reader -of course you are an Anglican and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
I don't know why I'm posting this. No one bothers to read what I put these days anyway.)
OK. Steve, I'm asking you to back down.
I know you've had a hard time at the hands of bigoted slow developers like the One Whom Smart Girls Are Wont To Carry and his ilk, but these people are not the majority, and the whole of Anglo-Catholocism does not deserve to be loathed because of a few self-righteous and unimaginative snobs.
There are many, many Anglo-Catholics on this board who are decent, intelligent and Godly. I rate the Coot as one of them.
And I think he has a point.
You've been on a major anti-AC trip for ages now. Because some of them happen to have treated you badly is no reason to hate all Anglo-Catholics (or, in fact, any), any more than Ang-Caths have to hate evangelicals because the evangelicals treat them badly. Do you really want to be lumped in with the Bonkers Bishop of Sydney? Really?
I know you've had a hard time on this board from idiotic public-school jerks who couldn't phrase a decent argument if it slapped them around the face, but come on. By going on your anti-AC rampage - and, let's face it, Steve, the AC dos and Don'ts thread was pretty nasty - you lose any moral high ground you had.
Steve, mate. I hope you still respect my opinion enough to listen to this. Back down. Please?
The Coot really doesn't deserve your opprobrium, and I'm proud to have him as a colleague.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
There are many people who point out with apparent pride that they are "cradle Anglicans [Episcopalians]". I fail to see that this is of any significance whatsoever. ...
It's not, except that it was a really wonderful way to grow up: Cranmer's music in my ears and on my lips, etc.
But when I use the term, it's just background information, like my husband's having attended RC schools through high school. Does anyone really take it as personal virtue or fault that they were reared in one tradition rather than another?
Rossweisse // who thinks background info is useful
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
Rossweisse,
Stupid as I am, I am most confounded when I see the term "cradle Episcopalian" listed among the qualifications for candidates for vestry or for diocesan offices. Why is the accident of being born into the Church any special virtue? I think it is irrelevant whether one has been an Episcopalian for over half a century (like myself) or was confirmed yesterday.
I also don't like it when people use the term as a kind of social pedigree, analogously to blue haired matrons who think they are special because their ancestors came over on the Mayflower.
Greta
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
Well, well, well. One goes on holiday for a few weeks (and thus able to think a little about whether to carry on posting or not rather than simple, as some have accused, sulking in a corner) and some behave as though the body was already cold.
It's interesting to see the insults that go around when one is thought to be absent. I thought that was just a bitchy A/C trait rather than South Wales evangelical. You live and learn.
For the record I don't really care to be described as a 'bigoted slow developer' or as part of a cabal of 'self-righteous and unimaginative snobs'. Neither do I particularly enjoy being implicated as one of a mysterious group of 'idiotic public-school educated jerks'.
Undoubtedly I have questioned SC (if you don't mind the abbreviation) over some his viewpoints in the past, particularly concerning the sacraments, the nature of episcopacy and the ordained priesthood. Indeed, I have gone so far as to ask why SC is an Anglican when so many of the points he has expressed seem to run contrary to some fundamental elements of Anglicanism. I should have thought that argument and debate are vital parts of the boards. At no point however (I think and certainly hope not) have I ever described SC as 'anti-Anglican' nor have I attributed to him any of the character traits or similar insults it would appear Wood has ascribed to me.
If Wood would care to open a thread on the evils of the 'One Smart Girls Carry' (not with my size, my dear) in Hell or even send me a PM to explain how his remarks were not in the slightest way addressed about me in particular then I should be interested to read them.
If, however, you (or anybody else for that matter) want to call me names, then please do it to my face. At the moment you merely sound a little like the boy who only slags off the teacher when he's out of the room.
(A well-refreshed) Cosmo
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
ken,
Amos initially used the term "person of color" with regard to Cosmo. I knew what she meant. So apparently did Wood and Fiddleback. I stayed with the term although it is not one which I normally use.
Out now to enjoy a few minutes of this beautiful L.A. day.
Greta
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
Suddenly the day has become even more beautiful!!!!!
Greta
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
I find myself singing an old Baptist hymn: "Ring the bells of Heaven; there is joy today."
Greta
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Well, well, well. One goes on holiday for a few weeks (and thus able to think a little about whether to carry on posting or not rather than simple, as some have accused, sulking in a corner) and some behave as though the body was already cold.<snip>
Ah, Cosmo.
I'm in a picky mood tonight. The phrase you're reaching for is:
as though the body were already cold.
Please try harder in future sir.
Viki
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I find myself singing an old Baptist hymn: "Ring the bells of Heaven; there is joy today."
Greta
There is a place for nauseating rejoicing and jubilation. It's called All Saints. kindly do not make this mistake again, or you will regret it. Profoundly.
Viki, hellhost
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Dear Cosmo, as it was I who surmised that you were sulking may I add that at no point did I consider you to be simply (I hope you think me not too forward in correcting your typo) sulking. Sadly you do so little “simply.”
P
{corrected your typo, too, Pyx_e. That "to-too" homonym is so vexatious}
[ 04. October 2002, 01:13: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
See. Told you no one reads my posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
For the record I don't really care to be described as a 'bigoted slow developer' or as part of a cabal of 'self-righteous and unimaginative snobs'. Neither do I particularly enjoy being implicated as one of a mysterious group of 'idiotic public-school educated jerks'.
If the biretta fits.
You don't like being described that way, show some evidence that you don't deserve it.
quote:
I attributed to him any of the character traits or similar insults it would appear Wood has ascribed to me.
Now, if you had actually bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I simply said that he had "had a hard time" at the hands of you and your little friends.
Which I think is fair.
quote:
If Wood would care to open a thread on the evils of the 'One Smart Girls Carry' (not with my size, my dear) in Hell or even send me a PM to explain how his remarks were not in the slightest way addressed about me in particular then I should be interested to read them.
You think you can actually carry an argument beyond hit-and-run, you start it.
Colours to the mast: some of those comments were addressed to you (see above).
quote:
If, however, you (or anybody else for that matter) want to call me names, then please do it to my face.
I just did, you moron (slow developer: QED).
Cosmo, I knew you were reading this. Do you really think I say anything about you in private that I haven't said in public?
On the other hand, I understand that one person actually started spreading lies about me to people in private emails - had the opinions and actions attributed to me been mafde public and were I of a litigious bent, I would have sought legal advice, in fact. One person even went to the editor, because they believed these things.
I really do have no idea who that was (although I have my suspicions, I have no proof and no evidence beyond the circumstantial), but I would hope that I would never stoop so low as that slimy, underhand, pathetic little worm, whoever it was.
quote:
(a well-refreshed) Cosmo
Physically, anyway.
Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on
:
I don't know why, but when I saw the title of this thread, all of a sudden, I heard Lee Greenwood singing "I am Proud to be an Anglican" to the tune of his song "I am Pround to be an American." Now I can't get it out of my head.
This truly is Hell.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Anglicans definitely make for good entertainment, anyway! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Reader Alexis
Posted by Decanus (# 2824) on
:
Oh, a cat-fight. Wonderful!!
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Oh, what a beautiful evening this is turning out to be. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
<settles back on shooting stick and imbibes from hip-flask>
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Oh what a beautiful morning......in a hellish sort of way
Happy St Francis Day, Cosmo! and Px Romana to all the rest of you
cheers
m
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Oh what a beautiful morning......in a hellish sort of way
Happy St Francis Day, Cosmo! and Px Romana to all the rest of you
cheers
m
Multipara,
Wishing greetings, particularly happy ones is for All Saints.
Giving peace to all is for Mystery Worship (where you may also debate not giving peace ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) or Heaven.
Please do not confuse Hell again with any of these three boards, as I find my tendency to shred the perpetrators of such a misdemeanour often offends.
Viki, hellhost growing increasingly less cordial
Posted by Paul W (# 1450) on
:
I love Hell. I really do.
Paul W
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Well, really. This is all pretty hellish. In the space of an hour or so, I have had "Proud to be an American" and "Oh What A Beautiful Morning" lodged in my head. They're currently playing on simultaneous tracks (I multi-task well). There can be no nastier combination than patriotic dreck and show tunes fighting it out in one's head. The Voices scarcely know what to say....
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
Wood said:
quote:
You've been on a major anti-AC trip for ages now. Because some of them happen to have treated you badly is no reason to hate all Anglo-Catholics (or, in fact, any), any more than Ang-Caths have to hate evangelicals because the evangelicals treat them badly. Do you really want to be lumped in with the Bonkers Bishop of Sydney? Really?
Wood me ol' buddy!
"Not the Bonkers archBishop of Sydney! Anything but the Bonkers archBishop of Sydney!!"
Anyone have tuppence to buy the B a-B of Sydney? A shilling for the Catholic one too... Going really cheap just for today...
Buy one, get one free!
Seriously though, while the Sydney Evangelicals are on a war path to try and obliterate Ang-Cath from knowledge in the Diocese (the B a-B himself has said it, albeit on the quiet), we don't hate them. We might loathe some of what they stand for. But we don't hate them. On the whole though we just get on with what we do...
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Sarkycow,
Kindly remember that for quite a few of the denizens of Hell the Pax Romana is devilish, not to say Hellish; same applies to Saints' days.
I've got a very nice No15 surgical blade and a dermatome knife (you know one of those doo-dahs for shaving off skin grafts) right here and both are proof against shredders AND toasting -forks.
Some lateral thinking please!
all the worst,
m
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
It is times like this that make me wish the Ship of Fools had streaming video.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Seriously though, while the Sydney Evangelicals are on a war path to try and obliterate Ang-Cath from knowledge in the Diocese (the B a-B himself has said it, albeit on the quiet), we don't hate them. We might loathe some of what they stand for. But we don't hate them. On the whole though we just get on with what we do...
To be honest, having read a lot of his views and seen evidence of what he's done, no wonder evangelicals have a bad name in Sydney.
I have no sympathy with the man.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Dear Cosmo, as it was I who surmised that you were sulking...
Does this mean that you got a whiny, self-indulgent private message, too? Or was I the only lucky one?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Stupid as I am, I am most confounded when I see the term "cradle Episcopalian" listed among the qualifications for candidates for vestry or for diocesan offices. Why is the accident of being born into the Church any special virtue? ...
Okay, we all know you're not stupid. Again, I would give the "cradle Episcopalians" the benefit of the doubt, and just call it background info, not bragging.
Personally, I have NO opinion (as Jane Austen would say) of Mayflower types. Lousy Puritans.
Rossweisse // check: this IS Hell, right? Right.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
It seems to be time to introduce the fabled Anglican Fight Song. As this is Hell, you may sing it out of key, and lose the beat all you like. Just don't let me hear you.
(to the tune of "God Bless America")
I am an Anglican,
I'm CofE.
Not a High Church
Nor a Low Church,
But Catholic and Protestant and FREE.
Not a Methodist,
Not a Lutheran,
Not a Baptist,
White with foam!
But I am an Anglican,
Just one step from Rrrrrrrrome,
I am an Anglican!
Via Media! Boom boom!
Rossweisse // who does the "boom booms" with particular elan
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on
:
Getting back to the OP, I'm proud of SC that he's proud to be an Anglican, whatever that is. You go, boy!
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I was caught up in work at the end of yesterday, and have only just had a chance to get back to read this.
This is NOT a call to hell for Coot. And not purely about a particular thread. I will PM Coot anyway. Erin - thanks for the link. Coot - I'm sorry, this is not intended to be personal.
It is about being called unanglican. Repeatedly. Being told I am wrong is fine. Being told that the way I do things is appaling, sacreligious, unpleasant whatever is par for the course. Being told that I am unanglican is not.
Wood - whose opinion I value higher than most others on this board - I take your point. In my defense, when I arrived on these boards, I had an ambivalent view of AC's. Edward Green, on the Small Fire board, gave me a much more positive view than I had previously had. It is the actions of a few on these boards who have demonstrated all that is bad about AC's. I apologise that I have sometimes lumped others into the same pot.
I started this thread because I wanted to leave the ship. Some part of me had had enough. And yet I knew that not having hell to shout at and rant in would be even worse. I need the safety valve. Thank you for providing that.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
SC wrote:
quote:
Wood - whose opinion I value higher than most others on this board - I take your point. In my defense, when I arrived on these boards, I had an ambivalent view of AC's. Edward Green, on the Small Fire board, gave me a much more positive view than I had previously had. It is the actions of a few on these boards who have demonstrated all that is bad about AC's. I apologise that I have sometimes lumped others into the same pot.
My italics.
I'm invoking the little known "I sent you chocolate when you were a Host" clause here and hoping that this will make you more willing to listen to me.
People are just demonstrating what's good and bad about themselves. The fact that some of them may or may not be A-C's is actually completely irrelevant to the way they choose to conduct themselves.
Tubbs
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
if you can hear faint cheering its me for Tubbs' last post. Well said Sir (sorry madam), well said.
Erin; I really did suggest that they were both sulking on the "where have all the the tat wahtsits gone" thread in MW.
no one PM's me, not even when I got 1000 posts. (bastards) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
P
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oh, so Cosmo's got a hardon for me, too, just like Fiddleback. After all, I only echoed your sentiments, and I got a "poor widdle me" private message.
I'll private message you, Pyx_e, even if you do call me unChristian.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Stupid as I am, I am most confounded when I see the term "cradle Episcopalian" listed among the qualifications for candidates for vestry or for diocesan offices. Why is the accident of being born into the Church any special virtue? I think it is irrelevant whether one has been an Episcopalian for over half a century (like myself) or was confirmed yesterday.
I never thought the phrase was meant as a qualification. I thought it was just information on a person's background.
I think a vestry composed entirely of cradle Episcopalians would not be good. A vestry composed entirely of people who had not grown up in the Episcopal church would also not be good. Since the congregation is a mix, the vestry should be a mix.
Moo
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
People are just demonstrating what's good and bad about themselves. The fact that some of them may or may not be A-C's is actually completely irrelevant to the way they choose to conduct themselves.
Totally. I knew a guy some years back who'd been to university in Middlesex. He said that he didn't like Indians, because "all the Indians he's ever met had been ****ers". That amounted to about four people in the end.
I guess that this is what irks me about a lot of these smackdowns we seem to have - the idea that a whole BRANCH OF THE CHURCH (that was for Gregory's benefit, in case you hadn't noticed - and yes, I am in a foul mood this morning) is somehow morally corrupt because you've met a few members of it whom you didn't like.
That way prejudice and bigotry lies.
Sorry, Steve. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that's how it's been coming across recently.
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
no one PM's me, not even when I got 1000 posts. (bastards)
And who the hell are you calling no one?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
no one PM's me, not even when I got 1000 posts. (bastards)
And who the hell are you calling no one?
Exactly. I bet you're gonna wish you'd never said that once we fill your inbox full of congratulatory messages ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Tubbs
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
That way prejudice and bigotry lies.
Sorry, Steve. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but that's how it's been coming across recently.
I am sorry if that is how I have been coming across. I don't generally mean it as such, but sometimes people catch me on a bad day. Maybe I have had too many bad days in the last few months.
In my defence ( m'lud ), I would point out that I have never accused the ACs of being unchristian or unanglican. I don't believe they are. I only ask for a similar curtesey to be extended to me. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Steve the Cat - in need of the weekend.
Posted by The Coot (# 220) on
:
![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
Wood said nice things about me!
But I'm not actually anglocatholic.
.
.
[Also. I'm not godly. And um. Usually I'm a happy lucky decent guy, but um. After hanging around Northbridge today, 'decent' has to come off the list too]
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
courtesy, Steve, courtesy.
Ok then. How Anglican are you?
Do you reckon we should devise some sort of scale of "Anglican-ness"? Maybe not. Too many bun fights. It's such a broad term to encompass a broad range of opinions...
Well if we DID, we should divide it up into the three traditional parts of the Anglican church: Evangelical/Puritan (in the technical, 16thC sense - Evangelicals are to some extent their inheritors), Catholic, and Liberal.
Within each scale you have to what extent each wing aligns itself/identifies itself with the "standards": the Book of Common Prayer (let's use the 1662), the Creed, and Articles of Religion. At the bottom you have those that are very close to the BCP etc. And at the top of each scale you have those who are respectively: Off-the-deep-end-almost-presbyterians-who-want-to-bring-back-the-fights-of-the-16thC like the Sydney lot (*hucks and spits*); Anglicans who are Roman in all but name (Tridentine Riters etc); and Anglicans who are so liberal as to be Unitarian or even, agnostic.
I don't think there is such a thing as "true Anglicanism in its purest form". Nor has there ever been such a thing. Not when you have such a range to choose from... And if you're like Edward, you might fit on several scales all at once...
What does it mean to be Anglican? What is Anglicanism anyhow? Not interms of how it is constituted, but what makes it what it is?
Actually Steve, jokes and flippancy aside, I do think there is such a thing as being "un-Anglican", in a technical sense... And that would be if a group were trying to get rid of the "standards"...
The Sydney lot, in my opinion are. Because it's not just the lay-presidency thing, it's their whole attitude to the church too, which seeks to undermine those things which make them Anglicans... Think the rower who is drilling a hole in the boat he is supposed to be rowing...
I don't know what sort of evangelical you are, and it doesn't matter to me where you fit on the spectrum, though I have to say that you feeling upset at being called "un-Anglican" shows me that you want to be Anglican, and seen as such! I don't know to what extent the attitudes of the Sydney Evangelicals are prevalent in the UK (I shudder at the thought they should be there at all). I honestly think though that Sydney is pulling/pushing very hard on the very flexible boundaries/edges of what constitutes Anglicanism...
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I don't know what sort of evangelical you are, and it doesn't matter to me where you fit on the spectrum, though I have to say that you feeling upset at being called "un-Anglican" shows me that you want to be Anglican, and seen as such! I don't know to what extent the attitudes of the Sydney Evangelicals are prevalent in the UK (I shudder at the thought they should be there at all). I honestly think though that Sydney is pulling/pushing very hard on the very flexible boundaries/edges of what constitutes Anglicanism...
FYI, the Sydney lot's views are quite easy to find among evangelicals in the UK, I am sorry to say, but not among Anglicans. HTB and its offshoots is about as close as British Anglicanism gets, quite frankly, but whatever you think of it, it doesn't match the extreme nature of ++Jensen and his people.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Wood said nice things about me!
But I'm not actually anglocatholic.
.
.
[Also. I'm not godly. And um. Usually I'm a happy lucky decent guy, but um. After hanging around Northbridge today, 'decent' has to come off the list too]
Um, OK. But we like you anyway. Can I extend my other compliments to Nunc and Dyfrig istead, then?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Nunc - thank you. For correcting my typing. As I have argued elsewhere, my spelling is perfect, but my typing sometimes lets me down ...
Yes I agree there is something which is un-anglican. But to define what it is would be very difficult. I don't know the Sidney evangelicals as such ( although I think I have come in contact with their teaching ), but I do know that the extremist views are present within British evangelicalism. But I am not extremist.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
no one PM's me, not even when I got 1000 posts.
hey pyx_e thats not fair... i pm you fairly frequently...
(i want a pouting smilie to insert here. i really, really want a pouting smilie)
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
the four people who have pmed me in the last year have all now pmed or posted here telling me what a pratt I am I can't win.
P
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Apart from me, Pyx_e, that is.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
the four people who have pmed me in the last year have all now pmed or posted here telling me what a pratt I am I can't win.
P
But I sent you a PM too Pyx_e. And we agreed on something. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
A sign of forthcoming something or other surely
Tubbs
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
SC, I am reasonably sure that I do not have the same degree of respect that you accord Wood but a couple of things, if I may.
Firstly, You have said a few things on board that have made me raise an eyebrow. I am sure this is not news to you. You have represented (on board, and I stress on board because shipboard life is NOT real life, after over two years on board I think I am just getting to know a few shipmates of the hundreds I have conversed with) many of the things I dislike about the C of E.
Now before you get upset with me let me stress I do not think I have got it right my problem is dealing with the fact that none of have got it right. I think I am trying to say is that it is not about who has it right and who has it wrong but knowing that most of us are trying to follow His word and Love the Lord our God and our nieghbour as our self in many and varied ways. So whilst I may not like some of what you say I have to listen and even (God forbid) learn.
Secondly we are all changing (these boards have taught me much). I have seen you, through your posts, really struggle with changes in your life, your role on board, your views on certain issues, your views about certain shipmates and most importantly (for this thread), your dealing with the f**king awful selection process (sometimes dealing with it badly but hey it is often nasty and hard to deal with). Now I do not know you ITRW but it seems your struggles with the defining of and being a minister are valid even if at times they have really threatened where I am and, at times your struggle to come to terms often seems to be have just made you angry and even bitter with the C of E.
But it is always difficult to see someone grieve.
Lastly you said :"I started this thread because I wanted to leave the ship. Some part of me had had enough.” I for one am not willing to let this pass without some word of encouragement to you. Please don’t leave. (not good enough?)
OK. Even if at times I have strongly disagreed with you and been maybe even nasty I still like you or more accurately value what you bring to our fellowship. Hey Erin thinks I called her unChristian (when in fact I only suggested some ideas that were floating around may be unChristian ) and we get on (sort of , she did PM me when she said she would ). Thank God we are all not the same. You may think all sorts of people have said bad things about you and hey guess what ,they have. But that is OK we can disagree and really piss each other off and if we are part of the ship of Fools then we can get over it.
If we want to.
I ask you to want to get over it, you’re (mostly, nearly, sometimes ) a really good guy and it is just about time to let go of some past hurts.
Everything will be OK
P
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Does this mean that you got a whiny, self-indulgent private message, too? Or was I the only lucky one?
Was it as whiny and self-indulgent as SC's OP?
[use preview post]
[ 04. October 2002, 19:58: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Well, you know Fr Cosmo, might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, right? It rivalled the mass e-mailing we all received of "The Lottery" back when we kicked Joanne off the boards.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Well, you know Fr Cosmo, might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, right?
Fr. Cosmo's hung like a sheep??
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Stop the presses!!
... oh. I get it now. My mistake. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Never mind!
David
Posted by Warden's Wand (# 2838) on
:
ChastMastr: It's different to being hung like a horse!
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
no one PM's me, not even when I got 1000 posts. (bastards)
I PM'd you. I thought it a was a pleasant exchange, too.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
OK OK I admit I was being melodramatic. Sheesh.
P
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Is hung like einstien and has the brains of a horse,
P
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Well, you know Fr Cosmo, might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, right? It rivalled the mass e-mailing we all received of "The Lottery" back when we kicked Joanne off the boards.
I know I'm thick but I thought a Private Message was supposed to erm... private. Never mind.
What I said in the message was that after being away on holiday for a while I was a bit peeved to be described as 'sulking in a corner' and that I had felt that my posts (ohGod the paranoia was kicking in big time) seemed to be picked upon quite quickly for sarcastic comments by others. All this I did 'privately' to one of the people who had made such a comment rather than provoke some kind of public irritation. Silly me for thinking that's as far as it would go.
The reply was, well... let's not dwell on the reply. I try not to use the word 'shit' too often in correspondance even with my friends.
To get back to the OP I would repeat again to SC that I, at least, have never described you as 'anti-anglican'. I have indeed questioned why you are an Anglican considering some of the views you have put across and have thought that you might, with those views, be more at home in another denomination. But I have never described you as anti-Anglican. I hope (genuinely) that you resolve your obvious faith and belonging difficulties and that you find yourself in the church that you feel the most at ease with.
The thing is that Anglo-Catholics get most het up, not on tat (although that pervades our very beings and provides so much fun and opportunities of mutual piss-taking), but doctrine and history and ecclesiology. We don't claim omniscience or infallibilty (or Blessed Pio Nono and his lawful successors has that) but we do get roused by those who question the very core of Anglican sacramental and ecclesiological thought. Thus when the Arch-Jensen of Sydeny gets going we get riled as we believe him to be a Congregationalist Presbyterian masquerading as an Anglican. That's why when others put forward arguments which come close to his own (as some of SC's have, on occasion) then we respond. It doesn't mean we think you are a dickhead or a jerk or even, gasp, a moron. It just means we are fighting for what we think we are about as Anglicans at a time when that seems to be under serious threat.
I hope that makes some sort of sense. The only good movable feast I know (the saddle of mutton trolley at Simpson's) was in good form tonight.
The Self-Indulgent, Whining, Patronising, Public-school educated, Moron, (did I miss one?),
Cosmo
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
So, you raving hypocrite, explain why you didn't whine at Pyx_e for saying it FIRST.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oh yeah...
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I know I'm thick but I thought a Private Message was supposed to erm... private. Never mind.
You lost this moral high ground when you ran whining to someone else and quoted the entire text of MINE.
HYPOCRITE.
[ 05. October 2002, 00:06: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
Because I didn't see it that's why. Indeed I still haven't seen it (perhaps I haven't read some posts properly) but I did see you write something to the effect of 'sulking in a corner' and I so I wrote to you in addition to a couple of other points which I mentioned above (and which were dealt with in that PM so I hope you don't feel the need to bring it up all over again in public). That's all.
I don't think that makes me a 'raving hypocrite'. Maybe a blind skim-reader but not a raving hypocrite.
Cosmo
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
I did indeed write to Simon and quote some of your PM as I felt it was quiteout of proportion to the questions I had raised. However at no time did put any of this on the open boards and I don't understand why you feel it was OK to do so in the first place.
Cosmo
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
You have gone beyond hypocrite into bold-faced LIAR. Piss off, and don't you EVER PM or e-mail me again.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I bet you're gonna wish you'd never said that once we fill your inbox full of congratulatory messages
Tubbs
This is the royal 'we', presumably?
I have no intention of putting anything in pyx_e's inbox, thank you very much.
[Code fix]
[ 05. October 2002, 00:30: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
You have gone beyond hypocrite into bold-faced LIAR. Piss off, and don't you EVER PM or e-mail me again.
Please don't call me a liar. I did indeed send some of your reply in my PM to Simon and questioned its tone and content. As you have already brought this up this evening it's obvious you know this, presumably from Simon. If you would like I can put the whole of our discussion on the open boards (subject to his agreement of course) and prove it. So I don't know where the liar bit comes.
Knowing that a PM to you is obviously fair game to be referred to on the open boards I shall gladly not PM you again. However I resent the accusation of lying and request either an explanation of your remark or an apology (although I shan't live in hope of getting either).
Cosmo
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
If you honestly believe that what you've posted here is the truth, I have been sorely mistaken about you. I always thought you were a jackass, now it appears you are far less intelligent than I thought.
The outright lie: you quoted my ENTIRE PM, not just "some". That means that you don't regard it as a private conversation, not if you feel at liberty to send it on because you are a whining tattletale, so why the fuck should I?
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
I did miss out a couple of sentences from it you know (or certainly tried to in any case, I'm not hugely proficient in this stuff). And I hardly think sending a message to the founder of this board and taking issue with the extraordinarily rude and dismissive content of one the 'senior' members of the Ship towards another member is quite the same as slagging off that person and bitching about the content of their PM's on the open boards.
Now, can we leave this please. It has nothing to do with the OP and I'm going to bed.
Cosmo
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I would gladly leave it if you would stop playing martyr about all this. Believe me, dealing with you is about 2342374752 on my list of things I really want to do before I die.
However, since you insist on perpetuating the fallacy that you've been wronged here, and have never done anything to provoke it, I must decline your offer to leave it.
You COULD always wander back to the ghetto. Then you would never have to deal with unpleasant concepts such as "truth" and "consequences of my actions".
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Hello Wood, Just to let you know I do read your posts (even if it takes me several days to get around to it - I've only just discovered this thread exists)
Chorister is an Anglican - by birth, by baptism and confirmation, and also by trying out all the others in order to satisfy myself that I really am an Anglican by choice as well as by accident.
Tra, la (In B flat)
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on
:
Erin :hope you realise just how aggressive and rude you appear on this thread.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
This may be Hell, but can't you deal with your personal grievances in private?
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
The kind of so called anglicans who really get on my wick are those who use the Roman Missal. This means they are embarrassed about bein anglican well they should get the fuck out and not be so bloody hypocritical.
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The kind of so called anglicans who really get on my wick are those who use the Roman Missal. This means they are embarrassed about bein anglican well they should get the fuck out and not be so bloody hypocritical.
I quite agree. Nasty little book. The English Missal is quite another kettle of tat tho'.
Cosmo
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
by English Missal do you mean common worship? or do you mean something produced by another church?
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
Ah by English Missal you mean the prayer book produce by the Church of Rome. You aren't very proud to be Anglican are you?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Being proud to be Anglican presumably means proud of belonging to a church which embraces Anglo-catholics, Angligelicals, FiFs, Liberals and all sorts of other weirdos. One of its strengths is its very inclusivity. To outsiders that probably looks like one of its weaknesses too, but what the hey!
I have just had a trawl through the Mystery Worship reports on Anglican churches and continue to be amazed at the diversity. Apparently my church is due to be on there soon and will probably be boringly somewhere in the middle of the continuum.
Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Ah by English Missal you mean the prayer book produce by the Church of Rome. You aren't very proud to be Anglican are you?
Er, no. By The English Missal I mean the missal put together by Fr Kenrick, the Anglican parish priest of Holy Trinity, Hoxton. It combines the best of Rome with the best of Anglicanism and was much in use in A/C parishes from the 1920's to the 1960's. With the liturgical revisionisms of both Churches it has become sadly neglected of late although a few places still use it.
If you think I'm not proud to be Anglican then look at Corpus Cani's recent report of Hereford Cathedral and Jacobite's report on St Mary's Bourne St. Who could fail to be proud to be priest in a Church that manages to combine so much!
Cosmo
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
WHEN will people learn that when talking about a period of time, for example the nineteen-sixties, the correct notation is 1960s NOT 1960's. 1960's imply's something belonging to 1960, for example, "The furore of 1960's Cold War," or "1960's Summer Fashions." On the other hand you have the "Summer Fashions of the 1960s."
Do I make myself clear?
Think, use of simple plurals and 's of belonging... Sheesh .
[Your complaints about poor English would be more impressive you if you could spell correctly.]
[ 05. October 2002, 15:24: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Chorister is an Anglican - by birth, by baptism and confirmation, and also by trying out all the others in order to satisfy myself that I really am an Anglican by choice as well as by accident.
Brava, brava! (Et moi aussi!)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Rossweisse // in glorious C major
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
...Do I make myself clear? ...
Nunc, if you would care to start a crusade for the proper use of apostrophes, I would proudly join your vanguard.
Rossweisse // Apostrophe Watch
![[Flaming]](graemlins/angryfire.gif)
[How about doing typo watch first?]
[ 05. October 2002, 15:26: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
The use of the grocer's apostrophe is one of the major causes of the Downfall of Western Civilisation As We Know It.
I am behind Nunc and Rossweisse on this.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Rossweisse // Apostrophe Watch
[How about doing typo watch first?]
[ 05. October 2002, 15:26: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Honestly, you're as bad as the copy desk. My consctruction of "ApostropheWatch" was DELIBERATE -- a satire on the fad for running words together that gave us such abominations as CitiBank and StarWatch.
Fie!
Rossweisse // another creative impulse stifled
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
...consctruction...
Now, THAT'S a typo!
Rossweisse // are we off-topic yet?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Rossweisse // are we off-topic yet?
Hopefully.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The use of the grocer's apostrophe is one of the major causes of the Downfall of Western Civilisation As We Know It.
I am behind Nunc and Rossweisse on this.
And I. All right-thinking people are justly appalled by the misuse of apostrophes. And some are doing something about it in Cornwall, where resides the Home for Abused Apostrophes .
I had the occasion to be in the N.Y. Presbyterian Hospital Pediatric emergency room think weekend (toddler with dislocated elbow ) and observed that the cabinets were all carefully labeled, "Linen's" "Bandage's", etcetera. Very upsetting. They refused to give me any "tranquilizer's" for the upset that seeing this caused me.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
...I am behind Nunc and Rossweisse on this.
"Onward, then, ye people,
Join our happy throng;
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song..."
Rossweisse // no surrender!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
And also don't miss a site regarding my other pet peeve: The Gallery of "Misused" Quotation Marks.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...All right-thinking people are justly appalled by the misuse of apostrophes. ...
Thank you for that link; I know quite a few people who will enjoy it.
I constantly have the apostrophe discussion with my Junior Child, who writes things like "greeting's," but then turns it around for the possessive: "Eleanors." At least she has the excuse of being barely 9.
Rossweisse // (cue sound of maternal teeth, gnashing of same)
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Toasting fork to hand
Mike, Mike, Mersey Mike,
You are quite right, this is one of the things Hell is for - dealing with personal grievances.
As you may well know, after someone has persistantly annoyed/upset/frustrated you for a period of time by what they say, you get so annoyed/upset/frustrated, that you can take it no longer. You can no longer bite back the comments, and swallow the bile that rises. You have a choice: attack them wherever they are posting, which is breaking several of the Commandments, or attack them in Hell, where they have a chance to stand up for themselves, and defend what they say. This gives the both of you a chance to clear some air, and provides a cathartic release for many others watching.
Hopefully, after letting off steam, you can go back to posting a lot more reasonably, without constantly sniping at someone because you have no other means of letting it out.
So pull your head out from up your sphincter, and stop interfering in this process.
Cordially,
Viki, hellhost
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...don't miss a site regarding my other pet peeve...
Thank you for this, too, Laura.
My goodness -- it WAS worth getting up this morning.
Rossweisse // who notes, to get more on topic, that all versions of the Book of Common Prayer in my possession seem to be impeccable in their use of both apostrophes and quotation marks
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis, (italics added by Moth):
WHEN will people learn that when talking about a period of time, for example the nineteen-sixties, the correct notation is 1960s NOT 1960's. 1960's imply's something belonging to 1960, for example, "The furore of 1960's Cold War," or "1960's Summer Fashions." On the other hand you have the "Summer Fashions of the 1960s."
Hoist on your own petard? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
(Oh, death, where is thy sting?)
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Yeah, Mike! From the ignorant bollocks you keep crusading on about evangelicalism/fundamentalism, you would be very well advised to pay attention to Ms. Cow.
Or you may well find yourself the subject of a Hell thread before very much longer.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
Ham'n'Eggs I find that a bit of jerkiness by some shipmates helps keep the flames hot down here.
Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on
:
Nightlamp, I agree. This thread however shows that there are different levels of jerkdom, some have achieved a higher jerk level than others. Long may it continue, to entertain and provoke the citizens of Hell.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I am beginning to think that we should be nominating Ham'n'Eggs to take the role of 'Ship's Policeman' as he is so obviously enjoying the role so much.
Now, any takers for discussing how proud we are to be Anglicans, or are we going to discuss jerky apostrophes for ever?
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
...Now, any takers for discussing how proud we are to be Anglicans, or are we going to discuss jerky apostrophes for ever?
Nobody picked up on The Anglican Fight Song. How grievously disappointing!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
...Now, any takers for discussing how proud we are to be Anglicans, or are we going to discuss jerky apostrophes for ever?
Nobody picked up on The Anglican Fight Song. How grievously disappointing!
Dear Rossweisse
I loved the Fight Song - the lyrics are really hoopy, dude! But I only know the first couple of lines of the melody of America the ... what was it, beautiful? Sorry, to be so ignorant.....
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Nightlamp: thank you for the running commentary. (I assume that it was not intended as an explanation. Unless you were being deliberately insulting. )
Chorister: since when is it appropriate to nominate a random and inconsistant occasional vigilante the Ship's Policeman? (You're just pissed off that I posted that photo on the Cornwall Meet thread )
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
The mistake that pains me most is the incorrect use of its/it's. Its seen everywhere, and it's appaling nature horrifies me. However, I fear its too late to complain, the battle has been lost and it's consequences are now part of the language.
[Please don't fix anything here. I am striving - probably unsuccesfully -for comic effect.]
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Back to apostrophes.
Although I myself do not employ an apostrophe in the description of decades (1960's instead of 1960s), its use has a long and venerated history--at least in American journalism and bookmaking; I don't know about Britain because I don't work there and hence don't give a damn about their conventions. Both the Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press style sheet sanction its use. Indeed, the omission of the apostrophe is an orthographical neologism that has only caught on in the US in the last couple of decades.
Laura, I have caught you out here. I'll bet you anything that, as an American, you place all terminal punctuation within quotation marks--contrary to the sense of the sentence (and the UK style, by the way). If you don't, then I bet you double the amount that your colleagues think you eccentric or illiterate.
Lighten up, people. Orthography is all about convention, not about sense.
Now, when we get to grammar, I could really take our UK friends to task for the use of "which" instead of "that" when introducting a restrictive noun clause. "Which" is, of course, correct when introducing non-restrictive clauses set off by commas, but it is anathema in restrictive clauses. And it vexes me no end that Americans have begun to mimic this disgraceful practice. I stamp it out and smite the offender whenever I find it.
tomb
hellhost and editor from hell
Posted by Miss_Molly (# 2339) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
...Now, any takers for discussing how proud we are to be Anglicans, or are we going to discuss jerky apostrophes for ever?
Nobody picked up on The Anglican Fight Song. How grievously disappointing!
*waving pompoms and doing cheerleader dance*
I love the Anglican Fight Song, Rossweisse. I am sorry you were distressed.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
I know the Anglican Fight Song, too, Miss Molly. RW misquoted it. Her version doesn't scan.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
Back to apostrophes.
Laura, I have caught you out here. I'll bet you anything that, as an American, you place all terminal punctuation within quotation marks--
No, actually, I don't. And I'm pretty sure I didn't in my post. Though we had a debate at work over that very issue, for a brief I was writing. We also argued about the penultimate comma in a series, before the "and", the rule for which is a shifting target.
But I think what *you're* talking about is really simple convention. But the misplaced apostrophe is not simple convention because it has to do with the proper meaning of a passage and can actually cause confusion. Ditto the use of "" to indicate emphasis, as quotation marks properly indicate quotation, or to mildly denigrate the quoted thing.
For example: "President" Bush.
But it's terribly popular for those whose grammar is crap (or who don't much care) to suggest that those of us who care for proper usage are somehow anal-retentive huns. In the same manner that inveterate clutterers like to pretend that there is some virtue in messiness, and that those who like things neat have a mental disability of some sort. And I, for one, have had enough of it! I am not an animal!
Okay, diatribe done.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Well! You have certainly got me fired up.
You must ALWAYS place a coma in a series before the conjunction. ALWAYS. If you don't there is the possibility that the members of the series will have an implied different relationship to one other. As a lawyer, I'm sure you would never want to confuse the issue when you could clarify it....
Granted, the AP stylesheet recommends *against* the serial comma, while Chicago demands it (as do Strunk & White, my heroes). But that has as much to do with typesetting conventions of another era and unions getting paid by the letter (apostrophes cost money). And since the demise of cold type, they've been trying to justify their mistake. I don't buy it. Bunch of Thomists.
Of *course* I'm talking about convention. It *is* convention. That's what I said. But I fail to see how the apostrophe in decade numbers could introduce confusion. I certainly understand how putting quotation marks around George Bush could induce confustion, but then, putting any number of things around him (truth, reality, honor--oh the list is endless) can demonstrably induce confusion.
Not that I feel strongly about any of these matters, mind you....
Wanna fight about restrictive clauses?
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
I am truly inspired by the Anglican fight song, and am taking it to church tomorrow morning in order to teach it to the choir (subversive me).
And I am a person who sometimes loses sleep over whether my punctuation is correct (it generally is). Anybody else go crazy seeing people write "it's" for "its"? (Did I do that right?) Or with reckless abandon use apostrophes for ALL plurals and possessives? Fortunately, my spelling is way above average, but seeing what others do so casually and don't even notice makes my skin crawl.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I loved the Fight Song - the lyrics are really hoopy, dude! But I only know the first couple of lines of the melody of America the ... what was it, beautiful? ...
Hoopy? Come se dice in Inglese, per piacere?
The tune is "God Bless America," a bit of Tin Pan Alley dreck by Irving Berlin. There's probably an audio link to it somewhere, but I don't have one offhand. It's sort of irredeemably cheerful.
It became a kind of unofficial national anthem here in the days after 9/11, but unfortunately I cannot hear it without mentally using the AFS words. Bummer.
Rossweisse // Das ist kein Dude!
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
...hellhost and editor from hell
Oddly enough, "The Editor from Hell" has been my Hallowe'en costume for some years now. I have a nifty pair of horns (ceramic, on a bootstring; arrange hair over the string, and it looks quite natural -- particularly on one who is a critic by trade), and I put them on, dress in black, and hang a blue pen and a pair of bloody scissors on a string around my neck. Everybody but the editors think it's hilarious, but then editors are a notoriously humor-impaired group.
Rossweisse // who sometimes just goes as a critic
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
I know the Anglican Fight Song, too, Miss Molly. RW misquoted it. Her version doesn't scan.
I did NOT misquote it, although I did edit it (the critical edition, in fact; look for the University of Chicago Press to publish an enormously expensive version in the next few months, to much fanfare) from several extant versions. It does too scan. I had the local AGO chapter singing it in this version not that long ago.
Rossweisse // having Fun with Smilies
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
...You must ALWAYS place a coma in a series before the conjunction. ALWAYS.
Is this a natural or a drug-induced coma?
The mind boggles.
Rossweisse // who is, admittedly, rather easily boggled these days
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
I am truly inspired by the Anglican fight song, and am taking it to church tomorrow morning in order to teach it to the choir (subversive me)....
That's the spirit!
I went to a Lutheran college, and I had all those beer-drinking, brat-eating, sitting-not-kneeling heirs of Brother Martin singing it lustily every Saturday night. It ought to be a natural for any true, red-blooded Anglican church choir!
Rossweisse // who, as a true Anglican, prefers sherry to beer
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
The Anglican Fight Song would sound even better sung by the clipped tones of Basil Brush (that bastion of Britishness, and 'Boom boom'er par excellence)........
(Did you post the photo on the Cornwall Shipmeet thread, H'n'E? I'd better go and have a look )
Posted by Sauerkraut (# 3112) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
That's the spirit!
I went to a Lutheran college, and I had all those beer-drinking, brat-eating, sitting-not-kneeling heirs of Brother Martin singing it lustily every Saturday night. It ought to be a natural for any true, red-blooded Anglican church choir!
Rossweisse // who, as a true Anglican, prefers sherry to beer
Being one of those heirs of Herr Martin, I'm not sure if I should laugh or be insulted by your remarks, especially since you forgot to mention the copious amount of sauerkraut we put on our brats. Actually, the thought of an Anglican hanging around Lutherans makes my heart warm for some reason. No, that's just indegestion from the brats.
Sauerkraut, who believes all drinks should conform to the Reinheitsgebot.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Tomb quoth quote:
"Which" is, of course, correct when introducing non-restrictive clauses set off by commas, but it is anathema in restrictive clauses.
No it is not! Sorry this is one of my pet peeves because I'm sick of MS Word correcting on this one. 'Which' is always correct, whilst 'that' is only allowable in restrictive clauses. If I could be bothered I'd find the reference from the Oxford English Grammar to support this.
quote:
You must ALWAYS place a coma in a series before the conjunction. ALWAYS. If you don't there is the possibility that the members of the series will have an implied different relationship to one other
Again no. Commas before 'and' are generally a bad thing (they occasionally occur but I think only when the comma is after a parenthetical phrase separated by commas).
Anyway fun those these arguments are, we seemed to have strayed from being proud to be Anglican, unless we are attempting to proving that Anglicans are pedants and proud of it!
Carys
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
quote:
Tomb said around George Bush could induce confustion, (sic)
I can't make up my mind whether tomb is being funny or the Editor from hell has made a typo in the middle of a rant about good English.
[ 06. October 2002, 08:52: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But it's terribly popular for those whose grammar is crap (or who don't much care) to suggest that those of us who care for proper usage are somehow anal-retentive huns.
Ummm...should be "Huns," not "huns" since "Hun" is proper noun.
[And you shouldn't have introduced an extra quote tag.]
[ 06. October 2002, 14:21: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
Posted by linzc (# 2914) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
FYI, the Sydney lot's views are quite easy to find among evangelicals in the UK, I am sorry to say, but not among Anglicans. HTB and its offshoots is about as close as British Anglicanism gets, quite frankly, but whatever you think of it, it doesn't match the extreme nature of ++Jensen and his people.
I would have thought St Helen's Bishopsgate was practically a Sydney Anglican mission plant...
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on
:
Wow! A quintuple-post without so much as a hint of unease!
<impressed>
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis, (italics added by Moth):
WHEN will people learn that when talking about a period of time, for example the nineteen-sixties, the correct notation is 1960s NOT 1960's. 1960's imply's something belonging to 1960, for example, "The furore of 1960's Cold War," or "1960's Summer Fashions." On the other hand you have the "Summer Fashions of the 1960s."
Hoist on your own petard?
(Oh, death, where is thy sting?)
Bloody Hell.
QED.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Maybe we should change the title of this thread to: 'Are All Anglicans Pedants?'
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
Pedantic Anglican would be a redundancy.
I don't wish to be pedantic, but the phrase should be "hoist by {or with} your own petard" not "hoist on your ownn petard". 'Petard' means 'firecracker' or 'dynamite'. One is blown up by (not on) one's own dynamite.
Greta
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Pedantic Anglican would be a redundancy.
I don't wish to be pedantic, but the phrase should be "hoist by {or with} your own petard" not "hoist on your ownn petard". 'Petard' means 'firecracker' or 'dynamite'. One is blown up by (not on) one's own dynamite.
Greta
Yes, I knew that. God's judgement on a pedant is to ensure that at least one mistake gets through the most careful proof-reading of any post.
As for the real argument going on here, I am totally baffled by it, which is why I stick to faux pedantry. I am an anglican, I was baptised and confimed in the Church of England. I go each week to my parish church. I do not give a stuff how 'high', 'low', 'evangelical', 'anglo-catholic' or anything else it is. I just worship God as the people in this parish worship God. What the heck are the rest of you on about?
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
Moth,
You would be welcome, exactly as you are, in my church anytime. No stares, no tut-tuts (or should that be "tut-tut"'s)?
Greta
My mother always said, "mind your 'p''s and 'q''s."
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Tomb said around George Bush could induce confustion, (sic)
I can't make up my mind whether tomb is being funny or the Editor from hell has made a typo in the middle of a rant about good English.
Actually, it was originally a typo, then I noticed it and decided to leave it alone as it seemed to me Apt.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Tomb quoth quote:
"Which" is, of course, correct when introducing non-restrictive clauses set off by commas, but it is anathema in restrictive clauses.
No it is not! Sorry this is one of my pet peeves because I'm sick of MS Word correcting on this one. 'Which' is always correct, whilst 'that' is only allowable in restrictive clauses. If I could be bothered I'd find the reference from the Oxford English Grammar to support this.
quote:
You must ALWAYS place a coma in a series before the conjunction. ALWAYS. If you don't there is the possibility that the members of the series will have an implied different relationship to one other
Again no. Commas before 'and' are generally a bad thing (they occasionally occur but I think only when the comma is after a parenthetical phrase separated by commas).
Anyway fun those these arguments are, we seemed to have strayed from being proud to be Anglican, unless we are attempting to proving that Anglicans are pedants and proud of it!
Carys
Neeehhh! Sorry, wrong on both counts. And so are you RW. (But then, you think you are a cathlik, so I shouldn't be surprised.) NOTE: I am always right when it comes to grammar. ALWAYS. I don't care about the "Oxford English Grammar." If it says differently from what I say, it is wrong.
And this is an entirely appropriate discussion for this thread about Anglicanism, because The Book of Common Prayer is wrong as well, and I always correct it during corporate prayer. We must have our standards.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
The Book of Common Prayer is wrong as well, and I always correct it during corporate prayer.
Tomb, that comment prompts me to say how much I have enjoyed your posts. I want to take more time to enjoy your company now for - with views like that - we will not be meeting after death.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sauerkraut:
...Actually, the thought of an Anglican hanging around Lutherans makes my heart warm for some reason....
I was a good influence on them.
quote:
Sauerkraut, who believes all drinks should conform to the Reinheitsgebot.
No, only beer.
Rossweisse // zwei dunkelsbier, bitte!
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
The Book of Common Prayer is wrong as well, and I always correct it during corporate prayer.
Tomb, that comment prompts me to say how much I have enjoyed your posts. I want to take more time to enjoy your company now for - with views like that - we will not be meeting after death.
I sympathize, Wanderer. But I hasten to assure you there is still time to repent, meet Jesus, and join me in the land of bliss after you die.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Er. assuming that I die before you, which I am not planning to do. But you get the sentiment.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
You must ALWAYS place a coma in a series before the conjunction. ALWAYS.
Thus, incorrect:
I went to the store for some apples oranges and chocolate.
correct:
I went to the store for some apples, oranges, a coma, and some chocolate.
Incorrect:
My mother is in two book clubs one fitness club and three produce-of-the-month clubs.
Correct:
My mother is in two book clubs, one fitness club, a coma, and three produce-of-the-month clubs.
Incorrect:
Anglican worship has been known to induce godliness, holiness, and use of correct forks in the right order in its adherents.
Correct:
Anglican worship has been known to induce godliness, holiness, a coma, and use of correct forks in the right order in its adherents.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Sauerkraut (# 3112) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I was a good influence on them.
quote:
Sauerkraut, who believes all drinks should conform to the Reinheitsgebot.
No, only beer.
You're OK, Rossweisse. It seems at least some of your Lutheran friends rubbed off on you as well. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sauerkraut
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Brother Tomb, I fear you are mistaken. I will be enjoying the sound of angels singing Evensong, while you will be tormented by the shrieks of damned souls.
(On second thoughts, that would probably appeal to you more. )
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Mousethief wrote quote:
Thus, incorrect:
I went to the store for some apples oranges and chocolate.
correct:
I went to the store for some apples, oranges, a coma, and some chocolate.
No, this side of the pond neither is correct.
It would be
I went to the store for some apples, oranges, a coma and some chocolate.
Carys
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I went to the store for some apples, oranges, a coma, and some chocolate.
Anglican worship has been known to induce godliness, holiness, a coma, and use of correct forks in the right order in its adherents.
How on earth do you buy a coma? And I agree Anglican worship can induce amonst other things a coma.
bb
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I went to the store for some apples, oranges, a coma, and some chocolate.
Anglican worship has been known to induce godliness, holiness, a coma, and use of correct forks in the right order in its adherents.
How on earth do you buy a coma? And I agree Anglican worship can induce amonst other things a coma.
bb
Hire a poor hit-man to kill you?
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
But I think what *you're* talking about is really simple convention. But the misplaced apostrophe is not simple convention because it has to do with the proper meaning of a passage and can actually cause confusion. Ditto the use of "" to indicate emphasis, as quotation marks properly indicate quotation, or to mildly denigrate the quoted thing.
For example: "President" Bush.
As I understood it, that would be implying that some people call him "President", but I am quoting someone else as I don't wish to be associated with this idea. Which fits wtih both quotation and mild denigration.
I have never seen it used to emphasise, at least on this side of the pond. So I guess I agree with you.
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
CorgiGreta wrote - quote:
I don't wish to be pedantic, but the phrase should be "hoist by {or with} your own petard" not "hoist on your ownn petard". 'Petard' means 'firecracker' or 'dynamite'. One is blown up by (not on) one's own dynamite.
This is true, though in the interests of pedantry I should also add that it was used to describe small bombs designed for blowing holes in doors, safes, walls, arguments etc. Interestingly, the word derives from the French root péter (to break wind). Perhaps the finest exponent of this practice was the nineteenth century music-hall artist Le Pétomane, who toured Europe giving precision displays of synchronised farting. So perhaps another meaning might well be "asphyxiated by one's own farts".
I pass on this information simply because-
1) I am an Anglican, and
2) it somehow seemed apt at this time.
Ian
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0