Ship of Fools: Priest upset by MW report

Thread: Priest upset by MW report Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030386

Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on :

Has anyone seen this, a RC priest's blogpost about a MW report relating to a recent Mass at his parish church.
The MW report in question is here.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

I always find it very interesting when you have two very different accounts of the same event. The question remains whether those differences are deliberate or due to poor or biased recall. Some of the diffences might be from the MW not being aware of the full contex of parish life. I do have sympathy with the Priest's objection to anonymous posts. If you make assertions, you should be accountable for them.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It did make me wonder if the number of pictures of the pope was proportional to the level of outrage.

1 pope = Bit miffed
2 popes = Rather perturbed
3 popes = Pretty darn angry
4 popes = "Let him be anathema"
5 popes = "Bring out a stake and some matches"

[ 02. July 2015, 17:40: Message edited by: Sipech ]

Posted by Tina (# 63) on :

The comments! Ah well, the blog clearly wasn't written for a liberal evo-Anglican typo-spotter like me:

'This bog is written by a Catholic Priest for Catholic Readers'.

Now why am I reading that in the voice of the *other* Mrs Tubbs?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

His tone is not conciliatory, but his version of the phone ringer is more likely to be true, in so far as he'd know whether the woman had apologised.

And he does have a point that worship is not to be approached as a consumer, which is what worries me about the mentality of MW generally, as with that silly question about what the seat was like. I've never noticed the seat in a church - I'm taking part in something far too important.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And far from being an Anglican, I'd have thought it far more likely the MWer was an RC used to something a bit more...

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I always find it very interesting when you have two very different accounts of the same event.

There is also difference in reading. Subjective bias can influence how things are interpreted. For example, in the MW review, concerning the cell phone, the comment is:

quote:
But the miscreant was so taken aback that she left the church not to return.

In the priest's blog, he characterizes the comment as:

quote:
The lady went into the porch and turned her phone off then came back in, and apologised on her way out at the end of Mass, she did not as the reviewer says 'leave the Church never to return', that again is mendacious, perhaps the editor might like to explain?

So he read it as "never to return" (and leaving "the Church"--capital letter) rather than "not to return" (having left the church, small letter). That is a difference in tone, as "never" (to me) suggests the person left the RC Church forever, while "not" just implies that she did not return that day to that particular building.

The priest states that she actually did return and possibly the MW missed that--the priest presumably knows the regulars. It was uncharitable of him to attribute that to mendacity, just as it would be uncharitable to attribute the priest's misquoting of the MW as mendacity. Emotions are at play, but there is no need to jump to the conclusion of intentional deception.

I will state that, in my opinion, the MW is reading into the event too much. Frankly, even if the woman did not return, there is no way the MW could know (without asking the woman herself) that it was because she was "so taken aback." There are other reasonable possibilities. Possibly the MW was personally taken aback and then just imputed that feeling to the woman? Again, not mendacity, but a very human act.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I don't know Fr. Blake personally, though I used to read his blog regularly, but I know someone who does and by all accounts he's a good priest. He's a reform of the reform type. I laughed to myself at the reviewer wondering why there was no one to greet them at the door, referring to it as a ministry. Maybe it's just a personal thing, but I don't think you can just go randomly into any church and feel at home (which to me seems what the reviewer automatically expected). I don't like to be hussled but like to find my own way about things first, get to know people at my own pace. But as I said, that's just a personal thing. It's like when you go into a clothes shop and the salesperson immediatey on your case. I'm more inclined to leave straight away.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I thought the mystery worshipper sounded a bit of an old misery and felt sorry for the priest. Then I read the priest's blog ! Two peas from the same pod.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

delete please, wrong place

[ 02. July 2015, 20:36: Message edited by: Vidi Aquam ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
The priest states that she actually did return and possibly the MW missed that--the priest presumably knows the regulars. It was uncharitable of him to attribute that to mendacity, just as it would be uncharitable to attribute the priest's misquoting of the MW as mendacity. Emotions are at play, but there is no need to jump to the conclusion of intentional deception.

I will state that, in my opinion, the MW is reading into the event too much. Frankly, even if the woman did not return, there is no way the MW could know (without asking the woman herself) that it was because she was "so taken aback." There are other reasonable possibilities. Possibly the MW was personally taken aback and then just imputed that feeling to the woman? Again, not mendacity, but a very human act.

This. I too was bothered by the priest's accusation of mendacity. I assume he's lashing out with hurt feelings, perhaps.

And, yes, the MW did assume too much. Had the woman actually not returned, it might very well have been because the call was about an emergency.

If I had to form an opinion of this church based on the two accounts, I'd figure it was a lovely church full of human beings who do some things right and some things wrong but try to do their best. I think it's also charitable to believe the same thing about the Mystery Worshiper.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Hmm, yes indeed. This parish is clearly one which supports a reasonably conservative line within Roman Catholic teaching and praxis, and the Mystery Worshipper *really* doesn't seem to have got on with this. It seems like a fairly mean-spirited report, in fact, the reviewers feelings notwithstanding.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I love the ambivalence, in the context both of narthex noise and paper distribution, of

quote:
... like most men I don't want to be engaged in conservation when I enter a Church, in a shop I stop browsing and leave when someone asks, 'Can I help you?'

... I conserve my converse too

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
His tone is not conciliatory, but his version of the phone ringer is more likely to be true, in so far as he'd know whether the woman had apologised.

And he does have a point that worship is not to be approached as a consumer, which is what worries me about the mentality of MW generally, as with that silly question about what the seat was like. I've never noticed the seat in a church - I'm taking part in something far too important.

However, I can assure you that the arses of us lesser earthly mortals still notice the comfort or lack thereof. Please have some understanding of those of us not yet ascended to your higher plane.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
His tone is not conciliatory, but his version of the phone ringer is more likely to be true, in so far as he'd know whether the woman had apologised.

And he does have a point that worship is not to be approached as a consumer, which is what worries me about the mentality of MW generally, as with that silly question about what the seat was like. I've never noticed the seat in a church - I'm taking part in something far too important.
However, I can assure you that the arses of us lesser earthly mortals still notice the comfort or lack thereof. Please have some understanding of those of us not yet ascended to your higher plane.

I have found that long-term large scale consumption of chocolate has resulted in a self-cushioned arse, ideal for hard pews.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
And far from being an Anglican, I'd have thought it far more likely the MWer was an RC used to something a bit more...

The only RCs who know what a "maniple" even is these days are trad RCs, or the elderly. It is unlikely that someone from those groups would complain about the sermon and the atmosphere in the soppy way that the reviewer did. I think it is a rather safe bet that the reviewer is an Anglican from a "high up the candle" background.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
His tone is not conciliatory, but his version of the phone ringer is more likely to be true, in so far as he'd know whether the woman had apologised.

And he does have a point that worship is not to be approached as a consumer, which is what worries me about the mentality of MW generally, as with that silly question about what the seat was like. I've never noticed the seat in a church - I'm taking part in something far too important.
However, I can assure you that the arses of us lesser earthly mortals still notice the comfort or lack thereof. Please have some understanding of those of us not yet ascended to your higher plane.
I have found that long-term large scale consumption of chocolate has resulted in a self-cushioned arse, ideal for hard pews.

Better not to have pews at all. Everybody knows that they're an invention of the devil, designed to facilitate the hearing of long boring sermons. [Big Grin]

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only RCs who know what a "maniple" even is these days are trad RCs, or the elderly. It is unlikely that someone from those groups would complain about the sermon and the atmosphere in the soppy way that the reviewer did. I think it is a rather safe bet that the reviewer is an Anglican from a "high up the candle" background.

I'm not so sure. I had a little browse around that particular worshipper's other reports and it seems they only ever go to Roman Catholic churches.

There's nowt like a varied diet, eh?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I'm not so sure. I had a little browse around that particular worshipper's other reports and it seems they only ever go to Roman Catholic churches. There's nowt like a varied diet, eh?

Well, if this is a RC who is looking for traditional worship in a classical setting with liberal preaching and a secular attitude to morals - then I'm not surprised that he or she keeps wandering forlornly from one RC parish to the next...

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, if this is a RC who is looking for traditional worship in a classical setting with liberal preaching and a secular attitude to morals - then I'm not surprised that he or she keeps wandering forlornly from one RC parish to the next...

Wow, that would be perfect! I would get up early for that. I hope they find it. I'll be checking the MW reports...

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

The lack of any greeting though does strike one as unfriendly, or at least unwelcoming. I wouldn't be surprised if that put the MWer in a certain state of mind that wasn't helped by the seemingly grumpy hymnal woman, nor the priest's nag-in-lieu-of-sermon. Shouldn't the sermon have been about God or the scripture reading, rather than cajoling people to turn up for a vigil?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

There's an interesting contrast in the greeting styles in different places. Some places people hand you books and leaflets, others observe and help if you look lost, still others try to engage in conversation. I should say that the visitor needs more understanding of the culture of the place and go with it. --I do feel for both the cell phone owner and rest of the congregation (including priest). A milder priestly addressing of the issue might have been good.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

Look like a blogger did a "Mystery Reader" report for this MW report:
The Ship of Liars

And here's a blogger calling out for someone to MW this religious festival:
Will 'Mystery Worshipper' be attending the AMEX?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, if this is a RC who is looking for traditional worship in a classical setting with liberal preaching and a secular attitude to morals - then I'm not surprised that he or she keeps wandering forlornly from one RC parish to the next...
Wow, that would be perfect! I would get up early for that. I hope they find it. I'll be checking the MW reports...

I don't get it. If you want that, then why not find some "high church" Episcopalian parish? If you indeed live in L.A., five seconds of googling suggest St Thomas the Apostle, for example.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think the mystery aspect of the Mystery Worshipper should be preserved, but I can certainly see problems with the format. It is very difficult to know sometimes if someone had a really bad experience or if they are digging away at something else not immediately apparent to the casual reader. For the editor this job must be painfully difficult.

If I give one example that may help. I spotted a MW about a place not far from me and to the casual reader it would have appeared to be quite a funny and acerbic report on a disastrous service. It appeared bang in the middle of an unholy row that was escalating fast. One PM to the editor to give only scant background and concern and the report was pulled, for which the editor is to be lauded. I think to have ignored it would have pulled the Ship into something it really wouldn't have come out of well and I guess the editor placed a lot of trust in what I was saying - I could have been a worshipper there and simply wanting the nasty review taken down.

It was that experience that got me thinking about the whole MW format. I have followed the MW's for many years and enjoyed them very much, but of course the ones that really stand out are the ones that combine wit and humour in an otherwise awful or disastrous service. I can't help but notice there has been a slight shift though and the occasional presence in recent years of slightly dubious MW's in terms of the actual intent. I have wondered if there might be a few small things that could be done to the format that might act as a guard against such abuses; although it can never hope to eradicate them altogether.

I think the right of reply is great and has added much to MW reports where it has been used well. I wonder if it might be useful for the MW to reveal their own denomination and placing within it. I have always felt the scoring thing to be problematic in its objectivity. I wonder if a slightly expanded scoring system might give a better impression. For all of us who read the MW reports regularly then it is easy to understand that a low score after a glowing report usually means its not a denomination of interest or something that individual would want to be at regularly, or perhaps some other highly objective reason. However, visitors who come only to read their recently MW'ed parish can zoom in on that and get fixated on it as bad. It can look oddly spiteful to outsiders looking in. I'm not exactly sure how it might be done, but there might be a better way of scoring; from within tradition, from aesthetics, prayerfulness etc? Otherwise it is left open to the accusations in this particular complaint - it's treating worship and a community as nothing more than a shop front.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, if this is a RC who is looking for traditional worship in a classical setting with liberal preaching and a secular attitude to morals - then I'm not surprised that he or she keeps wandering forlornly from one RC parish to the next...
Wow, that would be perfect! I would get up early for that. I hope they find it. I'll be checking the MW reports...
I don't get it. If you want that, then why not find some "high church" Episcopalian parish? If you indeed live in L.A., five seconds of googling suggest St Thomas the Apostle, for example.

Yes, I already googled St. Thomas's (and read the MW report). It is on my list parishes in LA to visit.

On my earlier post I was referring RC traditional worship (Latin Mass) "in a classical setting with liberal preaching and a secular attitude to morals". Such places are harder to find than a unicorn. They are usually in small chapels or converted office spaces or warehouses. They look at you funny if you have any kind of modern dress or hairstyle, and are riddled with anti-gay sentiments. And I'm not talking about places that mix the Tridentine Mass with the Novus Ordo, or some other Vatican II infusion.

Forlorn indeed!

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

My last RC parish pastor was only slightly less rattled by my membership in Dignity than by my membership in Una Voce. The lady who founded the local UV chapter was sympathetic but when she died she was replaced by an polemical blogger with an axe to grind about "sodomites" (a word he used freely and without apparent irony). At the same time I have met members of Corpus and/or RC WomenPriests who have told me flat out they would never celebrate the usus antiquior. (They have set themselves the project of rewriting patriarchy out of the Roman Rite, and apparently consider the EF beyond repair).

Thomas Day offers a worthwhile reminder that the coupling of liturgical traditionalism with a general reactionary agenda is largely a post-Conciliar phenomenon. In the old days, on the other hand:

quote:
the "fun" High Mass with good choral music and maybe some congregational singing was considered "liberal" and "progressive." "Liberal Catholics" loved chant and lamented that they never heard it done properly or done at all in their parishes. "Liberal Catholics" were somewhat High Church in their preferences. A great example of this "High Church liberalism" was Father George Barry Ford, the controversial pastor of Corpus Christi Church in Manhattan ... Father Ford constantly infuriated his superiors down in the "powerhouse" behind St. Patrick's (then the location of the diocesan chancery) because of his liberal notions on ecumenism and his open exchange of ideas with the atheists at nearby Columbia University. It was considered only natural that someone with his dangerously liberal leanings would be in charge of the only parish for miles around which treated the church's liturgical heritage as if it were "serious fun." The bedrock, faith-of-our-fathers conservatives in the archdiocese did not know what was worse about this radical Father Ford: his too-friendly relations with Protestant ministers, university professors, and other dangerous types or his church, where the choir energetically sang Masses by Mozart and where the congregation sang. . . Gregorian chant!

[ 06. July 2015, 16:21: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
... I have met members of Corpus and/or RC WomenPriests ...

!! ?? I thought there was no such thing as an RC Woman Priest.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:

Thomas Day offers a worthwhile reminder that the coupling of liturgical traditionalism with a general reactionary agenda is largely a post-Conciliar phenomenon. In the old days, on the other hand:

quote:
the "fun" High Mass with good choral music and maybe some congregational singing was considered "liberal" and "progressive." "Liberal Catholics" loved chant and lamented that they never heard it done properly or done at all in their parishes. "Liberal Catholics" were somewhat High Church in their preferences. A great example of this "High Church liberalism" was Father George Barry Ford, the controversial pastor of Corpus Christi Church in Manhattan ... Father Ford constantly infuriated his superiors down in the "powerhouse" behind St. Patrick's (then the location of the diocesan chancery) because of his liberal notions on ecumenism and his open exchange of ideas with the atheists at nearby Columbia University. It was considered only natural that someone with his dangerously liberal leanings would be in charge of the only parish for miles around which treated the church's liturgical heritage as if it were "serious fun." The bedrock, faith-of-our-fathers conservatives in the archdiocese did not know what was worse about this radical Father Ford: his too-friendly relations with Protestant ministers, university professors, and other dangerous types or his church, where the choir energetically sang Masses by Mozart and where the congregation sang. . . Gregorian chant!

Isn't he the priest who received Thomas Merton into the Catholic Church? In which case it all figures. I visited Corpus Christi once (out of service time) and was immediately struck by its atmosphere... not unlike the Grosvenor Chapel in London; all in good taste, but not 'precious' or tacky; a deep sense of prayer; and the impression that it would be exactly the place for a Christian humanist like Merton to feel at home. Traditional but deep, not defensive or superficial.

Was Thomas Day any relation to (Saint?) Dorothy Day of Catholic Worker? Another Catholic very traditional in her liturgical practice and very radical in her social and political attitudes.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I have always felt the scoring thing to be problematic in its objectivity. I wonder if a slightly expanded scoring system might give a better impression. For all of us who read the MW reports regularly then it is easy to understand that a low score after a glowing report usually means its not a denomination of interest or something that individual would want to be at regularly, or perhaps some other highly objective reason. However, visitors who come only to read their recently MW'ed parish can zoom in on that and get fixated on it as bad. It can look oddly spiteful to outsiders looking in. I'm not exactly sure how it might be done, but there might be a better way of scoring; from within tradition, from aesthetics, prayerfulness etc? Otherwise it is left open to the accusations in this particular complaint - it's treating worship and a community as nothing more than a shop front.

But as it's worded, it's just a statement of whether the MW would want to make it their regular church, and most of them seem to explain their rating. I've often seen explanations about a difference with their personal churchmanship or beliefs, e.g.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Isn't he the priest who received Thomas Merton into the Catholic Church? In which case it all figures.

I would think so, as the timeline fits. He may mention Merton elsewhere in the book excerpted in the link.

When the new English translation of the Roman Sacramentary was promulgated, the NY Times ran a feature on Corpus Christi, which had apparently long used its own house translation "under the radar" which in many respects anticipated the new language avant la lettre.

I'm not sure about a Dorothy/Thomas connexion.

[ETA: Yes, the article confirms it was Fr Ford who "inspired" Merton's conversion.]

[ 06. July 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
... I have met members of Corpus and/or RC WomenPriests ...

!! ?? I thought there was no such thing as an RC Woman Priest.

I shared your confusion. But apparently there is an organization called "Roman Catholic WomenPriests" that boasts that it is breaking church law.

But your basic understanding is correct. Under RC, there is no such thing as a woman priest.

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

The said MWer seems to have visited another RC Church
Link

although I fear the said church might not endear itself all that much to the PP of the subject of the current thread!

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Perhaps some of the things the MWer said were uncharitable, but the backlash, not only from Father but also his congregation in the comments to his blog, seems way out of proportion.

Selected blustering:

"these 'liberals' or 'whatever they are'"

"The Ship of Fools is NOT a Christian website...It revels in mischief...tainted with the poison of ill-will to Faith in Christ or His Church, and they have no respect for Truth...they are of the World"

"the Opposition"

""even the Devil can quote St Francis""

"Don´t waste your time with this[sic] people."

"It's consumerism gone mad. Having looked at their site, I'm surprised you gave them blog space, Father. If you'd been given a rave review by this little lot then you might well have had a problem."

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
The said MWer seems to have visited another RC Church
Link

although I fear the said church might not endear itself all that much to the PP of the subject of the current thread!

Looks my sort of RC church!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
The said MWer seems to have visited another RC Church
Link

although I fear the said church might not endear itself all that much to the PP of the subject of the current thread!

Indeed - I know that church and it embodies catholic social teaching - that horrifies conservatives who pick and choose which bits of catholic faith and practice they agree with

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
The said MWer seems to have visited another RC Church
Link

although I fear the said church might not endear itself all that much to the PP of the subject of the current thread!
Indeed - I know that church and it embodies catholic social teaching - that horrifies conservatives who pick and choose which bits of catholic faith and practice they agree with

Depends what you mean by "conservative": traditional or neo-conservative? If it's the former then that's not my experience, but if you're going to caricature then the most liberal parishes are more-or-less semi-pagan.

[ 07. July 2015, 16:16: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I would like to think that we can have this debate without descending into castigations of one another's traditions, whether conservative or liberal.

Please keep the discourse civil, one and all.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]I don't get it. If you want that, then why not find some "high church" Episcopalian parish? If you indeed live in L.A., five seconds of googling suggest St Thomas the Apostle, for example.

But they're even *more* likely to have maniples. And probably ad orientem celebration as well!

HAVEN'T THEY EVER HEARD OF VATICAN II? [faints, clutching pearls]

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

Has anyone noticed that the blogger mentioned in the OP is now at the helm of his own ship of fools? A case of The Lady doth protest too much, methinks. And here it is: http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/ship-of-fools-tired-joyless-and-dull.html

Attack the reviewer, not the review. Well, it happened before - the year was about AD 30 methinks. It is certainly interesting that none of the apparently justified criticisms which must have hurt (starting to read the "wrong Gospel", poor website etc.) merit a mention in the unmeasured responses. Maybe these things are common? Not marking the Book is indeed something which happens at my own (RC) parish church quite frequently. Website? Our PP blogs, why do we need a website? And yes, we, too, have coffee afterwards here, even Fair Trade – AND in the same Diocese! Shocking. Has none of them ever heard of, read, let alone understood the original "Narrenschiff"?

Anyway, pity all of this did not go via the “post a comment” route, which would bring the discussion out in the open rather than on two rival sites. “According to my MC” – are we discussing something at second, or even third hand here? Pity also that the amendment which has been made to the original MW report has not been acknowledged. Shame.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Er ... it has been. Right at the start of the critique to which you linked.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

This catholic guy is just a bit tame. We've had some much better criticisms in the past, which are on the website (case 1, case 2, case 3, case 4, case 5).

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Er ... it has been. Right at the start of the critique to which you linked.

sorry, should have said: acknowledged in the MW report/ by the MW.

Of course the slighted party has mentioned it - more than once.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I'm bemused by the idea that the ship is some sort of organised cabal intent on undermining conservative Catholicism, though I have to say the comments on the blog don't do a lot to dispel the stereotypes about conservative Catholics.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Am I the only one that found the faux- MW kind of funny? If they were impacted enough to parody it, that is a complment, no?

Posted by bonabri (# 304) on :

In Brighton the PP certainly has a reputation. I had better leave it at that.

Posted by Divine Praises (# 11955) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bonabri:
In Brighton the PP certainly has a reputation. I had better leave it at that.

Why leave it at that? If you have something to say, then just say it rather than relying on insinuation.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Actually, it would be far better to have neither insinuation nor outright accusation. The Ship is no place for either so no more on that tangent thank you!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0