|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Enlighten me, leo
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc. I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Auntie Doris
Screen Goddess
# 9433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc. I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.
Pretty much spot on Emma. I always explain to people at initial assessment that there are two scenarios in which I may have to break confidentiality without their permission. One is the Duty of Care (which Emma explained above) and the other is with regard to Child Protection. Specifically with regard to what they call Section 47 which is an investigation as to whether a child may be at risk of significant harm.
For me it is a complete no-brainer. If a social worker phones me up and tells me that they are doing a S47 investigation I HAVE to disclose appropriate information.
Auntie Doris x
--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)
The life and times of a Guernsey cow
Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Hmmm.
Meseems that this is a quandary. If one does not break the seal, there is a risk that the offender will reoffend.
If one does, then there is a risk that offenders will not come to confession, and priests will not be able to counsel and persude them to give themselves up.
What amazes me is the amoung of vindictiveness some people seem to have towards others who come down on the other side of an impossible quandary. I'm damned if I know the answer.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.
There is one creation with both physical and spiritual aspects. Man shares in both aspects of creation. This is why the order in the Church reflects the order in creation itself and the way the spiritual and the physical realm are cross-linked.
During confession, the sinner does not confess to the priest. The priest might well be deaf and blind. In fact, I know of people confessing to priests who can virtually not hear or see anything, but give excellent advice nevertheless. The sinner confesses his sins to Christ Himself.
If you think that confessing to the Dreadful Judge Himself doesn't mean much, then you are not understanding confession the way other traditions do. The priest is there to assure the sinner of Christ's forgiveness when Christ has actually forgiven the sinner. Just because someone went to a priest, said a few words, and the priest said his words too, this does not mean that the sacrament actually took place.
If the members of the clergy were to talk to the police, then they would not operate as priests during the sacrament. They would be eavesdropping instead of absolving in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
I remember a man reaching a Greek priest to make a confession. He had committed murder and he was repentant. The priest turned out to be the brother of the man that was killed. However, not only he did not say anything to him, but when the police came in his house notifying him of the murder and asking him if he had seen the murderer, the priest helped the murderer hide and said to the police that he hadn't seen him. I don't remember the whole story from the Saint's (the priest's) life, but I think that his attitude says much about how he viewed the sacrament of confession.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc. I dont really see why the clergy should be any different and personally welcome the suggestion.
Because confession is different from counselling. The seal of the confessional is more than confidentiality.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The seal of the confessional is more than confidentiality.
In what way? Would the police or an abused child be able to understand the difference?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Its not an area I know a lot about - but counsellors in the uk at an initial appt say that they have to break confidentiality if the person is at severe risk to themselves or to another person. This is usually explained early on - and people still open up and talk to counsellors/ mental health proffesionals/ etc.
The contention is not that nobody would confess if the seal of confession were breachable, but that those who were not prepared to give themselves up would not confess, hence you wouldn't gain anything.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Cute plan.
It wasn't a plan, my smooth-brained acquaintance, it was a descriptive example outlining the emotional state which would be characteristic of my pursuit of "technicalities" in the aforementioned hypothetical situation.
Have you noticed how often you are a total fucking tool?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Rook, I realize you have first dibs here, but Ingo's my favorite whipping boy, so could you cut me some slack? Besides, with my old age and such bad eyesight, I have trouble finding such easy targets. quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
What's the problem Ingo? Getting tired of the tedious displays of erudition in Purg? No longer satisfied with the diminishing ego boost from the same old crowd of sycophants? Looking to expand your intellectual prowess into more Hellish domains?
Surely, you have something more useful to do? Like polish a mirror or change a diaper? Better, yet... go work on your lame-ass astrology thread.
Gort, in the not too distant past you were slowly getting to me with your personal vendetta. Then, luckily, I stumbled on a picture of you in an All Saints shipmeet thread. I laughed out loud at myself and have not been bothered by any of it since. Most people get a bit mulish and atrabilious with old age, and if constantly yapping at me is one of the few remaining pleasures in your rapidly diminishing life, so be it.
Ingo. I'm disappointed and at the same time, strangely flattered. You see, If I were "slowly getting to [you]", I assume you would have taken a moment to check my profile, where my birthdate is revealed to all and sundry. Surely, that would suggest to you a certain comfort with respect to age? Possibly, with a little imagination, it could imply a bit of pride in the wisdom of years.
Now I find that you have little respect for your seniors and [this is what really hurts] you have completely ignored my well-intentioned critiques of your destructive personality traits. When you were a mere apprentice, I took you under my wing and assumed responsibility for your well-being on these boards. I'll admit I was a bit harsh now and then, but as we both know, you are a difficult case...completely absorbed with self. So what other option would a loving father-figure have but to crush the hard nut of your ego? How else could the real Ingo burst forth and reveal his true nature?
I longed to see the day when you could accept other's opinions without the curt and dismissive ripostes for those you considered your intellectual inferiors. I've prayed you could somehow display the Christian love that you so adamantly espouse.
Alas, to my eternal shame, I have failed you.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Now I find that you have little respect for your seniors
But I have plenty of respect for seniors, that's why I'm not concerned by your antics anymore.
[ 04. May 2006, 05:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
‘Pro-child abuse'? No, no one has said that. What has been strongly implied (mostly by you, as it happens) is that your opponents are untroubled by, or accepting of, abuse. Which is not quite as insulting or absurd as suggesting that they are positively in favour of it, but it is still a fairly nasty thing to imply.
Example: quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Its sad that you find this [limiting confessional secrecy] disturbing. Some of us find sexual abuse of children disturbing.
which carries the very strong inference that your correspondent does NOT appear to find child abuse disturbing.
My point is, and remains, that maintaining the seal of confession should be a much lower priority, morally, than reporting ongoing sexual abuse of a child. I was appalled, and remain appalled, at leo's initial comment which prompted my OP, which to me suggested that he/she thought the confessional seal might be a competing priority. The sarcasm dripping from the post you have quoted above reflects my anger.
quote:
Similarly your comment (to me) that:
quote:
What you seem unable to understand, dickhead, is that child abuse is a much more gross and inexcusable betrayal.
If I, apparently, do not find child abuse ‘inexcuseable', then presumably you mean to suggest that I am willing to excuse it.
I have come very quickly in the course of this thread, Eliab, to respect your intelligence in your ability to make your points. Hence I can only assume your comment here is simply disingenuous.
I think it is quite clear from my post that this was not my intention. I am not suggesting you are willing to excuse child abuse. Rather, my point is that, while you claim deliberately breaching the confessional seal is a gross and inexcusable betrayal, I believe it is self evident that allowing sexaul abuse to continue if you know about it is a much more serious and inexcusable betrayal. In fact, I am arguing as I believe others are also that breaking the confessional seal in this instance is the moral thing to do.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What amazes me is the amoung of vindictiveness some people seem to have towards others who come down on the other side of an impossible quandary. I'm damned if I know the answer.
And I'm amazed that you're amazed. Child sexual abuse would have to be one of the most emotive issues in society today. If you can't get offended about this one, perhaps you should have someone check you for a pulse.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
There is an assumption that it is the actual perpetrator confessing when could well be the victim who is feeling guilty or a partner who knows all about who feels guilty.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What amazes me is the amoung of vindictiveness some people seem to have towards others who come down on the other side of an impossible quandary. I'm damned if I know the answer.
And I'm amazed that you're amazed. Child sexual abuse would have to be one of the most emotive issues in society today. If you can't get offended about this one, perhaps you should have someone check you for a pulse.
I get very "offended" - if that's the right word - about child abuse. However, that does not translate to the outright detestation being offered here towards people who have a particular approach and solution to this particular conundrum.
Anyone would think that those promoting the sanctity of the confessional were trying to say child abuse was fine by them, the way some people are replying to them. They are not.
And your "agree with me or you must be dead" is just plain silly, even in Hell.
[ 04. May 2006, 08:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Chesterbelloc
quote:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
I never said that it wouldn't be. I said that going to confession on its own isn't worth much. Of course if someone hands themselves in and accepts the consequences that's all right, no problems there.
Going to confession on it's own isn't worth much? Even although absolution (which is the whole point of confession) would be conditional upon taking the proper actions to put things right?
Given what confession and absolution involves, and excepting the case in which someone was just going to the box to get it off their chest or to taunt the priest (and that wouldn't be confession at all), I fail to see how confession "isn't worth much on it's own" to those who wish to see the wrongs addressed. Confession "on it's own" in the sacramental context we are talking about would count for a hell of a lot.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
Just to play (ahem) devil's advocate, what about the molester going to a monastery for life?
Well, I still think that the proper course would be to insist the penintent submit themselves to civil justice as part of the penance, but at least incarceration in an enclosed order of monks would keep the offender out of children's way for good (if effectivley policed).
Pity the poor monks though...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
but at least incarceration in an enclosed order of monks would keep the offender out of children's way for good (if effectivley policed).
I think this was the part of the philosophy behind the Servants of the Paraclete center here in Jemez, New Mexico. But instead they attempted to “rehabilitate” the offenders and then placed them back into parishes. It was only after countless children's lives were destroyed did the brothers begin to admit that these priests should forever be kept away from children. I (like most New Mexicans) do not understand why they were not required to inform law enforcement of the crimes they knew had been committed by these men.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
What of the following?:
X goes to a priest and, during the Sacrament of Reconciliation confesses to child abuse.
In the space between the end of X's confession and the pronunciation of absolution, the priest says that, unless X goes to the police as his penance, there will be no absolution.
If X does not agree to do so, the priest would be at liberty to go to the police himself, the seal of the confessional being invalid if there is no intention of the penance being performed, ie the penitent isn't penitent at all.
So far, so canonical?
I see no problem in the theory of this situation, however I should like to know whether a priest can delay the pronunciation of absolution until it is proven that the penance has been carried out. If, in any confession, the priest sets a penance, am I only truly absolved when I have performed it, or is the absolution unconditional? If this is so, what's the point of the penance?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
What of the following?:
X goes to a priest and, during the Sacrament of Reconciliation confesses to child abuse.
In the space between the end of X's confession and the pronunciation of absolution, the priest says that, unless X goes to the police as his penance, there will be no absolution.
If X does not agree to do so, the priest would be at liberty to go to the police himself, the seal of the confessional being invalid if there is no intention of the penance being performed, ie the penitent isn't penitent at all.
So far, so canonical?
Quickly, and only as I understand it, the seal applies to all that is in the "internal forum" of the confessional: the confession was valid if the penitent was seeking absolution, even if it cannot be given due to his/her refusal to accept the penance. Otherwise, those who imperfectly understood the nature and consequences of their sins would be in danger of having their confessions blabbed about - hardly conducive encouraging people to appoach the sacrament as to Christ himself!
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
I see no problem in the theory of this situation, however I should like to know whether a priest can delay the pronunciation of absolution until it is proven that the penance has been carried out. If, in any confession, the priest sets a penance, am I only truly absolved when I have performed it, or is the absolution unconditional? If this is so, what's the point of the penance?
The absolution is always conditional on the genuine repentance of the penitant - and therefore on the performance of the penance insofar as that is a reasonable expression of it. Anything else would be a mockery of the sacrament.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc is correct. The seal is not only binding if absolution is given. It is binding on all matters relating to the internal forum.
Running a rehab centre is another matter. And the question becomes tricky indeed. What would the police have done? What happened when custodial sentences were served and inmantes released? Tagging is a very recent thing. We are setting standards for the past based on knowledge and experience in the present. Rehab centres thought they were doing the best possible thing. I do not think they would follow the same code of conduct now, in the light of what has become general knowledge.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I have come very quickly in the course of this thread, Eliab, to respect your intelligence in your ability to make your points. Hence I can only assume your comment here is simply disingenuous.
Well only to the extent that I don’t think you would have articulated your view in the same way that I did. I did genuinely think that when you wrote your first response to me the substance of it was to suggest that my view of child abuse was more tolerant than it ought to be.
If that wasn’t being suggested (or was then, but isn’t now) then I apologise.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
My point is, and remains, that maintaining the seal of confession should be a much lower priority, morally, than reporting ongoing sexual abuse of a child. I was appalled, and remain appalled, at leo's initial comment which prompted my OP, which to me suggested that he/she thought the confessional seal might be a competing priority.
I can see that. But it assumes that both sides have formulated the problem in the same way – a straight choice between snitching and complicity when a particular case of abuse is revealed – and I don’t think that my side are actually answering that question at all.
This is where I’m coming from: Suppose our hypothetical priest* justifies breaking Mrs Smith’s confidence when he learns that she repeatedly hits and torments her son. He’ll find it quite difficult to keep quiet about Mr Jones beating his wife. Then he’ll want to do something about Ms McManus, who doesn’t actually hit her girlfriend, but is slowly driving her to a nervous breakdown by threats and emotional abuse. Or inform someone about Mrs Atkins, who is planning to leave her invalid husband and five children (for Dr Brown, who frequently seduces his patients and will certainly tire of her within a year). Does he warn Mr Singh, whose wife is working through their life-savings to feed her internet poker habit? Or Mrs Atreides, whose husband has been too ashamed to tell her that he has lost his job, so that she can take some action to prevent their home from being repossessed?
Clearly not all these sins are morally equivalent, but they all involve some long-term and non-trivial harm to a vulnerable person, which the priest might possibly be able to mitigate. In each individual case, a very plausible case could be made that the duty to protect the innocent outweighs the duty to preserve the confidence of the guilty.
And there’s no real counter argument if you look only at the individual case. The ‘best’ thing to do is to tell. But the outcome of all those individual decisions would be that in fact nothing our priest hears is confidential at all. The only answer is to say that though keeping silence in any one instance might be very hard, it is better that all these sinners, and countless others, are able to receive spiritual counsel with the guarantee of secrecy, than that they are not. Overall, though maybe not in any one case, that institution leads to less abuse, less violence, less adultery, less deceit and less human pain, than would occur if it did not exist.
The choice, from my side of the debate, is not about ‘what to do about this particular confession?’ but ‘is there a place for an institution of absolute confidentiality?’. If the answer to that question (primarily a practical one, not a moral one) is ‘yes’ then there is no choice left about individual cases. If you have complete secrecy, then you cannot break it, no matter what, so there is never a point at which the penitent’s rights are weighed against the victim’s. As soon as you start doing that, you aren’t working within the context of confidentiality at all. If you think (as I do) that it really is better that the option of confidentiality exists than that it does not, it is simply impossible to look at an individual case in the way that you are doing – the choice, however hard it is, was already made when the institution was created.
(NOTE* I’ve never heard anyone’s confession, so I am only assuming that these are plausible things for a priest to hear in confidence. If anyone doubts that, assume that the confidant is a lawyer. I can vouch for the fact that lawyers hear exactly this sort of thing under rules of professional confidence.)
[ 04. May 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The seal of the confessional is more than confidentiality.
In what way? Would the police or an abused child be able to understand the difference?
Confession isn't just telling someone something that should not go any further (which is a low level of confidentiality) but confessing our sins to God in the presence of a priest. The primary relationship is not between the two humans but between the penitent and God. Then there is the issue of penance/with-holding absolution. The penitent expects a response from the priest and as others have said here that would probably include an expectation that the penitent say something to someone else. Not breaking the seal is not the same as not changing the situation. The point those of us who think that the seal is absolute are making is that either the seal is there or it isn't and if it isn't confession is weakened because without the seal it's too dangerous.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There is an assumption that it is the actual perpetrator confessing when could well be the victim who is feeling guilty or a partner who knows all about who feels guilty.
Josephine mentioned this and I agree that it is a key point. But, I would argue that it is an argument in favour of the seal because being able to talk to someone about it without the fear of the offender being arrested (and given the power they have over the victim the victim isn't going to want this)* might be the first step in being able to break out of the abusive situation.
Josephine wrote:
quote:
I don't know how this plays out in the case of child abuse, but I do know how it works in the case of spouse abuse. A priest can intervene effectively without breaking the seal of the confessional, by what he requires of the person making the confession. This is true whether he learns of the abuse from the abuser or from the person being abused.
That is a much more concrete response than our hypothetical discussions.
Carys
*My only vaguely comparable experience is bullying at school and I know that I saw no point in telling anyone because it would only make the situation worse.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I accept and appreciate your apology Eliab.
I don't accept the philosophy that if you allow the breach of confidentiality for one sin, you throw confidentiality as a whole out of the window. However, I perceive that if it were just up to an individual's judgement on a case by case basis confidentiality would be virtually meaningless, as the priest would have a subjective standard (which the individual confessing would have no way of knowing beforehand) for each sin confessed.
But ongoing sexual abuse of a child is the most heinous sin/crime there is, IMO. Morally, I believe a priest should be able to break confidence in this instance, and in fact is compelled to. I am not suggesting open slather, merely when ongoing sexual abuse of a child or children is involved.
Further, I appreciate that it is not always a black and white decision to make morally, especially if the victim does not want action taken.
Unless anyone wants to respond to my posts further, I am happy for the hellhosts to close this.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
I would like to say that I for one have found this thread to be informative and constructive for the most part, and think it would be sad to see it deleted for ever.
Is there any way it can be closed and also archived for future reference?
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Well played, DarkKnight. The thread shall be closed.
Should anyone feel an overwhelming need to say something else, they should PM a Hellhost to petition for having it reopened.
While there is a possibility that this thread could be preserved in Limbo, it is by no means certain. Anybody who would like to keep their own copy of it are encouraged to do so before the standard 48-hour moratorium on deletion expires.
-RooK
Hellhost
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
