I seldom venture over to the H8 pages, but I have a Google alert set for certain words. A few minutes ago an alert came though about the Diocese of San Joaquin. When I clicked the URL, it took me the the most infamous H8-r-us site.
The post concerns the recent letters sent by +Lamb and the Chancellor of the Diocese of San Joaquin (Which you may read at The Grapevine).
The H8 post has the usual science fiction explanation of things. One bit of note is this bit (and I'm paraphrasing because I did not obtain permission for a direct quote:
One of the first lessons we learned in Journalism 101 is that an "unnamed source" is completely useless to prove anything. Forget about using it. Anyone who won't go on record has a reason and it's never a good one unless it involves the mob and even then it's a shady reason. To quote an unnamed source is the same as saying, "as everyone knows...."
In this case, if such an unnamed attorney exists, of course he wants to be unnamed. Otherwise he would be the laughing stock of the legal community of California and most of the US. For one reason, he thinks he knows more than the entire California State Supreme Court Justices do. Second, it would mean he can't read a legal document.
One must wonder what is the meaning of that second sentence? The diocese thinks it left so the parishes had to go with it and therefore have no legal standing?
Fortunately, the court was explicit in its ruling that church property belongs to the national church, not to any departing group.
And as expected, the H8speak comments of the "wonderful Christians" has begun and guess what, The Presiding bishop and Bishop Robinson are the first two names to appear for attack. Who would have guessed, eh?
I'd love to sit down with Mr Virtue in, say, five years and see how he views things then. Will he say, "man, was I wrong, or will he, like the none-too-soon departing US president deny he was wrong about anything? Or, will he be the one to say, "So, James, your huttin' dog didn't fly, did it."
Being bored beyond belief today, I've been poking about at the H8 site. I found another great bit of science fiction that really is funny.
The site is defending Mr Armstrong against the overwhelming evidence presented by the detectives in court stating that he embezzled nearly 400 thousand from Grace Church. The site quotes Mr Armstrong who blames the police, well rather, implicates them in some sort of plot against him. Remember this is a paraphrase
Armstong goes on to say that the information presented was at least three years old, just with a new spin on it. His vestry, he says, had it's own audit and all was in order and all was well, and that Armstrong was just an all around okay guy. Hugs all around.
Talk about science fiction!
The post concerns the recent letters sent by +Lamb and the Chancellor of the Diocese of San Joaquin (Which you may read at The Grapevine).
The H8 post has the usual science fiction explanation of things. One bit of note is this bit (and I'm paraphrasing because I did not obtain permission for a direct quote:
According to an attorney who wishes to remain anonymous, "the decision is useless in its application to the ability of a diocese to leave The Episcopal Church. and steal the property. Since the diocese left that means the parishes left too."I had to laugh right out loud.
One of the first lessons we learned in Journalism 101 is that an "unnamed source" is completely useless to prove anything. Forget about using it. Anyone who won't go on record has a reason and it's never a good one unless it involves the mob and even then it's a shady reason. To quote an unnamed source is the same as saying, "as everyone knows...."
In this case, if such an unnamed attorney exists, of course he wants to be unnamed. Otherwise he would be the laughing stock of the legal community of California and most of the US. For one reason, he thinks he knows more than the entire California State Supreme Court Justices do. Second, it would mean he can't read a legal document.
One must wonder what is the meaning of that second sentence? The diocese thinks it left so the parishes had to go with it and therefore have no legal standing?
Fortunately, the court was explicit in its ruling that church property belongs to the national church, not to any departing group.
And as expected, the H8speak comments of the "wonderful Christians" has begun and guess what, The Presiding bishop and Bishop Robinson are the first two names to appear for attack. Who would have guessed, eh?
I'd love to sit down with Mr Virtue in, say, five years and see how he views things then. Will he say, "man, was I wrong, or will he, like the none-too-soon departing US president deny he was wrong about anything? Or, will he be the one to say, "So, James, your huttin' dog didn't fly, did it."
Being bored beyond belief today, I've been poking about at the H8 site. I found another great bit of science fiction that really is funny.
The site is defending Mr Armstrong against the overwhelming evidence presented by the detectives in court stating that he embezzled nearly 400 thousand from Grace Church. The site quotes Mr Armstrong who blames the police, well rather, implicates them in some sort of plot against him. Remember this is a paraphrase
Armstrong said that police removed a file folder from his desk that had all the documents in question about the trust fund. Included in that folder were all the cheques and they were endorsed by the very same people who said they never singed any of those cheques.Now isn't that interesting. I wonder what motive the police have to be in cahoots with The Episcopal Church to defame this fine upstanding former priest? The author of that site says the reason has something to do with the success of Armstrong's ministry being a threat to TEC.
Armstong goes on to say that the information presented was at least three years old, just with a new spin on it. His vestry, he says, had it's own audit and all was in order and all was well, and that Armstrong was just an all around okay guy. Hugs all around.
Talk about science fiction!
.jpg)
Posts
|