Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 3

message: If you insert statements into a signed statement that I made asking questions, please sign them.  I find the unsigned commentary in my statements and questions to be unreadable.
Robert McClenon 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Traceability of discourse

message: I think that I now understand.  It appears that Famekeeper is saying that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Ludwig Kaas made moral errors in allowing evil to be done so that good could prevail, and therefore violated Catholic teaching on double action.  I said the same thing about Pope Pius XII and Ludwig Kaas.  All living and recently dead humans have made moral errors.  We disagree as to the extent of the moral errors.  And there is no point in discussing this at more length.
Robert McClenon 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Famekeeper writes:  "I am insulted for my writing, as verbose and a ranter, because the subjects are deep and cut down to the very nature of society and human developement."  No.  It is true that the subjects are deep and present difficult moral issues.  However, the real reason why your writing is criticized is simply that you are verbose.  the most likely reasons for that are that: first, that you are angry, and this causes you to be repetitive; second, you have not learned how to summarize what you are saying.  Please try to learn to summarize your case when you are asked for a summary.
Robert McClenon 22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please try to Be Concise

message: I feel  , if not experience , that there should be a straightforward  resolution of the FK/Str editorial conflicts . That it is not a question of recantation , but of reason . I will go so far as to say I was wrong to impugn  the  motives  of Str1977 , and hope this to be correct .
However this can only be done on the basis of adhering to the WP rules about citations and published sources . From the experience of Str1977's assiduity  , I recommend him entirely , under these forces of reason . It appears to me that , au fond ,Str1977 (Str ?) is acting  partly because that which his vision hitherto  wishes to have been the accepted case ,is  the vision of history un-tainted by this severe questioning . I  do deny , however , that  this  re-building  of vision  is research : I am referring to published sources . Public sources .
Under the guidance of reason ,  we should be able to inhabit the same world , even this virtual WP reflection of it . If, for example , my fairly un-exotic memory  remembers  seeing  direct evidential  contradiction with the statement that there was  no  public "blessing"  or such of Hitler from  an ecclesiatical source , and if I take the effort to sift back to produce this, then reason dictates. The argument should then  be the merits of the writer sourced , the validity of the report in truth and  perhaps proven to the contrary -by another source .
There is no carte blanche , there is only reason  and good will . If I point to a contradiction in law , whomsoever's law , based on evidence sourced reasonably , I should expect , as seems to emanate from McClenon , a reasonable  variation in reaction to one un-coloured by this information . At a few times , Str and I found this , but I think the gravity and explosive nature of the reports  made the connection between will and reason  difficult . One can wish as a will , but it is not helpful . I really believe that reconciliation -I mean within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church  and within the body of its adherents who are the church - is both possible and necessary . 
As I  might answer these most interesting questions arising from the widerstand, for they relate to this reconciliation , I will , equally , bear fully in mind the willed criticisms  that I harshly judge and harshly & judgementally act , and that this alone proves me to be less than those who act  acted  then in defence of this will . I believe that  the ecclesiastics acted through will , possibly (though I think I have pretty much cast this in doubt), possibly goodwill .  This gets back to my harsh criticisms , that 'you' should 'be controlled'.The  fact is that the world has no more geo-political  space  left for this action through will . Nowhere is this beneficial : reason alone , as I have specified , is bound to goodness whereas will alone  has no authority . Whichever body of men claim to act by will alone  become a danger : the will that would say this is so because we will it so can have no place  in reason or good  governance . This is one of the central issues of our day , and all things are inter-connected , like the hairs on our heads  or the birds in a field . The relevance of this article is total : it defines the present as much or more than anything else in the world .
As to mediation, it is quite plain from what  Robert McClenon reports, that no one better than  ourselves can be expected to face up to these issues . We should publicly declare to adhere to reported sources , and when they contradict , then the contradictions should be asserted , there , together in the articles  . We two should take the lead in defining this  in so far as it seems this is an un-tested area of  the WP nature . McClenon refers to this, and I suppose it must pop up a thousand times a week .
Nevertheless , my reason forces me to persist in nailing  the  reports and the analyses to the relevant 'door' . I would very much like Str to help me , or I help him -because if we were to combine , much more good could be reasoned  . I think I have offered this before , but mutual suspicion - he of my sources or attitude, myself disputing the origin of his   will , fell asunder into a pitiless  edit war . I fear that the interpretations which will soon follow as to the exact nature of  german widerstand 'thought' behind  that  door , will also prove  uncomfortable and inflammatory . Could we not agree to  paraphrase  sources , and expand them under fair use  in parallel temporarily upon the discussion pages ? 
This is the mediation , I can accept no other, as  effectively there is no other  . The only remaining question beyond this  I see , is the fascinating one as to whether in fact the wikipedia is controllable  ?  Meaning whether in fact  a user can be banned . I gather from  an IT type that this is impossible . 
I see no benefit in driving religious will from the WP, but I only accept it under that definition and qualification of control .Famekeeper 11:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution of  Question as to Mediation