User talk:Cecfan

Upgrade From Boring to Dull!
Hey, you really must be boring because nobody will write a comment on your page but you! Cecfan 07:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What to do? Now that three others have written on my page, I have to think of some other ridiculous thing to write.  Cecfan 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not boring anymore
(But I bet you wish you were, its less stressful :) )

Hey, I noticed that you changed things up in the references so as to say that Bp. Sly hadn't departed. Was it my language? Did it make it seem like he had left before he wrote it or something (I don't remember)?

Anyhow, in case you didn't know, he has indeed left. I have it from Dcn. Chic Harmon who has it from +Sly himself.

Write back,

Kennethmyers 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob
Yeah, I'm not the clearest writer am I? You should see my spelling though, Hald once ran some of my stuff through a spell checker, and it was amazing what it found :)

Kennethmyers 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi CECFan,

The reason I added the "Reformation" in there was because it was used in the official letter. I was trying to remain true to that. I wasn't aware that it was provisionally adopted earlier. Thanks for cleaning it up.

Mayland CEC

Thanks
Hey, thanks for your edits and cleaning up my awkward sentence structure.

Hazel Motes 555

Cecfan--

Our parish church (it is by no means a mission), Holy Redeemer--this doesn't matter, but it's the largest of the former GLD with about 115 on the rolls and 85-95 most Sundays--is still in the CEC with myself, a retired priest amd two deacons (one permanent, one getting ready for ordination to the priesthood) on the staff. There are also two additional missions, one on the southwest side of Detroit, Risen Lord (one priest, one deacon), and one in the western suburbs of Chicago, Ascension (one priest), that remain, along with a priest who serves as a chaplain in Ohio, and a retired deacon in Kentucky.

But, yes, it's a vast wasteland here in terms of those who've left and that should not be minimized, although I think there are very clear reasons why what has happened here happened in the way it did.

Ken Tanner


 * Fr Tanner,


 * It was "CEC Watcher" who was claiming that only your parish stood faithful. I was trying to get him to clarify who left and so on.  As is the case with a lot of the discussion, they usually revert to a "sky is falling" mentality when they report developments.  I am still of a mind that the whole "crisis" section should be deleted until ALL the dust settles.  Then we could add a short paragraph of "x bishops, x priests, x parishes, x missions left during May to Dec 2006" and be done with it.  Thanks for the info.  Is the GLD paragraph accurate as it now stands?


 * Cecfan 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.

Ken

Conspiracy Theories?
Lol, something like that... though the stability of the group is in serious question at this point. It would be the third large group formed out of this crisis. The DoM formed the Communion of Corpus Christi (CCC), and the GLP formed the GLF. The CCC (grins- I think of KenII every time I use those three letters) and the GLF are currently in discussion, but wether that will result in anything is unclear. What would be really interesting, would be if all three came togeather. BTW, what do you think of linking to a repository lacking the List of Allegations (LoA)? I'm planning on wikifying it (not here, but on a wiki that I'll host) soon to allow for a more collaborative effort in bringing it up to date. RoaringOasis 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * CECFan, I'm completely aware of that matter, and was not suggesting that it be made availible via the Article or wikipedia. My question was merely in regard to a similar repository that DID NOT CONTAIN the LoA (or similar documents), which should be the only questionable document in the present repository. "BTW, what do you think of linking to a repository lacking the List of Allegations (LoA)?" READ: ...a repository that does NOT contain the ... (LoA)?


 * Btw, as far as I'm aware, libel must include malicious intent (see New York Times v. Sullivan). The LoA was by no means compiled with malice. While only partially updated (much more has been revealed since it's compilation), its expressed intent is to consolidate and make known the charges and allegations against the CEC and it's Leadership, and provide confirmation and/or refutation (along with all possible proof) as things came to light. I'm attempting to move the document to a medium where it can be more easily and efficiently revised and brought up to speed, which will make it all the more impervious to libel-based attacks, but I'm certainly not suggesting that it be linked to from here. RoaringOasis 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No Problem w/Comment Correction
CECFAN,

No problem on the correction. Yes, you are correct. Military chaplains are indeed required to have the same level of education as physicians and lawyers. Most of the CEC's chaplains have greatly exceeded that requirement. I wrote that discussion very quickly. I am sure that I have a number of typos and grammatical errors in it. Your version actually sounds better than the way I wrote it. USMC Padre

Talk Pages

I was trying to edit down the talk pages, especially all of the garbage related to recent events. I'm all for it. In fact, perhaps we should reorder the entire talk page to reflect the subject headings in the actual article, deleting any sections now moot. Kenneth Tanner 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)