What's the purpose of trying to bring back a bunch of dead threads? There seems to be little, if any, content to any of this. Where are you going with this?

-- Let sleeping threads lie (boring@reading.hohum), November 30, 2003

Answers

Is it a moderator doing it?

-- Presence (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

there were a few recent threads that got deleted, that i would like restored, but sifting through older threads coming back is a bit monotonous, especially when theyre only four (and pointless) posts long...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 01, 2003.

Please be patient.
Consider what is going on here. More than 500 threads were deleted.
I am just restoring them in the order I am finding them.

What you are asking me to do is impossible -- namely, to read through all 500+ and rank them in order of importance/priority (whose priority?), make a sorted list of them, and then restore them in that order.
Instead, I am restoring them in random order, as they come to me. If you will be patient, more informative and topical threads will begin to appear.

However, you have jumped to a wrong conclusion -- that I am restoring them so that you can read them now and comment about them. If I were doing that, I would be "topping" them, so that many would notice them on the "recent answers" queue. Instead, I am just restoring them to get them back into the archives, for future reference. They are going to the "unanswered questions" list.

To avoid these restored threads, don't go to "Unanswered Questions." Instead go to "New Questions," and (optionally) ignore threads posted by "The Thread Restorer."

-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.Com), December 01, 2003.

Please, restore all the threads!

-- top (One@who.knows), December 01, 2003.

It's John Gecik, I suggest, who is attempting to bury all the current threads (with which he's infuriated) under the weight of many resurrected older threads. One way or another, he intends to take command of this forum. Crying didn't help. Now he thinks subterfuge will do it.

Of course, it's necessary to hide his identity; so we see thread restorer. Just one busy little beaver!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2003.

I request that "the Thread Restorer" be somewhat selective as to which threads are restored. I think it could be a genuine service to the Forum to restore valuable threads containing useful information, which were recently removed without authorization. However, I see no value in restoring a thread which consists of a brief personal interchange between two individuals, more than year ago, which no-one else ever responded to.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

OTOH, "the stone that the builder rejected has become the cornerstone".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 02, 2003.

"I request that 'the Thread Restorer' be somewhat selective as to which threads are restored. I think it could be a genuine service to the Forum to restore valuable threads containing useful information, which were recently removed without authorization. However, I see no value in restoring a thread which consists of a brief personal interchange between two individuals, more than year ago, which no-one else ever responded to." {Paul M.}

All right. I will quickly skim each future thread to look for this kind of thing, and I will bypass ones that clearly have no value. However, I have to be careful not to discard too many in this way, because some that may appear to have no value to one person will actually be of value (historical or otherwise) to one or more other people -- e.g., to one of the "two individuals." The Moderator always has the final say, being able to delete restored threads.

"... is attempting to bury all the current threads (with which he's infuriated) under the weight of many resurrected older threads." {Eugene C. Chavez}

What an mental midget you are, sir! What a dunce!

How could anyone be so incredibly stupid as to ascribe this motive to "The Thread Restorer," when the following are true:
(1) The actual motive has already been clearly stated -- getting threads back to the archives (for lurkers/researchers and to honor the hard work of hundreds of legitimate posters).
(2) Just a few messages ago, I explained that the restoring of illicitly deleted threads has no effect whatsoever on any of "the current threads." Most of them are totally invisible on the "Recent Answers" queue. They can easily be ignored on the "New Questions" queue by a person bypassing all threads started by "The Thread Restorer."
(3) Far from being "infuriated" about "current threads," it has been almost two years since I have been as pleased with the forum as I am now. How quickly your cobwebbed old mind forgets that my plan was soon to disappear from the forum permanently -- and to restore no threads at all. But then things took a huge turn for the better, so here I am, trying to do my best. What do I get for the hours I have to spend just to restore ten threads per day? Ingratitude and false accusations from the Pacific Pouter.

Threads that are restored go to the proper archival folder and to the "unanswered questions" queue, where I expected them to be ignored by everyone, including you, o Snotty Sniveler of Sacramento!

"One way or another, he intends to take command of this forum. Crying didn't help. Now he thinks subterfuge will do it." {E.C.C. again}

If he has even a half-ounce of honesty, the gentleman now realizes how idiotic his words are. If he will not withdraw his false accusations, he will merit to suffer the immediate melting of his "mother-board," as punishment! As already explained more than once -- and as the moderator clearly sees -- there is no "subterfuge" involved. Nor is there any desire for "command of this forum" -- except perhaps in the mind of a certain irascible control freak, who seems to be exhibiting the defense mechanism known as "projection" (unjustly attributing to another one's own flaw).

"the stone that the builder rejected has become the cornerstone"

The only person fitting these words is Jesus. This verse had better not have been posted with the intent of equating the "mad deleter" with "Jesus" -- as a "cornerstone" of some kind. Deleted threads are not being restored because of the mad deleter's old contributions, but rather in spite of them. Threads are instead being restored to honor the efforts of the other posters and to help future visitors who are interested in Catholicism.

-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.Com), December 02, 2003.

Thread restorer,

Pay no attention to Mr. Chavez crying. He was the one complaing two years ago on 12/31/02 when someone answering questions on the older threads that had not been answered.

He is a "control" person. He thinks he is the ultimate authority. :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), December 02, 2003.

Do you hear anybody crying, David? How are you going to stop somebody from paying attention to me, or to anyone else? By being a back-biter? Thank you, tough guy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

''. . . ascribe this motive to "The Thread Restorer," -- ? ? ?

No; ascribe it to John Gecik. Thread Restorer is a front; John covers himself as if to make his intention seem innocent. His motive is to saturate the forum and stop everybody he dislikes from free discussion. He recently demanded the forum be corrected ''to my satisfaction.'' His own words. There is his innocent motive.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

italics off.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), December 02, 2003.

Gene, you moaned yet again as follows:
"He recently demanded the forum be corrected 'to my satisfaction.' His own words. There is his innocent motive."

Gene, I have just corrected your stupidity at great length on another thread, so I won't say much more here.
When you read that other thread, you'll realize that the forum has already undergone the "corrective course change" that made me abandon my plans to leave at the end of February. And this tremendous atmospheric improvement is why I have been willing to begin restoring threads. These simple facts add up to proving that the supposed motivation you ascribe to me is complete nonsense -- your asinine imagination and nothing more.

Far worse than your being wrong about this is your insistence on falsely accusing me of it, on multiple threads, EVEN AFTER I have forthrightly denied it (above) in these words:
"The actual motive [for restoring threads] has already been clearly stated -- getting threads back to the archives (for lurkers/researchers and to honor the hard work of hundreds of legitimate posters)."

By continuing to accuse me, even after I have written the above, you are calling me a liar. Therefore, read this carefully:
You will be no friend of mine until you withdraw your unjust and incorrect accusations and apologize to me for trying to destroy my good name. And you ought to have learned by now that it is extremely unwise to be my enemy.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

Ho-hum.
Neither was I incorrect nor unjust. You demand what you can't have; apologies. Makes for hard feelings, nothing more. Here is an ''unveiled threat''

''And you ought to have learned by now that it is extremely unwise to be my enemy.''

Are you the Mafia? Oh No! I've got an enemy! One who will email gossip all over the forum about me? Like you have about CB? Yes; enemies who work clandestinely against us are to be placated quickly, with public apologies! But I can't let myself worry. I'm older and wiser than to care about enemies, John.

I would apologise if I'd committed some injustice. Naturally.

You know I haven't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

"One who will email gossip all over the forum about me?"
No sane person would waste his time gossiping about anyone as boring as you, sir. Don't flatter yourself.

"... enemies who work clandestinely against us are to be placated quickly, with public apologies!"
You completely misunderstood me. I wasn't threatening to do something to you actively. I don't consider you my enemy. But through some kind of paranoia, you have invented me as a foe in your own mind, and this will automatically pay you negative dividends -- because your instinct has already revealed itself: attack, attack, attack.

"I would apologise if I'd committed some injustice."
Here in the states, we spell it "apologize." You need to do it. God will help you to feel guilty until you do it. [Also, it's "Savior" in the U.S., not "Saviour." No British pretentiousness, please, Mr. California.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.

what in the world is wrong with you two?

eugene, youve no right to question john's motives in reposting old threads... there are people here who asked that those threads be restored. dont carry whatever personal conflict youre having with kiwi and atilla over to those who you should be in agreement with.

john, dont provoke eugene. you did say that if he didnt appologize he would be your enemy, and his response to that is rational, however irrational his first post against you was. why not let bygones be bygones, and move on to tackling important issues, like schismatics and fundy catholic haters?

namely gentlemen, you are both behaving out of sorts and its a bit perturbing. name calling is not needed, gentlemen. knock it off before i send you both to your room!!!

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2003.

Paul H, please post the above (or something more appropriate to the context) to cap off the other "feud thread." I'm far more sick of this junk than you are, I can guarantee you that! (Glad you can perceive how it started.)
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.

-- (_@_._), December 03, 2003.

Dear Paul H:
I like you. Thanks for trying to bring things back to order. I didn't need it; since I haven't made up pretenses to hurt John. I just stated the facts as I see them. Now he says I've called him a liar. Why?

Clearly because his explanation for wall-papering our forum rings false. --To ''honor'' those whose threads were unjustly deleted. Well, I call that a pretext, not the truth. I believe that, yet didn't even ask John to cease & desist ! -- All I did was call attention to the true identity he tried to cover up. Called attention also to the fact he wants to bury the threads he hates so much. Am I making this up?

NO, HE SAID HE HATED THEM. Why can't he at least own up to the obvious?

For the record, I think he's done a disservice to this forum, bringing back old threads by the score. If he'd only wanted to restore them, it could have been done in short increments over time. But Hey; that wouldn't stall every debate. --Now he HAS, and he's getting away with it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

Gene,

Wern't you the one crying about John posting the "saints of the day" threads about 18 months ago when Sam started that thread?

Stop complaining! If you don't like it, then don't go to the threads where you see "Thread restorer".

Its that simple.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2003.

agreed david,

but both have done their fair share in this mess. i suggest that either the both of you appologize for acting so childishly towards one another OR decide you can live and let live and go along your merry ways with both your prides not blemished at all. John can continue to post, because some of those threads ARE useful and Eugene can ignore the old threads. ITS NOT THAT HARD GENTLEMEN.

Eugene-- do you go to every porn site on the web? no? why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER WHERE YOU GO ON THE INTERNET. Dont tell me that you cant choose not to go to the thread restored posts. also, i prefer the thread restorer identity to john using his real name to restore threads... makes it a bit less confusing as to whats going on.

John-- from a certain perspective it could seem that you were hiding your identity to keep your motive secret. i dont think you have false motives in this, because ive never seen you do something so dumb anyway, but it could be taken that way. and as much as eugene has insulted you, you have insulted him back as well.

so both of you have some work to do in getting back to a place where there can be peace. how about instead of trying to win for yourselves, you try to win together and both go a bit of the distance? you might find it easier than you think

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2003.

Gene,
Weren't you the one crying about John posting the "saints of the day" threads about 18 months ago ? --(David.) --NO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

''Eugene-- do you go to every porn site on the web? no? why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER WHERE YOU GO ON THE INTERNET. Dont tell me that you cant choose not to go to the thread restored posts.''

Do you have to ask me foolish questions like this, Paul? I'm not the one who will click on the so-called restored threads. I'll simply scroll down to wherever I wish to post.

But many others will be sucked into them; and we'll lose some continuity in the more current threads. Some of them shall go to waste. So, it's not what I'm unable to do. It's what we are stopping the rest from continuing.

Even so; I can abide with the conditions. My confrontation was a passing thing. I haven't the heart to impose suffering on you. Please --just don't preach to me on simple etiquette; state what you're going to say, I understand plain language.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Paul H.
I hope that the truth is becoming painfully obvious to you. Mr. Chavez is truly out of his gourd. Everything he has said since my last post has been ludicrous. I don't want to waste time going through it in detail, because (1) I'm sure that almost everyone already knows what I'm talking about and (2) no matter what I say, he is incapable of admitting that he has been wrong.

You stated: "... as much as eugene has insulted you, you have insulted him back as well."

Well, of course I have insulted him! I never denied that. But that is irrelevant.
You see, what you are failing to notice and point out is that, a few days ago, I simply, innocently, honestly, and with praiseworthy intentions, began to restore threads -- only to be blind-sided by asinine, error-laden criticisms and accusations from an ungrateful, paranoid doofus.
In other words, I was doing good -- but he interrupted it to do evil. It stands to reason that I am going to battle him in return. What is totally WRONG is for you to suggest that BOTH of us have something to repent. It should be obvious, from my recalling the basic sequence of events just now, that only Gene, the perpetrator, must repent. (I had the right to defend myself. Those attacked unjustly do not repent about their self-defense.)

But actually, Paul, he has been guilty of several other kinds of antics against various people (but especially me) through the years -- usually because I have refused to re-conceive myself in his divine image and likeness. Oh, what a jerk he has been, again and again! One one or two occasions, he nearly went berserk about my insisting that there are Catholic therapists who have been having success in helping people with Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (aka, "homosexual orientation") to change psychologically -- even to the point of marrying and fathering kids.

But most of the past offenses on his part have been in the area of demanding that I be tolerant of the most horrendous forum visitors -- people whom you, Paul, would not tolerate (as I see from your sensible attitude toward Faith and Jeanie). Again and again and again -- almost without exception -- Gene has demanded that I put up with anti-Catholics of every imaginable stripe, for weeks and months, so that he could play mind games with them day after day, showing off, honing his debating skills, gaining little victories, like toying with helpless rodent. He has tried to rip me to shreds for calling for these people to be banned after several days or weaks of their anti-Catholic proselytizing. This repeated behavior of his has been one of the most sickening experiences for me at the forum through the years.

Paul, I don't believe in beating my head against a wall. I quit trying to make a better man of Gene a few years ago, but (as I said earlier) he has never had sense enough to figure out that he can't make me into "euJene, Junior." [One bleephead at the forum is enough, without his begetting an intellectual offspring.]

Now I said that I would not "waste time going through" all the garbage just posted by Gene, but I MUST comment about one item -- which is truly "beyond the pale."
David just now asked him: "Weren't you the one crying about John posting the 'saints of the day' threads about 18 months ago when Sam started that thread?"
To this, Gene amazingly answered: "NO".

Either the poor guy has amnesia or he is a bald-faced liar.

In one of the most sickening events in forum history, the control freaky Gene actually banded together with a "church-of-Christ" anti-Catholic (who posted under several names, including "Sam") to attack me for posting saints-of-the-day threads! This actually occurred, not 18 months ago, but in late November of 2001, after I had posted almost three months' worth of threads. I know this just by looking at the daily-saints folder in the archives. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see how I started in August of 2001, capitalizing the name of the month in the "Subject" line each day -- until late in November. Why did I stop capitalizing? Because our Lord and Master Eugene objected to my using capital letters! Now anti-Catholic Sam was totally against the idea of any saints threads at all. Gene did not oppose him, but instead took advantage of Sam's thread to bad-mouth me, complaining that I was clogging up the forum with a new thread about saints every day. (Notice the "deja vu"? Now I am clogging things up with thread restorations! Yes, this goofball has a one-track mind. No one can reason with him.)

And, Paul, Gene never apologized to the forum for that huge anti-saints sin either. His getting away with murder here is a frequent thing. Folks can never really get used to it, since it is so unChristian -- but we have come to accept it, because there is nothing we can do about it. The guy is just nutty to the core -- though everyone has to admit that he has his lucid moments and has posted hundreds of excellent messages. [David may be able to remember still more details about the Gene-and-Lance event. I don't know if a moderator ever deleted that thread.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.

"Gene-and-Lance"
I meant "Gene-and-Sam." ("Lance" was someone else -- or one of Sam's aliases.)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.

Hey, come on. I really enjoy reading both of your posts, most of the time. This is one of the times when I'm not. If you want to fight, can't you fight by email?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), December 03, 2003.

John can say anything he wishes. None of it is true so I won't dignify it by responding to that stuff. I'm not his friend anymore because he set a condition that can't be met: that I take back all I said ''against his good name,'' and apologise. But nobody takes back the truth because of idle threats. I haven't any intention of apologising, I'll just drop the subject.

The part he wishes to relate about me ''demanding'' and ''going berserk'' over thjngs is so obviously false he should know he condemns only himself saying it. Everyone who has seen my words here knows I don't go berserk, or demand John can't do anything; because I acknowledge I have no right. Yes, I do contradict him in my own way; but never for malice.

I have to forgive John for these slips. He's unhappy; and I've made him unhappier by speaking straightforwardly. Anyone can see he can't handle any kind of friction; it drives him up the wall. It actually makes me worry he might do himself harm. And it's a waste of time answering him.

Let's hope he gets over it. I already have, my friends.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

Gene, you had some "knee-slappers" in there that were so good that I could accurately use the trite abbreviation, "LOL," today!

You got me in such a good mood with them that I don't even feel like fighting you any more.

(This is the best -- i.e., most ridiculous -- one: "It actually makes me worry he might do himself harm." I'm laughing so hard, it's tough to keep from making typing errors!)

Thanks for the compliment, Catherine Ann. We'll be good for a while now.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 04, 2003.

OK, John,
Happy to see then, you're back to your consistently cheery, postive and unassuming ways on forum.

You finally got a ''lick o'sense,'' it does no good to vent your anger in public. (Think I'll go outside before anybody can say I'm provoking you.) --Ciao /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2003.