Hey Lionel. Yeah, you know who I'm talking about. You go by "Catholic Mission." Do you want to know why in all the many years I have been blogging I never publish any of your comments? Because you never make your comment relevant to anything we are talking about. And you have constantly been blathering about the same three subjects for the past six years.
On this article about Pope Francis and Kiril, you're spamming about "Cushingism" and extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II:
Then on this video about Catholic Tradition, again, we get more on Cushingism and Fennyism, with the standard barrage of spammy links I am used to getting from you:
Then on the same post, when I didn't publish your first spammy comment, you post another - same old talking points, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II. Then some reference to the Synod even though the post had nothing to do with the Synod. And more spammy links.
And this...what on earth does this have to do with Ganswein's comments?
And this is only a fraction of the spam you try to post. Lionel, please, number one rule for of etiquette for commenting on blogs is please say something relevant to the post - don't just use the post as an occasion to post spammy links to your own garbled work. As long as you can't seem to get that, I will never, ever post any of your comments. Post your own thoughts, relevant to the article you are commenting on, and without spammy links to your own site.
UPDATE
In response to this post, Lionel tried to spam me again, suggesting that no matter what I post about, his ramblings are somehow always relevant - and repeating the same old three taking points he always has.
UPDATE II
After my first update, Lionel posted again, again reiterating the same points. Blah blah blah. Lionel, please learn blogging etiquette and stop posting your spammy, irrelevant comments. I know you don't believe it, but not every article on Catholic Tradition is immediately relevant to EENS, Cardinal Cushing, Feeny, and some letter from 1949. In fact, I don't even understand what you're argument is because this is so illegible. I don't know what "problem" you are saying I can't address because I've never bothered to address any of your nonsense. Stop spamming this blog, or learn to post comments relevant to the discussion and actually engage in discussion with other people. It's like you only have a single dialogue going in your mind and all you can do is repeat it ad nauseam across the blogosphere. Please go away.
I have been very fortunate on this blog to have a great group of people leaving comments. I'm sorry to call this out publicly, but you have been pestering me for the better part of six years with this nonsense weekly and I am sick of it. Observe some basic etiquette or just go away.
UPDATE
In response to this post, Lionel tried to spam me again, suggesting that no matter what I post about, his ramblings are somehow always relevant - and repeating the same old three taking points he always has.
After my first update, Lionel posted again, again reiterating the same points. Blah blah blah. Lionel, please learn blogging etiquette and stop posting your spammy, irrelevant comments. I know you don't believe it, but not every article on Catholic Tradition is immediately relevant to EENS, Cardinal Cushing, Feeny, and some letter from 1949. In fact, I don't even understand what you're argument is because this is so illegible. I don't know what "problem" you are saying I can't address because I've never bothered to address any of your nonsense. Stop spamming this blog, or learn to post comments relevant to the discussion and actually engage in discussion with other people. It's like you only have a single dialogue going in your mind and all you can do is repeat it ad nauseam across the blogosphere. Please go away.
Barred him from Vox a month ago!
ReplyDeleteI wish blogger allowed me to block particular people - all I know how to do is just keep deleting his stuff. Do you use blogger? If so, how can I just block him?
ReplyDeleteI've been pestered by this guy continually for going on two years. I've never published any of his comments - they are always, without fail, about some "irrational interpretation of Vatican II" - but he is tireless. I've looked into blocking him, but apparently this is not possible with blogger. There seems to be a process whereby a particular individual can have his comments labelled as "spam" and thus relegated to your spam folder instead of appearing in your 'to be approved' folder, but I've yet to work out the details of the process. Though, from what I gather, this works across multiple blogs, so the first one to figure out how it's done would be performing a work of mercy for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the double-post:
ReplyDeleteLionel just commented on my blog again, and I think I've discovered how to effectively "block" him. If you open the email alert informing you of his comment, you'll notice a down arrow in the upper right-hand corner. Pressing this will open a list containing the option to Block the poster. After doing this, I received the following message:
You blocked lionelandrades10@gmail.com. Messages from this address will be marked as Spam.
This looks like it might do the trick.
I think that just blocks him from sending you emails, not submitting comments to blogger.
ReplyDeleteTrue. It seems the only way to do it so that his comments don't even appear under "Awaiting moderation" is to limit commenting to something other than "Anyone - includes Anonymous Users" - which apparently locks him out. If he joins/follows, then you can actually block him for good - at least, according to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/block-user-blogspot-33884.html
I imagine the downside is that you would lose comments from folks who don't want to join the blog. Not sure if it's worth it; about half of my comments are from people who aren't registered.
Uuuuumm, from the very beginning of following this blog post I thought to myself: Boniface says that he doesn't want to publish Lionel's comments...yet he just did by taking a screen shot of them and then adding them to a post that he ended up publishing.
ReplyDeleteI've had to endure only one spammer, and he was more creative than this by orders of magnitude. Possible bot?
ReplyDeleteI've had to endure only one spammer, and he was more creative than this by orders of magnitude. Possible bot?
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think I have been too talkative only to discover I've merely been loquacious.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how relevant that is. I just think some folks just run on at the keyboard. It's got to be a vice online just as it is in person. I think sometimes the best solution is making someone a little embarrassed.
The funny part is that after reading some of those I am still unsure on what side of the argument he is.
ReplyDeleteA well moderated comment section is a gift to your readers. A lot of the value in an article comes from the comment section. Most of the garbage comes from there also. We appreciate the effort you guys put into policing the comment boxes.
ReplyDeleteI always comment anonymously, and won't sign up just to leave comments, so being too tight with commenting requirements keeps me out.
Boniface, this is only tangentially related but how was it justified that Feeney was reconciled absent repudiation of his errors?
ReplyDeleteClearly, he repeatedly denied that BOB, BOD, has always existed in doctrine - there is even art work signifying that inside Saint Peters - and Trent teaches it etc so how was it possible for Feeney to be reconciled absent his repudiation of his errors?
The reconciliation was premised on emotions not reality - sound familiar?
ABS- I literally know nothing about Fr. Feeney or the controversy. And I don;t care frankly.
ReplyDeleteDear barter Boniface. LOL You are a healthy man :)
ReplyDeleteWhat a rather pathetic way to make your point dear blog owner
ReplyDeleteFrom the little I know about the Fr.Feeney ordeal,it was Fr.Feeney's way of reacting to the creeping liberalism of the late 1940's.
ReplyDeleteIn other words,even late 1940's Boston,the Catholic world was becoming liberal.
In direct contrast,the modern liberalism had the opposite effect on Fr.Feeney.He,although misguided,was trying to stop modern ecumenism in its tracks by denying BOD BOB.
(I could be wrong feel free to correct me.)