File talk:Iccec crisis.jpg

Kenneth,

Are you absolutely certain of your facts depicted on your map? The last count that I had was that only four (4) of thirteen parishes left the Great Lakes Diocese, vice 11 of 13. That paints a completely different picture, don't you think?

Also, the Arizona portion is a bit misleading as Bp Painter only had two parishes. The rest of Arizona was administered by Abp Adler.

Incidentally, what exactly is the point you are getting at with posting information such as this? It serves no real edifying purpose for anyone, especially since the "current crisis" is still very much in flux. It would probably be wiser to wait a year or so after everything has settled to publish such items as historic fact. Don't you agree that little bit of restraint is what is called for at this stage of the game? You must remember that not everyone is dissatisfied with the CEC. -72.197.26.135

Anonymous, I think it's approprate to try to cover things in the Wikipedia even as they develop. I also think it's in keeping with our aspirations for paleo-orthodox, apostolic governance. It's newsworthy, it informs the prayers of the faithful, and it's characteristic of the sort of openness of the apostolic church. It's also important to try to balance the venom and hate of the blogs with something more objective. As for the details of the map, I will call my bishop as soon as I'm done writing this to run them by him again. I had no idea that Adler oversaw parishes in Arizona. If you can give me the city names, I'll try to draw the appropriate line through Arizona. I'm checking the facts on Bp. Fick as we speak. I'll get back to you. Kennethmyers 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked my facts and I will draw the line through Arizona. 11 of Fick's churches have indeed left. Also, (1) mentioning that there are allegations is not in violation of the biblical protocol you mention, (2) biblical protocol WAS followed with the accusations I mention on the page, and (3) broad allegations of un-orthodox and oligarchic government are against our institution itself and its canon law, and not a person. Further, a tally of the bishops who have left and a map of the current situation carries in itself no allegations. Kennethmyers 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC) In response to your last post, you're right that the Wikipedia isn't the place to bring allegations or try to settle them. It IS a good place to inform the public that there is a massive split underway, and to address what both sides say about the causes. Such information would be perfectly appropriate in the ancient market, and was equally and rightly available from both sides of the dispute in the reformation-era German bar. Kennethmyers 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous,

I believe I am using a bit of wisdom and a LOT of restraint. I honestly think that the article paints the CEC in a light that I would call neutral, if not positive. You've repeatedly questioned my motivations instead of my actual actions. I assure you, I hope that the CEC survives and flourishes. Where is the "sensitive information" that could cause harm? And why are you happy to present your ministerial and academic credentials but not your name? Anonymous, I promise you, I'm for restoration. I'm for discretion, and I'm for restraint. And God help me, I honestly think I've employed them! I'm honestly confused. Help me out here! Kennethmyers 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous: Really wish you'd set up a Wikipedia account. You don't need to give us all the personal details, just a username, okay, a maybe a little bit of your credentials. Personally, like Kenneth, I have a great deal of sympathy toward the ICCEC, and I hope and pray it survives and thrives. However, in general, I am also an advocate of greater, rather than less, information flow. These allegations need to be thoroughly aired. All we need to do is look at Rome to see what can happen when negative information is supressed. --Midnite Critic 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnite Critc,

Though I don't live there, how about "San Clemente Groupie," for a username? It is freely adapted from Kenneth Myers' user page. (see quote below)

"Ok, I just did a nice fleshing out of the CEC page, with (tactful) mention of the present crisis and everything. Now the question is, how many minutes until some San Clemente groupie changes it all up and calls me a heretic? Kennethmyers 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC) There it goes! Someone got to it. Now Fick's diocese is back and our original orders were valid. Kennethmyers 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

Canon Heniser, I think you'll find me a staunch defender against the unvetted ad homimems against the patriarch that come from the non-members on the blogs. Sometimes I think you write to me as if you think I am them. I stand by my use of the phrase "san clemente groupie" on my user page which I set up, among other things, to give a full disclosure of my POV risks. You're anonymity and SoCal IP led me to think San Clemente, your vandalism of the page and opposition to any mention of the crisis at hand led me to pick the word "groupie". Your secrecy about your identity and your edits without regard to consensus give you, and those who by virtue of your anonymity are mistaken to be you, a bad name. Kennethmyers 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]