Mother Pedrosa

[arc123]

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

Originally Posted by arc123

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

Interesting article, but, if you'll allow me to offer in Pedro's defence, I see very little in it that is directed at her - only at the care homes run in her name after her death. You may very well assume that those were also the conditions found in her life time but the article offers scant evidence of that, therefore we can only criticise the current operators. The only piece which directly attacks the woman herself are her views on abortion; now I also find her views on abortion abhorent and would strongly oppose them, however I'm also aware that they are the official view of the Catholic faith she represented, one followed by millions of people worldwide.

Without wanting to draw comparisons to another certain thread, the overwhelming impression of Mother Theresa remains one of someone who basically tried to do some good in their life. That may or may not have been succesful but I don't doubt the intention. I'm sure she was no saint, but until evidence is presented that she herself, rather than those acting in her name after her death, acted with anything other than good intentions on balance, then I'll keep the impression that she was basically a good person.

[arc123]

I still find the avatar offensive. In the other thread you make reference to, most people were not offended, but it seems to be against the rules to offend anybody on a 'U rated site'.

Originally Posted by arc123

I still find the avatar offensive. In the other thread you make reference to, most people were not offended, but it seems to be against the rules to offend anybody on a 'U rated site'.

I find your selective choice of reference material more offensive and once again as indicated in previous contributions on the forum you indicate a rather peculiar outlook.

To attempt to cast a dim light on such a figure as Mother Theresa,(her actual religious base has nothing to do with the lifetime of selfless devotion she carried out for the impoverished people of India.)

You have chosen an article that was printed and no doubt researched 8 years after the lady in question passed away. Therefore any right minded person can see your complete justification for ridiculing her. The article is crammed with direct references and instances of shocking behaviour carried out by the lady herself.

Referring to the books and article of 1995 simply indicate how her movement had attracted funding worldwide and perhaps some of this could have been employed much better. However to suggest that Mother Theresa managed the missuse of said funds or instigated questionable care without any proof is very wrong.

She was a hands on person dealing with the needy on the ground I suggest that there were others associated with the movement who would have had the task of designating and allocating monies from the fund. You find her offensive for not being aware of every activity beinbg carried out under the name of her movement?

[arc123]

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...elds_18_1.html

you indicate a rather peculiar outlook.

pot kettle?

Originally Posted by arc123

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...elds_18_1.html



pot kettle?

Hardly.

So a disaffected Sister basically reiterates a tale of how money could well have been put to better use. I am happy to believe that this may well have been the case. Mother Theresa had her own particular view on how best to deal with the problems she was facing on the ground. Taking cheap shots at her is very weak and raises the question as to why those with more overall knowledge and experience did not advise her.

Her failings accepted are quite glaring in hindsight, however if you were now stating that she misappropriated funds to amass a personal fortune, which included a private jet, luxury motor cruiser and investment properties around the world, an addiction to heroin and was a regular visitor to the flesh pots of Calcutta I would indeed be more than willing to review my opinion of her.

The woman was well intended and devoted her life to the cause, what you must remember is that she was a nun depending upon the order that they train in their own outlook on life and it's challenges are met in a much different manner than would be done by your average citizen in the 9 to 5 world.

I imagine that millions of people know of this lady and suggest that many of them have also seen the kind of article that you appear to have a mission() in bringing to this thread. I do not though see a worldwide clamour for her status within the Catholic religion or her memory as a doer of good to be changed and her history completely rewritten. Something it would appear that you would be delighted to see take place.

Originally Posted by arc123

I still find the avatar offensive. In the other thread you make reference to, most people were not offended, but it seems to be against the rules to offend anybody on a 'U rated site'.

Ok, I think I see your argument here, please correct me if I'm wrong, but is your point that someone in the world will find offense at anything, and therefore everything is against the rules on a U rated site?

If that is a correct interpretation of your argument then we're basically left with a question of definition of a U-rated site. In my mind it does not ban anything that anyone might find offensive, but makes a common sense judgment based on a perceived majority opinion. That common sense judgment may or may not be "correct" but such is the nature of a subjective judgement, nevertheless it is a judgement someone must make, whether it be a film censor or a forum mod.

I wasn't particularly offended by some of the other avatars mentioned, but did find them in poor taste, if I was the one making the subjective judgment I'd have to say they were definitely "12" rated, maybe even "PG", but I'd struggle to give them a "U" rating. On the evidence presented however, I don't have a problem giving Mother Theresa a "U" rating at this time.

Thankfully, I'm not the one who has to make these judgments.

i was going to stay out of this , but..............

Originally Posted by Pedrosa

I also found if quite amusing that another Welshman should emerge from the shadows in Hovis's defence! Now that really did tickle me. Has Hovis been texting all of his pals to get on here? LOL)

im not welsh, & no i have not been texting anyone...... & i did not put arc123 up to this.

but somebody is offended by your avator, i had mine withdrawn because of this

im not offended by it, although its not as pleasing to the eye as some others

*im in work so cant read the links*

this is going to get out of hand

Originally Posted by hovis

i was going to stay out of this , but..............

im not welsh, & no i have not been texting anyone...... & i did not put arc123 up to this.

but somebody is offended by your avator, i had mine withdrawn because of this

im not offended by it, although its not as pleasing to the eye as some others

*im in work so cant read the links*

this is going to get out of hand

Hovis if I have insulted you by suggesting that you are Welsh then I apologise whole heartedly. I referred to Ollie whatever, who jumped in from Cwmran or somewhere, completely out of the blue which I was very amused at.

I raised questions about your avatar and simply asked what your reasons where for using it. You were given full opportunity to explain. Whatever the reasons you had would have been personal. You did though decline to offer anything which in itself I feel caused some problem for other members.

In truth other people did express their concerns at your avatar and the executive decision was made to ask you to replace it. That decision was not mine as I was merely seeking to understand your motivation for using it. I never once said "get rid of it"

Thus far my avatar has really only been objected to by one individual who has done nothing but indicate a blinkered view backed up by adding links that suit his needs. He has not chosen to view the lady in question as a whole but has chosen merely to align himself with the use of defamatory articles.

He has indicated no ability to sift through the information he has looked at. He wants us to believe that Mother Theresa was in fact a bad person. Anyone with common sense and decency would not hold that opinion I believe.

arc123 is displaying the worst traits of both a troll and moron.IMHO.(That is not an insult it is as shown MY opinion)

Should the weight of opinion suggest that my avatar be changed, I will go with that. But merely on the suggestion of this questionable individual? No way.

so how many peoples complaints does it take to have your avator withdrawn? (if i did complain that would be 2, & childisn IMO)

not that im bovvvered, as you may have noticed i like to try on differant avators and the charles manson one would have been changed by me if i was given the chance

and being called welsh was not too bad......... i've been called worse