- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 12
Originally posted by Green PaladinIt could be a simple error. Perhaps he is not in the habit of wearing a watch and did not recall wearing one. I do not recall how long ago the picture was taken. Probably he did lie. It doesn't bear on this discussion. The question is whether at the time of receiving the watch and when he wore it, was he aware of its value? Perhaps only in the media furore did he realise its worth.
Why don't you just acknowledge that the Patriarch flat out lied rather than the euphemistic 'error'?
His "error" shows the character of the person we're dealing with here.
Even more important though is whether he was allowed to give the watch away. For good reasons many states, many churches too, have restrictions on what people can do with gifts. It is bad form to give gifts away in many cultures. It is even worse to use those gifts for private purposes.
Anyway, we are dealing with a different culture. Russian Orthodoxy had yet to overcome its imperial origins and the laity have historically been very generous to clerics. For cultural reasons, Patriarch Kirill may not have given a second thought to this lavish gift, if indeed he appreciated its value.
09 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Green PaladinNot only that, CKs "image doctoring" argument falls to the quote as well.
Why don't you just acknowledge that the Patriarch flat out lied rather than the euphemistic 'error'?
His "error" shows the character of the person we're dealing with here.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have ample reading skills. You need to build a case to show beyond idle conjecture that the Patriarch understood the value of the watch and kept it of his own free will, out of a private desire for accruing wealth.
lol. You never know when to give up. Perhaps you should read what GP posted again:
""The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn the watch, and that any photos showing him wearing it ...[text shortened]... must have been doctored to put the watch on his wrist".
Read it and really think about it.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHow so? I in fact have not read any church press release on this matter yet. If anyone has an accurate English translation available, please furnish it. Quite possibly the Church apologised for the deception caused by the image doctoring and the controversy it aroused. Nothing in the quote belies the fact that image doctoring is a standard practice especially appropriate for clerics. Even if there an apology for image-doctoring per se, perhaps that is only because the authors are ignorant of the practice.
Not only that, CKs "image doctoring" argument falls to the quote as well".
09 Apr 12
Originally posted by Conrau KIf your reading skills are so "ample", why did you repeat your "image doctoring" argument after you'd already read GPs post?
I have ample reading skills. You need to build a case to show beyond idle conjecture that the Patriarch understood the value of the watch and kept it of his own free will, out of a private desire for accruing wealth.
09 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Klol. Read the following verrry slowwwly:
How so? I in fact have not read any church press release on this matter yet. If anyone has an accurate English translation available, please furnish it. Quite possibly the Church apologised for the deception caused by the image doctoring and the controversy it aroused. Nothing in the quote belies the fact that image doctoring is a standard practice e ...[text shortened]... r image-doctoring per se, perhaps that is only because the authors are ignorant of the practice.
""The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site"
Here's a hint: The Church restored the original photo to the site.
Do you need me to spell it out for you?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117439
09 Apr 12
Originally posted by Conrau KThe facts are: he is wearing the watch, the church tried to cover it up, got caught in their deceit and them put the photo back to original.
No; you are confused. It is your responsibility to find facts and I certainly had no intention of doing your job. I have so far only presented questions: Was the watch a gift? Was he aware of the value of the watch? Where does he derive his stipend from? I would also like to know, is the patriarch allowed to give away gifts freely? Normally, heads of ...[text shortened]... image-doctoring is a standard practice so that prominent people are not associated with brands.
You present no facts just questions as you put it; when in fact what you put forward are actually presumptions and assumptions aimed at drawing blame from the Pope for his materialistic gaff. You present no facts whatsoever.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI quite understand. What is the point? I am sorry if I do not believe that your gut-instincs constitute critical thinking. It seems equally plausible that the Church basically said 'Hey, we are really sorry for the hullabaloo this watch has caused. To show that we have nothing to hide, we are restoring the original image." Does anything in the quote contradict this?
lol. Read the following verrry slowwwly:
""The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site"
Here's a hint: The Church restored the original photo to the site.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterThe facts are: he is wearing the watch, the church tried to cover it up, got caught in their deceit and them put the photo back to original.
The facts are: he is wearing the watch, the church tried to cover it up, got caught in their deceit and them put the photo back to original.
You present no facts just questions as you put it; when in fact what you put forward are actually presumptions and assumptions aimed at drawing blame from the Pope for his materialistic gaff. You present no facts whatsoever.
I accept only the first and last statements. The facts are only: he wore the watch; the image was doctored; the image-doctoring was discovered; he denied wearing the watch; the Church later apologised. You have assumed he and the Church had deceptive intent. I am merely probing whether that is the only interpretation. I do not believe it is and I can only assume that you are uncharitably judging his character.
You present no facts just questions as you put it; when in fact what you put forward are actually presumptions and assumptions aimed at drawing blame from the Pope for his materialistic gaff. You present no facts whatsoever.
Pope? What are you talking about?
09 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KYou're a riot CK.
I quite understand. What is the point? I am sorry if I do not believe that your gut-instincs constitute critical thinking. It seems equally plausible that the Church basically said 'Hey, we are really sorry for the hullabaloo this watch has caused. To show that we have nothing to hide, we are restoring the original image." Does anything in the quote contradict this?
If the Church and the patriarch truly had nothing to hide and had a standard practice of "image doctoring" of brands, they would have plainly stated this fact from the beginning. The patriarch wouldn't have claimed the photo was doctored to put it on his wrist.
You're like a little kid who makes up all manner of ridiculous excuses.
This is what the Church was ACTUALLY saying:
The church, after removing the doctored photo, blamed photo editors in its press service for the “technical mistake.”
“A gross violation of our internal ethics has occurred, and it will be thoroughly investigated,” the church said in a statement. “The guilty will be severely punished.”
If they had such a standard practice, why blame its photo editors for a "technical mistake"? Why call it a "“A gross violation of our internal ethics" if its a standard practice? Why "severely [punish]" them for a standard practice?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf the Church and the patriarch truly had nothing to hide and had a standard practice of "image doctoring" of brands, they would have plainly stated this fact from the beginning. The patriarch wouldn't have claimed the photo was doctored to put it on his wrist.
You're a riot CK.
If the Church and the patriarch truly had nothing to hide and had a standard practice of "image doctoring" of brands, they would have plainly stated this fact from the beginning. The patriarch wouldn't have claimed the photo was doctored to put it on his wrist.
You're like a little kid who makes up all manner of ridiculous excuses ...[text shortened]... cs" if its a standard practice? Why "severely [punish]" them for a standard practice?
I don't know that they didn't. Anyway, as I said earlier, it could be that the authors of the press release were unaware of the practice.
I myself never said, either, that the Russian Orthodox Church has an explicit policy of doctoring images. I said that it was practice elsewhere.
If they had such a standard practice, why blame its photo editors for a "technical mistake"? Why call it a "“A gross violation of our internal ethics" if its a standard practice? Why "severely [punish]" them for a standard practice?
Even better. The Russian Orthodox Church made no attempt to conceal the watch at all.
10 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KWe both know that you've been advocating for post after post on the side of the Church with the idea of there being a standard practice of the "image doctoring" of brands and that that's the issue that we've been discussing.
[b]If the Church and the patriarch truly had nothing to hide and had a standard practice of "image doctoring" of brands, they would have plainly stated this fact from the beginning. The patriarch wouldn't have claimed the photo was doctored to put it on his wrist.
I don't know that they didn't. Anyway, as I said earlier, it could be that the authors Even better. The Russian Orthodox Church made no attempt to conceal the watch at all.[/b]
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWe both know that you've been advocating for post after post on the side of the Church with the idea of there being a standard practice of the "image doctoring" of brands and that that's the issue that we've been discussing.
We both know that you've been advocating for post after post on the side of the Church with the idea of there being a standard practice of the "image doctoring" of brands and that that's the issue that we've been discussing.
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
No, I didn't. I do claim that it is a practice in other churches. I have no idea about the Russian Orthodox Church but since it is practiced elsewhere, it was a plausible explanation of why this image was doctored. Evidence the authors of this press release abhor image-doctoring. I suspect that there is more hot air than truth. Nonetheless, if you read my previous posts carefully, you would see that I always spoke in guarded language about whether this is a practice in Russian Orthodoxy.