I have issued a new authentic interpretation of Rule 1, which is as follows:
UPDATE: Commenters whose interaction on the blog consists principally of discussions of the same subject over and over (e.g., the writings of John Dominic Crossan, whether the pope is the pope, or the evils of Vatican II, the current rite of Mass, or a particular political figure or party--or any other single subject) are being rude. Conversation involves an ability to talk about more than one thing, not an obsessive harping on one subject. Say your piece and move on, per Rule 2.
Individuals who continue in violation of Rule 1 as authentically interpreted by me--the legislator--will be disinvited to participate in the blog or banned, per Rule 5.
No more riding hobby horses. May I suggest riding real ones instead?
We need you in Rome, Jimmy!
Posted by: SDG | October 23, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Trolls pay attention that is the sound of Glamdring rattling.
Posted by: Inocencio | October 23, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Does that mean I can't talk about hobby horses? I'll chalk this up to post-traumatic stress disorder.
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | October 23, 2006 at 11:49 AM
I think with all this seriousness lately, we need a photo-caption post.
Posted by: John E | October 23, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Well, hobby horses were historically condemned by the Church, but after V2, when See of Peter became vacant, hobby horses became more prevalent, and the Church has subsequently refused to condemn the heresy of hobby horse-ism, forcing anti hobby horse-ites to withdraw into their own communities. The Church needs a hobby horse cleasing I say!
Posted by: Tim Brandenburg | October 23, 2006 at 12:10 PM
That last post was a joke, in case it was unclear from the context.
Posted by: Tim Brandenburg | October 23, 2006 at 12:11 PM
This discussion fails to address whether hobby horses should be allowed into the sanctuary when the Mass is said in Latin, or whether they can even be blessed on the Feast of St. Francis.
Posted by: Marty | October 23, 2006 at 01:49 PM
Since hobby horses are traditionally made out of wood, they should be blessed on the Solemnity of St. Joseph.
Posted by: bill912 | October 23, 2006 at 01:52 PM
If a hobby horse looses it's yarn tail, will it get it back in heaven? And don't try to tell me they don't have souls!
Posted by: Rob in Maine | October 23, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Rob, they don't have soles, but they probably have shoes.
Posted by: Mary Kay | October 23, 2006 at 01:59 PM
Just pin it back on, Rob...No, wait; that's donkeys. Never mind.
Posted by: bill912 | October 23, 2006 at 02:01 PM
Hey, does that mean the people who often mention the Lord of the Rings are banned too?
If so, then farewell, my friends! ;-(
Posted by: David B. | October 23, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Knowing there would be humorous responses to this post, I dared to view the comments. Needless to say, I was not dissapointed. Thanks for adding lightness to the day.
Reminds me of a Jimmy Buffett quote--"If we weren't all crazy we'd go insane"
Posted by: Kris | October 23, 2006 at 02:24 PM
No, no, David B. It's *hobby horses* you can't ride around here. Jimmy said nothing about not riding eagles.
Posted by: bill912 | October 23, 2006 at 02:24 PM
So... John Dominic Crossan is officially ejected, along with the (hobby)horse he rode in on.
Posted by: John | October 23, 2006 at 02:30 PM
What about Holly Hobby?
What about the Horse of a Different Color?
Posted by: Margaret | October 23, 2006 at 02:38 PM
Bill,
Phew! I was worried that Jimmy would next ban wizards.
Posted by: David B. | October 23, 2006 at 02:45 PM
"This discussion fails to address whether hobby horses should be allowed into the sanctuary when the Mass is said in Latin, or whether they can even be blessed on the Feast of St. Francis."
Actually, there was an old movie called "The Small Miracle". It is about an orphan boy named Peppino who lives in Assisi and who seeks permission from the pope to allow his ailing donkey (Violetta) into the crypt of Saint Francis in the hopes of curing him. What's amazing is that this was one of few films allowed to be shot in the Vatican.
Posted by: Esau | October 23, 2006 at 02:53 PM
"Hey, does that mean the people who often mention the Lord of the Rings are banned too?"
Isn't Brego a hobby horse??? (only kiddin'!)
Posted by: Esau | October 23, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Does that mean no more mention of H.P. Lovecraft?
Posted by: Brian Day | October 23, 2006 at 02:57 PM
And no more Battle Stars? Darn and I was about to tape the most recent episode.
Does lumping together the 25 contemporary historic Jesus scholars count as "hobby horses?
And I do like the "say your piece and move on" rule although that typically gets you a "troll label".
Posted by: Realist | October 23, 2006 at 03:47 PM
bill912,
I think our friend (wink, wink) is back!
Any suggestions???
Posted by: Esau | October 23, 2006 at 03:52 PM
"Any suggestions?"
They shoot horses, don't they?
Posted by: bill912 | October 23, 2006 at 04:05 PM
He just hasn't tired of riding his hobby horse yet. Jimmy is nothing if not patient but the writing is on the wall.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | October 23, 2006 at 04:09 PM
"He just hasn't tired of riding his hobby horse yet. Jimmy is nothing if not patient but the writing is on the wall."
-- Seems more like a 'mule' than a horse!
(apologies, I couldn't resist!)
God Bless All!
Posted by: Esau | October 23, 2006 at 04:20 PM
I have no intention of violating the rules, so if it becomes that case that I do, please let me know privately, so that I can immediately correct the situation.
Posted by: Puzzled | October 23, 2006 at 04:58 PM
I see "hobby horsing" the Realist continues. "Mule on" brothers!!!! I am going to follow the "say your piece and move on" rule. Let us see how well the "orthodoxers" do with the same rule.
Posted by: Realist | October 23, 2006 at 04:59 PM
HAH! There you Catholics go again! Pulling all of these false doctrines out of the Holy Book of Da Rulz that are clearly not written!
Posted by: Bierce | October 23, 2006 at 05:13 PM
Bierce,
Heh. You didn't go and actually read Da Rulz, did ya?
Clearly it is written!
Posted by: Brian Day | October 23, 2006 at 05:26 PM
Please note the "principally" in the rule. If you talk about Lovecraft AND Tolkien AND Battlestar Galactica -- you are not talking principally about any ONE thing.
Posted by: Mary | October 23, 2006 at 07:34 PM
Does this mean that we're back to beating a rocking horse?
Posted by: Mary Kay | October 23, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Does this mean I have to stop quoting Spock ("Logic is little bird chirping in meadow") and Chekov ("And I am the Czar of all the Russians!)?
Posted by: bill912 | October 23, 2006 at 09:37 PM
"Does lumping together the 25 contemporary historic Jesus scholars count as "hobby horses?"
It should.
For the sake of simplicity, and for those new to JA.O, here is a short synopsis of Realist's comments on just about any subject;
1) The Bible is nothing more a collection of "faith stories" with no basis in historical fact. He knows this because the Jesus Seminar says so, and they are infallible in matters of doctrine.
2) The *Official Version* of Church history is a lie made up by the hierarchy so that they can continue scamming all of us.
3) Miracles - that is supernatural events of any kind - are impossible because in reality, nothing exists outside of nature. This means we have to re-think our idea of "God".
3) "Catholic" is a word with no fixed meaning... this means that all Catholics are equal, especially dissidents. There is, of course, no absolute Truth, but the *Official Catholic Version* of anything is ESPECIALLY rejected.
None the less, Realist assures us that he REALLY IS a Catholic, which is like me insisting that I am REALLY a committed Communist, even though I think communism gets everything wrong and that Karl Marx never existed, but was an invention of Joseph Stalin.
Did I leave out anything? Wild dogs? Ancient astronauts?
Posted by: Tim J. | October 24, 2006 at 07:13 AM
Tim J: The only thing you left out was the song.
Jesus isn't God-so-He-doesn't-really-know-me-well-enough to love me,
This I know,
For John Crossan tells me so.
Posted by: Jared Weber | October 24, 2006 at 08:31 AM
Do we actually have to read DA RULZ, or can we follow the spirit of DA RULZ REVISED, aka DA RULZ II?
Posted by: hippo354 | October 24, 2006 at 01:23 PM