No - I don't want to get into PM'ing you about it - but I think that if you express strong views (as if they are facts), which subsequently raise questions, you could answer them. PS. I asked some in post no 48.
This post did not seem worth bothering with, but since you have asked specially ... First, I say things as I see them, just like everybody else does. If you want to disagree with anything I have said, you are perfectly welcome to, obviously, whether it is a fact or an argument. Do you want me to attach a disclaimer to every post - "I might be wrong, other views are available"? I will if you will! Exclusive: most clubs, societies, charities, political parties, religions, etc freely let people apply to join. Even the more expensive and rarefied golf clubs freely let you apply, although you might have to wait years and pay a fortune before you can actually join. The FMs do not have application forms; you must be invited by an existing member or you cannot join. That is highly exclusive by any standards. Transparency: The FMs have been known for their secrecy and lack of transparency so much for so long they have carried out some PR exercises in recent years designed to deflect criticism. They have revealed the bare minimum for that purpose (such as allowing cameras into one hall for one meeting), whilst keeping everything important as secret as ever. That is a lack of transparency. Material about them has appeared in books and on the internet, as it has about the Scientologists and other secretive groups - that fact does make them any less secretive, it just means their secrecy has become less effective. Self-perpetuating: New members are introduced only by old members; there is no possible independent source of new members who might disagree with the old ones. That is what self-perpetuating means, and no, any organisation thinking of the future will not be self-perpetuating - on the contrary it will be open to new blood. Clandestine: it means secretive, not open to the public, not publishing information of any importance. For example, the times, places, attendees and agendas of FM meetings are not published, or revealed to enquirers. See Transparency above.
The Oxford English Dictionary is available at most bookshops and may even be available online.......... Please contact.......The Ducati Forum and ask for Pete.:wink:
pomp·ous /ˈpämpəs/ Adjective Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important: "a pompous ass". Characterized by pomp or splendor: "there were many processions and other pompous shows". Synonyms stilted - bombastic - grandiose - turgid
I still don't Pete. I don't look up words I'll never use , lets just say i'm blissfully ignorant and happy to remain so. :smile:
Well ,unless one of the masons present actually opens up and gives us a proper insight to what the masons are all about (and so far they've told us absolutely nothing), I can only agree with Pete.
Mason and proud to be so.........I cannot believe the amount of utter bo**ocks that some people spout about things they cannot be arsed to research properly
I still fail to see any issue with the Freemasons, most of the criticism of them that has been leveled here can be applied to almost any other "club". Almost all are self serving, isn't that the point? No one would join a trade union if it wasn't self serving. Many have rules that new members must be nominated by existing members; Royal Automobile Club, VSCC, BRDC, Royal Society, RGS. All have some level of exclusivity, I don't think there are many non surgeons in the RCS. The BMA don't generally allow filming of their meetings. And my last post wasn't a syllogism. I was trying to say that conclusions that had been drawn seemed as laughable to me as "Confession of an Alien Abductee"
