An Orthodox Crisis Over Ukraine?

1457910

Comments

  • Gee D wrote: »
    To say The United States respects the ability of Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs does not go anywhere near your assertion that the US State Dept supports the new autocephalic church, let alone make it an American project. Nor does the provision of money from sympathetic groups in the US lead to a conclusion that there is government support.

    They are not going to tell you the details of their active support are they? Would you expect them to?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I see, yes I see, that it's not there to be seen but is to be taken as an article of faith.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    I see, yes I see, that it's not there to be seen but is to be taken as an article of faith.

    Not at all - I didn't say it was a fact, I said this was the opinion of some, including myself. You CAN'T get at the facts, but if you believe politicians are incapable of lying or hiding things, then..... well that's up to you.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    That leaves a pretty small "half" from what I can see.
    I'm not sure you know what 'half' means.

    Purgatory Host - Rather than react myself, please take note of this.
    Noted.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I see, yes I see, that it's not there to be seen but is to be taken as an article of faith.

    Not at all - I didn't say it was a fact, I said this was the opinion of some, including myself. You CAN'T get at the facts, but if you believe politicians are incapable of lying or hiding things, then..... well that's up to you.

    Nothing in this

    The American State department supported it (it has been argued that the whole venture was America's "project,") envoys from the US and Canada, also the Ecumenical Patriarchate gets most of its funding from the US and Canada. Namely, this is from the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada.

    to suggest that it's opinion - it reads to me as .assertions of fact.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The American State department supported it (it has been argued that the whole venture was America's "project,") envoys from the US and Canada, also the Ecumenical Patriarchate gets most of its funding from the US and Canada. Namely, this is from the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada.
    That may work under the reasoning of the old USSR or of the PR of C now, but it's wrong, and was even then. Besides, you know that. As a statement it's a seriously misleading sleight of argument.

    You are collating 'The American State department' and 'funding from the US and Canada' as though they both mean the same thing. You know, as well as I do, that financial assistance from Orthodox communities in North America ≠ support from either the State Department or the US government, any more than financial support from the Church Missionary Society would = support from MI5.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I see, yes I see, that it's not there to be seen but is to be taken as an article of faith.

    Not at all - I didn't say it was a fact, I said this was the opinion of some, including myself. You CAN'T get at the facts, but if you believe politicians are incapable of lying or hiding things, then..... well that's up to you.

    Nothing in this

    The American State department supported it (it has been argued that the whole venture was America's "project,") envoys from the US and Canada, also the Ecumenical Patriarchate gets most of its funding from the US and Canada. Namely, this is from the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada.

    to suggest that it's opinion - it reads to me as .assertions of fact.

    Well, seeing as you've just quickly rubbished all my posts, I must conclude that you are something of an expert on the Ukraine Orthodox conflict. Obviously your knowledge is far greater than mine, so now's your chance. I 'd be very interested in your summary of what is really going on.

    So I await your words of wisdom....
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The American State department supported it (it has been argued that the whole venture was America's "project,") envoys from the US and Canada, also the Ecumenical Patriarchate gets most of its funding from the US and Canada. Namely, this is from the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada.
    That may work under the reasoning of the old USSR or of the PR of C now, but it's wrong, and was even then. Besides, you know that. As a statement it's a seriously misleading sleight of argument.

    You are collating 'The American State department' and 'funding from the US and Canada' as though they both mean the same thing. You know, as well as I do, that financial assistance from Orthodox communities in North America ≠ support from either the State Department or the US government, any more than financial support from the Church Missionary Society would = support from MI5.

    I don't think I actually said that funding for the Ukraine project was directly from the Orthodox Churches in America/Canada - I was talking about general everyday funding for the Patriarchate. When I talked about the US Department of State's support, I didn't mean they paid for it. But there are some very wealthy and influential people within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, who would have a hand in influencing politics.

    Having said that though, have you ever wondered what happened to that $15,000,000 which went missing from the account to rebuild St Nicholas Church at Ground Zero? (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I see, yes I see, that it's not there to be seen but is to be taken as an article of faith.

    Not at all - I didn't say it was a fact, I said this was the opinion of some, including myself. You CAN'T get at the facts, but if you believe politicians are incapable of lying or hiding things, then..... well that's up to you.

    Nothing in this

    The American State department supported it (it has been argued that the whole venture was America's "project,") envoys from the US and Canada, also the Ecumenical Patriarchate gets most of its funding from the US and Canada. Namely, this is from the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada.

    to suggest that it's opinion - it reads to me as .assertions of fact.

    Well, seeing as you've just quickly rubbished all my posts, I must conclude that you are something of an expert on the Ukraine Orthodox conflict. Obviously your knowledge is far greater than mine, so now's your chance. I 'd be very interested in your summary of what is really going on.

    So I await your words of wisdom....

    None of my posts could possibly lead you to the conclusion you've expressed flows from them. What I've done is call you to prove your assertions. So far, you've been unable to.
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Gee D wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I see, yes I see, that it's not there to be seen but is to be taken as an article of faith.

    Not at all - I didn't say it was a fact, I said this was the opinion of some, including myself. You CAN'T get at the facts, but if you believe politicians are incapable of lying or hiding things, then..... well that's up to you.

    Nothing in this

    The American State department supported it (it has been argued that the whole venture was America's "project,") envoys from the US and Canada, also the Ecumenical Patriarchate gets most of its funding from the US and Canada. Namely, this is from the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukranian Orthodox Church of Canada.

    to suggest that it's opinion - it reads to me as .assertions of fact.

    Well, seeing as you've just quickly rubbished all my posts, I must conclude that you are something of an expert on the Ukraine Orthodox conflict. Obviously your knowledge is far greater than mine, so now's your chance. I 'd be very interested in your summary of what is really going on.

    So I await your words of wisdom....

    None of my posts could possibly lead you to the conclusion you've expressed flows from them. What I've done is call you to prove your assertions. So far, you've been unable to.

    Well? Surely a person of your knowledge can enlighten us with something - you've added nothing useful to the topic yet.....
  • And you are still unable to prove your assertions. It's not up to GeeD, or anyone else on this thread, to do your work for you.
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    And you are still unable to prove your assertions. It's not up to GeeD, or anyone else on this thread, to do your work for you.

    As I've already said, some of my assertions are commonly held opinions, but cannot be proved. If you don't agree, then just disagree. I wasn't asking GeeD to do my work for me, I was asking him to contribute something, instead of policing everyone else's posts.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Mark Betts

    Leave Hosting to the Hosts. We will post if we believe correction is necessary. The posts which are risking corrective action are yours, for junior Hosting.

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    And you are still unable to prove your assertions. It's not up to GeeD, or anyone else on this thread, to do your work for you.

    As I've already said, some of my assertions are commonly held opinions, but cannot be proved. If you don't agree, then just disagree. I wasn't asking GeeD to do my work for me, I was asking him to contribute something, instead of policing everyone else's posts.

    That's a real move on your part, admitting that at least some of what you say cannot be proven. I have no dog in this fight, and policing is not for me. What is proper for me is to get into what you're saying, getting you to separate out opinions from assertions of fact, and then the evidence behind those assertions. (And you're the only one making the sort of assertions which need some backing, I'm not seeking clarification or referencing from others).
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Just a general post for those who want me to "prove" US meddling in the Ukraine Orthodox crisis - If you can prove to me that Vladimir Putin's cyber attacks prevented your darling Hillary Clinton from getting in the White House, then I'll give you the information you are after. I won't hold my breath....
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...See links below for your other questions - they can easily be verified:

    The United States supports the provision of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
    This looks like standard pro-liberty boilerplate to me: If they want it, we're not going to get in the way. It doesn't mean we're going to get involved in their attempts to achieve it in other respects.

    << "The United States strongly supports religious freedom, including the freedom of members of groups to govern their religion according to their beliefs and practice their faiths freely without government interference. The United States respects the ability of Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs. We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch as a voice of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue," reads the statement. >>


  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Oh, there's plenty of evidence of Russian meddling in American politics (this article provides some), but that's not what we're talking about here. You're claiming official American and Canadian support for Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly, but you're not providing anything to really support your allegations. It would be helpful if you did.

  • There was a R4 programme yesterday on the effects of Russian twitter bots adding up 3% to Trump's vote. Which may have been significant, considering how the electoral college works.

    So. Apparently you have information... do share.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    To say The United States respects the ability of Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs does not go anywhere near your assertion that the US State Dept supports the new autocephalic church, let alone make it an American project. Nor does the provision of money from sympathetic groups in the US lead to a conclusion that there is government support.

    They are not going to tell you the details of their active support are they? Would you expect them to?
    Yet, you seem to know that they are supporting, despite the lack of evidence.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    As I've already said, some of my assertions are commonly held opinions, but cannot be proved. If you don't agree, then just disagree.
    'To assert' means 'to state as fact.'
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    I wasn't asking GeeD to do my work for me, I was asking him to contribute something, instead of policing everyone else's posts.
    No, you were deflecting from the topic and from proving your assertions.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Oh, there's plenty of evidence of Russian meddling in American politics (this article provides some), but that's not what we're talking about here. You're claiming official American and Canadian support for Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly, but you're not providing anything to really support your allegations. It would be helpful if you did.

    A lot of opinions, but I don't see any evidence. Sorry
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Oh, there's plenty of evidence of Russian meddling in American politics (this article provides some), but that's not what we're talking about here. You're claiming official American and Canadian support for Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly, but you're not providing anything to really support your allegations. It would be helpful if you did.

    A lot of opinions, but I don't see any evidence. Sorry
    Pot, meet kettle.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Oh, there's plenty of evidence of Russian meddling in American politics (this article provides some), but that's not what we're talking about here. You're claiming official American and Canadian support for Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly, but you're not providing anything to really support your allegations. It would be helpful if you did.

    A lot of opinions, but I don't see any evidence. Sorry
    Pot, meet kettle.

    Precisely Kmann, That's exactly how it should be - Pot and Kettle. If Russia and her allies make an accusation against America, they are told they have to back it up with evidence. Would you not have thought that the same applied the other way? So if America and her allies accuse Russia of interfering, they too should have to back it up, isn't that right?

    Well apparently not - the Americans and the British can say whatever they like with no evidence whatsoever (remember Boris Johnson's claim about the poisoning of a spy?) It's always "Putin did it" and "it was a Kremlin sponsored act of terror" within hours of the incident and with no proof at all.

    You will probably just rubbish what I have to say as you usually do, but I expect there may be a few other people who see what I'm getting at.
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    There was a R4 programme yesterday on the effects of Russian twitter bots adding up 3% to Trump's vote. Which may have been significant, considering how the electoral college works.

    So. Apparently you have information... do share.

    Oh, not so fast young man. I will suggest that these few twitter bots were nothing to do with the Russian Government and that their tweets (probably not even in English) made such a negligible difference to the American vote that it's not even worth considering. So much for your "proof."
  • You can suggest that, but you'd be wrong. There are well-proven links between the Russian government, their intelligence services, and the asymmetric cyberwarfare conducted by bot factories (famously Fancy Bear, but there are many, many others).

    Also, Russians are quite capable of learning English, and are thus able to communicate in it. Eh, "Mark"?

    A 3% swing has been the margin of victory in many recent elections. Including Brexit. It's not much, but it's sufficient.

    So while I appreciate that any notion of blame attached to Mother Russia must be immediately rubbished, you're descending to the level of insisting of at least two trips to view the famous cathedral spire. It's not like we can't see what you're doing, and how your arguments here have even less credibility than when you started defending them.

    If you've got something to bring to the table, then do so. 7 pages in, and you've not managed it so far.
  • This entire mentality, which I encountered repeatedly when studying Russian history and living in Russia, is exactly why I have had nothing further to do with Russia or the Orthodox Church. The lack of capacity to accept their own potential for error is just too maddening and too frightening in its consequences. The church leading far right political rallies in full eucharistic vestments is just the start. And I saw that with my own eyes in St Petersburg.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    You can suggest that, but you'd be wrong. There are well-proven links between the Russian government, their intelligence services, and the asymmetric cyberwarfare conducted by bot factories (famously Fancy Bear, but there are many, many others).

    Also, Russians are quite capable of learning English, and are thus able to communicate in it. Eh, "Mark"?

    A 3% swing has been the margin of victory in many recent elections. Including Brexit. It's not much, but it's sufficient.

    So while I appreciate that any notion of blame attached to Mother Russia must be immediately rubbished, you're descending to the level of insisting of at least two trips to view the famous cathedral spire. It's not like we can't see what you're doing, and how your arguments here have even less credibility than when you started defending them.

    If you've got something to bring to the table, then do so. 7 pages in, and you've not managed it so far.

    Where did the 3% come from - supposing someone else says, "no, I disagree, I think it's more like 0.2%." See where I'm coming from? No, probably not, waste of time. Well proven? Others would disagree.

    Right, so you're saying Putin caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidency? I'm saying she caused the Presidency to be lost to the Republicans herself. If they had chosen any other candidate, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance - it's been proved, it's a fact!
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Where did the 3% come from
    From people who know their stuff and spend their lives analysing trends. If equally qualified people disagree about the level of effect, then I'll listen to them. You are not one of those people.
    Well proven? Others would disagree.
    Those with links to the Russian government would disagree. It's an uncontentious fact everywhere else.
    Right, so you're saying Putin caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidency? I'm saying she caused the Presidency to be lost to the Republicans herself. If they had chosen any other candidate, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance - it's been proved, it's a fact!

    Yours is not a proven fact, it's a counterfactual. What has been proved is massive Russian state interference in the US electoral campaign. Again, that's uncontentious.

    But to bring the spotlight back to your assertions. Do you have anything even resembling credible reporting that the UAC is being paid for by the US state department? My firm belief is no, because if you had, you would have presented it by now.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nothing has been "proven" about the result on an election involving any other candidate, nor could it be. All that can be shown is what opinion polls showed whereas what counts is the actual vote. The chance any other candidate had must really remain a matter of speculation and conjecture.
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Where did the 3% come from
    From people who know their stuff and spend their lives analysing trends. If equally qualified people disagree about the level of effect, then I'll listen to them. You are not one of those people.
    Did I say I was? The thing is, it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Well proven? Others would disagree.
    Those with links to the Russian government would disagree. It's an uncontentious fact everywhere else.
    …..and others with a less narrow viewpoint than yourself.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Right, so you're saying Putin caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidency? I'm saying she caused the Presidency to be lost to the Republicans herself. If they had chosen any other candidate, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance - it's been proved, it's a fact!

    Yours is not a proven fact, it's a counterfactual. What has been proved is massive Russian state interference in the US electoral campaign. Again, that's uncontentious.
    I wasn't serious about that being factual, but it carries about as much weight as your "proven facts" - all that's really been proven is that Hillary Clinton is a bad loser.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    But to bring the spotlight back to your assertions. Do you have anything even resembling credible reporting that the UAC is being paid for by the US state department? My firm belief is no, because if you had, you would have presented it by now.
    Why don't you read other peoples responses properly before you post? I've already told you it cannot be proven, but there are many factors that lead many to suspect it is so.

    Anyway, this has nothing much to do with the canonical problems this has brought to the Orthodox World. What can you enlighten us with concerning that?
  • Not all opinions are equal. My opinions are, as much as I'm able, based on verifiable facts and trusted sources. If those facts change, I change my mind.

    Since you're utterly unable to provide anything but pro-Russian propaganda from state-backed or 'anonymous' websites, your opinion is simply that. Baseless. You may as well be a flat-earther or an anti-vaxxer.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »


    But to bring the spotlight back to your assertions. Do you have anything even resembling credible reporting that the UAC is being paid for by the US state department? My firm belief is no, because if you had, you would have presented it by now.
    He has already long back-tracked on this. He basically conceded that he hadn't asserted that the US State Department was materially involved in the Ukrainian Church reorganization/schism, but as was pointed out, the structure of his assertions originally strongly suggested this. But they also allowed him plausible deniability when caught out. Such is the dodge and weave of his arguments.

  • “The Patriarch of Constantinople has made the greatest mistake in the history of the ecumenical throne”

    Bishop Irinej of Bačka (Serbian Orthodox Church) speaks about the Ukrainian issue in an episode of “The Archpastor” TV program.
  • "From a canonical point of view, it means that the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate no longer exists in Ukraine."

    BBC interview with Archbishop Job of Telmessos on the Ukrainian question.

    I take it you have something to discuss about your link above?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    "From a canonical point of view, it means that the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate no longer exists in Ukraine."

    BBC interview with Archbishop Job of Telmessos on the Ukrainian question.

    I take it you have something to discuss about your link above?

    Not with you I don't - I suppose you would call this Bishop a "pro-Russian propogandist." No, I don't think so. Give someone else a chance - someone who actually knows a bit about how Orthodoxy works.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Give someone else a chance - someone who actually knows a bit about how Orthodoxy works.

    Given that there are less than a handful of shipmates who can be described as knowledgeable about Orthodoxy, that's quite a difficult qualification to meet.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Give someone else a chance - someone who actually knows a bit about how Orthodoxy works.

    Given that there are less than a handful of shipmates who can be described as knowledgeable about Orthodoxy, that's quite a difficult qualification to meet.

    There's no reason why you can't compare the two links above, two Orthodox Bishops with opposing views, and speculate who might be right.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Give someone else a chance - someone who actually knows a bit about how Orthodoxy works.

    Given that there are less than a handful of shipmates who can be described as knowledgeable about Orthodoxy, that's quite a difficult qualification to meet.

    There's no reason why you can't compare the two links above, two Orthodox Bishops with opposing views, and speculate who might be right.

    So which is it - do you want speculation or do you only want comments from people knowledgeable about Orthodoxy?
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Give someone else a chance - someone who actually knows a bit about how Orthodoxy works.

    Given that there are less than a handful of shipmates who can be described as knowledgeable about Orthodoxy, that's quite a difficult qualification to meet.

    There's no reason why you can't compare the two links above, two Orthodox Bishops with opposing views, and speculate who might be right.

    So which is it - do you want speculation or do you only want comments from people knowledgeable about Orthodoxy?

    Speculation will do. Seriously, it's not up to me, I just don't want to be talking to the same person all the time with the same predictable responses.

    One thing I did notice from the said person's link is how this Bishop assumes that the Ecumenical Patriarch takes on the role of an Orthodox Pontiff - the very thing none of the other jurisdictions want to entertain. You'll note how he's of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and being interviewed by the BBC - that says a lot in itself.

    Another question to ask is - which of the two Bishops comes across as the most humble - you don't have to have much expertise in Orthodox ecclesiology to be able to answer that.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Speculation will do.
    Why am I not surprised?
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    .........Seriously, it's not up to me, I just don't want to be talking to the same person persons all the time with the same predictable responses...…….

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    .........Seriously, it's not up to me, I just don't want to be talking to the same (person) all the time with the same predictable responses...…….
    Why not? A brief survey of this thread will make it clear that the rest of us are doing exactly that.



  • I'm just sick of the smart superior condescending attitudes on here- it's impossible to have a normal conversation.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    To help me - what does talking to the BBC say a lot of? US government support for the Ukrainian Church?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Mark Betts

    It's been said more than once that discussions on the Ship cannot be the equivalent of normal conversations, in a pub, or round the table, etc. The environment is different. We are anonymous, normally not known to one another in real life (unless we've had the good fortune to meet at Shipments for example). The very existence of the 10Cs, forum guidelines and H&A moderators should be sufficient clues.

    What we have is exchanges of views and opinions, using words only, in a controlled environment. That requires some getting used to, learning the necessary cyber etiquette.

    After a while, it becomes normal for this website. But it is a different kind of normal.

    I'm trying to be helpful here, not condescending. You seem to have a blind spot about the way conversations work in this environment.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Mark Betts

    It's been said more than once that discussions on the Ship cannot be the equivalent of normal conversations, in a pub, or round the table, etc. The environment is different. We are anonymous, normally not known to one another in real life (unless we've had the good fortune to meet at Shipments for example). The very existence of the 10Cs, forum guidelines and H&A moderators should be sufficient clues.

    What we have is exchanges of views and opinions, using words only, in a controlled environment. That requires some getting used to, learning the necessary cyber etiquette.

    After a while, it becomes normal for this website. But it is a different kind of normal.

    I'm trying to be helpful here, not condescending. You seem to have a blind spot about the way conversations work in this environment.

    I appreciate this - thankyou.
  • Mark, there is no shame in looking for a more relevant or informed community than this one to pose questions that are too detailed for this one.

    I did that for an extended period whilst chasing a few things that were beyond the ken of most here.

    We are a generally informed but skewed group. If you want an extended and intelligent conversation about Russian Orthodoxy, you are probably in the wrong place. There isn't a whole lot to be gained from trying to pressurise others to discuss it when they can't or won't.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark, there is no shame in looking for a more relevant or informed community than this one to pose questions that are too detailed for this one.

    I did that for an extended period whilst chasing a few things that were beyond the ken of most here.

    We are a generally informed but skewed group. If you want an extended and intelligent conversation about Russian Orthodoxy, you are probably in the wrong place. There isn't a whole lot to be gained from trying to pressurise others to discuss it when they can't or won't.

    OK - I see your point.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Having said that though, have you ever wondered what happened to that $15,000,000 which went missing from the account to rebuild St Nicholas Church at Ground Zero? (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America)

    The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America had PriceWaterhouse Cooper conduct an investigation into the finances of that project, so if you have wondered, you could just look up the report. They've made it public.

    I have to wonder why you asked this question in this forum and in this way.

    (For anyone curious, $3.5 million was transferred from the building fund to the general fund; that's not allowed, so the money was paid back to the building fund. They found no evidence of fraud or improper payments. They did find what could, I think, be called incompetence in running the project -- change orders driving up costs, that sort of thing, and PWC made recommendations for fixing those issues.)
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    josephine wrote: »
    The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America had PriceWaterhouse Cooper conduct an investigation into the finances of that project, so if you have wondered, you could just look up the report. They've made it public. ...
    Thank you, josephine.


This discussion has been closed.