Primary School Patronage - trouble ahead

robindch

Ah, this is the story I was looking for:

Italian teacher's descriptions of hell are so grotesque that some kids are reduced to tears. Parents complain. The headmaster suspends the teacher. The teacher complains to the Vatican. Ratzinger congratulates her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073104/Teacher-suspended-apocalyptic-lesson-good-evil-left-children-tears-wins-backing-Pope.html

Rabidlamb

There needs to some sense applied here.
I was raised a staunch Catholic by god fearing parents as they were by their parents before them.
When I got to about 14 the penny dropped I realised the brain washed nonsense for what it is.
I have 2 kids, neither baptized, that are starting in the local Catholic school.
They will listen to the same garbage I was fed but Mammy & Daddy will set them straight & explain why some people need to believe imaginary nonsense.

I'm already planning for Free Money Day BBQ Celebration when the other kids are having their communion.

On another point we had no problem getting them enrolled, secret policy (sssh don't tell anyone) is they take the oldest kids first, god botherers kids don't jump the queue anymore.

eviltwin

Easy way to do this is remove all religion from schools full stop.

Really its not up to the school to teach your child religion...if as a parent it means that much to do then stop expecting the education system to do your job and do it yourself.

Extra classes for communion etc should be done in the church after school or at weekends.

Lets leave school for real education not fairy tales.

Dyr

Religion has no place in schools

Neither does multiculturalism or liberalism or greenism or whatever other ism is popular these days

Brain washing is brain washing. F**k off out of it

I Heart Internet

Seachmall wrote: »

Not to speak for EGAR but I'd imagine it's the absolutist statements that might keep them up at night are the ones she feels are best avoided.

Have you informed your Children if they don't worship Allah they'll end up in Jahannam?

No? Then you understand EGAR's predicament.

If you'd care to go back to my first response to EGAR you will see that I expressed sadness at her dissatisfaction with how her child was being treated, more particularly, how EGAR's wishes for her child were not being met. I said that it appeared to be very bad practice on the side of the school. I do, I think, understand why EGAR is not happy. My response wasn't well received though.

No, I haven't explained that to my kids. In the (unlikely, admittedly) event that they went to a Muslim primary school i would expect (like EGAR - but EGAR's expectations have not been met here) that they would not be thought the Muslim religion as an article of faith. They may well pick up the idea of Allah and Jahannam from their friends or stuff in the classroom. I'd have no trouble telling them how this relates to the catholic faith - Allah and God being broadly the same concept and Jahannam being more or less equivalent to hell.

EGAR

Ah now, IHI, running out of arguments and accusing me of lying? It went to the priest, after all he thanked us nicely afterwards . There was no raffle or else I would have mentioned it. The raffle is still coming, next week in school. And I will certainly not buy tickets for it as this money too will go to the priest.

My son will learn about ALL religions when he old enough. And then he can make up his own mind about religion as a whole, ALL religions.

Why would he ask me about the rabbit? He knows its dead and buried and he also knows what's on his plate for dinner and where it comes from. Sometimes things can be very simple, really. I leave the fairy tales for reading time in the evening.

As to the health visitor being a nun is *immaterial* as you called it... Ahem..

Hi EGAR. I am still waiting for your explanation of how I am "ramming" my beliefs "down your child's throat". You might please furnish me with an answer.

You might, just about, as I have explained this before but here we go again in detail, just for you: *Your belief that all is well in Irish schools and that RC should be taught and continue to be taught to the pupils. Your patronising attitude towards those who hold a different opinion, your apparent adoration of Ratzinger who is not just a homophobic old man but also claims that condoms have no place in African life in particular where AIDS is rampant. Ah well, your God will provide for all those orphans who lost their parents to AIDS.*

I will not partake any religion but I find RC especially rigid and since it is trying to influence the lives of many children including my own I am taking umbrage to it. And as I said before, I am not bashing you or your children with my non-beliefs so kindly extent the same courtesy to my family .

Seachmall

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If you'd care to go back to my first response to EGAR you will see that I expressed sadness at her dissatisfaction with how her child was being treated, more particularly, how how wishes for her child were not being met. I said that it appeared to be very bad practice on the side of the school. I do, I think understand why EGAR is not happy. My response wasn't well received though.

Perhaps, but your response seemed quite sarcastic.

Is it all viewpoints different to your own you don't want him exposed to our just the Catholic one?

I don't think EGAR's frustration came from her child knowing the beliefs of Catholics but the fact the child was told this as if it were true.

That may be Catholic teaching but telling a child that if they don't worship God they will be punished in hell is blatant intimidation, bullying and is absolutely disgusting.

Anyone who engages in it should not be around children, let alone be teaching them.

I'm not sure if you disagree with me here but your initial response implied you did.

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

Ah now, IHI, running out of arguments and accusing me of lying? It went to the priest, after all he thanked us nicely afterwards . There was no raffle or else I would have mentioned it. The raffle is still coming, next week in school.

I beg your pardon. I saw "enter" and my mind said raffle for some reason. I think it's very irregular (stupid even) to give the proceeds of a concert to the local priest for his own personal use. If you say that, that is what happened then I believe you.

EGAR wrote: »

The raffle is still coming, next week in school. And I will certainly not buy tickets for it as this money too will go to the priest.

I wouldn't expect you to if the money goes to the priest or the parish. You say it "goes to the priest". I respect this but also respectively submit that you may be mistaken and that it may be going to the parish and that the priest is accepting it on behalf of the parish.

EGAR wrote: »

My son will learn about ALL religions when he old enough. And then he can make up his own mind about religion as a whole, ALL religions.

Great. I think it's better to teach childrens about all religions and their own when they are quite young. Kids like different cultures and beliefs as much as they like different languages.

EGAR wrote: »

Why would he ask me about the rabbit? He knows its dead and buried and he also knows what's on his plate for dinner and where it comes from. Sometimes things can be very simple, really. I leave the fairy tales for reading time in the evening.

Most kids are curious, even scared, about what happens to people and animals after they die. Cavemen asked each other what happened to their buddies after they died. I'm sure your child is bright and inquisitive. I'd be surprised if, even in a complete vacumn of religious knowledge (if that were possible) such a child might do as all people do and wonder what happens after we die. That is why he might ask you about the rabbit.

EGAR wrote: »

As to the health visitor being a nun is *immaterial* as you called it... Ahem..

Ahem.. is not a coherent argument. You were right to report her if she was unprofessional. But the very fact that she happened to be a women who had professed reliogious vows and (perhaps...I'm guessing here) lives in community with similar women is not a reasonable argument against allowing her to carry out nursing duties for which she is no doubt qualified (I have to assume she is qualified here, of course, many nuns are nurses and I doubt even the HSE would employ a nurse who isn't a qualified nurse!).

EGAR wrote: »

You might, just about, as I have explained this before but here we go again in detail, just for you: *Your belief that all is well in Irish schools

I never said that. Please tell me where I said that.

EGAR wrote: »

and that RC should be taught and continue to be taught to the pupils. Your patronising attitude towards those who hold a different opinion,

I beg your pardon? Please, show me precisely where I have been patronising to you or anyone else on this thread? Please, I insist.

EGAR wrote: »

your apparent adoration of Ratzinger who is not just a homophobic old man but also claims that condoms have no place in African life in particular where AIDS is rampant. Ah well, your God will provide for all those orphans who lost their parents to AIDS.

Think I quoted him once. I then defended him against your slurs. That is the extent of his presence in this thread. You seem to fear/hate/resent him far more than I adore him. I don't think that counts as adoration. I don't adore people....well, perhaps my wife.

EGAR wrote: »

I will not partake any religion but I find RC especially rigid and since it is trying to influence the lives of many children including my own I am taking umbrage to it.

Fine

EGAR wrote: »

And as I said before, I am not bashing you or your children with my non-beliefs so kindly extent the same courtesy to my family .

None of the above explains why you claimed that I was "ramming" my beliefs down your childs throat. You must also please explain how I am "bashing you and your children" with my beliefs.
It is grossly unfair that you continue to make those comments (ramming my beliefs down your childs throat and bashing you and your children with my beliefs) without giving a shred of evidence to support them.

I Heart Internet

Seachmall wrote: »

Perhaps, but your response seemed quite sarcastic.

It wasn't - at all. Apologies if it seemed that way. It wasn't meant to.

Seachmall wrote: »

That may be Catholic teaching but telling a child that if they don't worship God they will be punished in hell is blatant intimidation, bullying and is absolutely disgusting.

Anyone who engages in it should not be around children, let alone be teaching them.

I'm not sure if you disagree with me here but your initial response implied you did.

What you describe seems to be a 1950s style hell and damnation sermon. Of course i agree that intimidating and bullying children is wrong.

I disagree entirely however that explaining heaven and hell to a child is remotely troublesome.

Benny_Cake

EGAR wrote: »

The local Parish priest refuses to baptise children born out of wedlock, so unmarried parents have to travel to the next parish to have their children baptised.

This is absolutely not on - a priest has no right to refuse to baptise a child because of the marital status of the parents.Provided that at least one of the parents is Catholic,and that they make some sort of commitment to bring the child up as a Catholic,then there should be no problem.The priest is letting his own prejudices get the better of him there.

Seachmall

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What you describe seems to be a 1950s style hell and damnation sermon. Of course i agree that intimidating and bullying children is wrong.

I disagree entirely however that explaining heaven and hell to a child is remotely troublesome.

The details of heaven or hell are irrelevant to my point.

Telling a child to believe in something or be punished is wrong.

You may believe God exists and thus it seems as if you are simply informing the child of a fact but you are (inadvertently) coercing them into a believe system they cannot fully comprehend through intimidation.

This is not how we should teach children anything.

By all means teach your children about God as you see fit but if you would use scare tactics, regardless of your intention, I would consider you a bad parent.

Benny_Cake

Seachmall wrote: »

The details of heaven or hell are irrelevant to my point.

Telling a child to believe in something or be punished is wrong.

You may believe God exists and thus it seems as if you are simply informing the child of a fact but you are (inadvertently) coercing them into a believe system they cannot fully comprehend through intimidation.

This is not how we should teach children anything.

By all means teach your children about God as you see fit but if you would use scare tactics, regardless of your intention, I would consider you a bad parent.

When I was growing up, hell was explained as "the place where bad people go".Rather simplistic version of an issue which has a lot of different Christian perspectives on it,and I don't see how it does the child a lot of good to be holding out hell as their destination if they are "bad" (to a child,a bad person could be someone who doesn't do their homework,robs a sweet at a pick-n-mix etc!).It is a lot better to show that good behaviour is in itself it's own reward and leave the hell issue until they are a lot older.

Dan133269

I hate Internet, in fairness to you, you seem much more patient and tolerant than most true Christians I've met. When I say true Christians, I mean those who actually believe in the teachings and are not just a la carte Christians.
However, you really have a fundamental difficulty in grasping the points that are being put to you.

I haven't read the last few pages but as far as I can see, this thread can be summarised as follows:

- I Hate Internet: I want to send my child to a Catholic school which is my right as a parent. How do the rest of you feel.

- Others: It's unfair that other people's taxes should fund the religious indoctrination of your child

- I Hate Internet: But it's my choice as a parent to chose where to send my child

- Others: What about those that don't have a choice, non-believers for example, where can they send their child to?

- IHI: Well, if there aren't enough Educate Together schools, that's not my problem is it. I'm happy with the current system because I get to send my child to a Catholic school. If you don't have an Educate Together school near you, just send your child to one of those wonderful Catholic schools.

- Others: But then my child will be indoctrinated in a religion in which I don't want them to be indoctrinated. We have a constitutional right to exempt our children from religious instruction in denominational schools, but in practice, that right is often ignored.

- IHI: But I'm happy sending my Catholic child to a Catholic school where Christian values are enforced.

- Others: What values are they?

- IHI: Oh that God loves us all and he made us all, then he sent down his son to save us all, and when we die we'll all be happy with him in paradise.

- Others: A child can learn the story of a religion in an Educate Together school without being told that hell is real, or you must live your life a certain way. A lot of people have no option but to send their child to a Catholic school where they are not excused from prayers and others religious instruction.

- IHI: Well, the Catholic schools are fantastic. All you have to do is say it to them and your child won't be indoctrinated, if that's what you want.

- Others: Here are several authentic examples of when they parents wishes for their children not to be indoctrinated by a denominational school have been wilfully disregarded by the school and the parents have been lied to concerning the religious instruction of their children.

- IHI: I see................ well Catholic schools are great. And if you don't want your child indoctrinated, all you have to do is say.

- Others: Ehhhhh, they don't carry out your wishes even if you ask them.

- IHI: Well I'm happy for my child to go to a Catholic school, and I think public taxes should continue to pay for that because I get what I want.

I Heart Internet

Benny_Cake wrote: »

This is absolutely not on - a priest has no right to refuse to baptise a child because of the marital status of the parents.Provided that at least one of the parents is Catholic,and that they make some sort of commitment to bring the child up as a Catholic,then there should be no problem.The priest is letting his own prejudices get the better of him there.

Earlier I said that I disagrred strongly with this decision by a priest but felt it was his right to refuse. It is his right to refuse (since he will be the one actually doign the thing) but the above is very true and I agree that any cathloic can present a child for baptism. The last line sums it up I think. I'd advise writing to his bishop tbh.

EGAR

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I beg your pardon. I saw "enter" and my mind said raffle for some reason. I think it's very irregular (stupid even) to give the proceeds of a concert to the local priest for his own personal use. If you say that, that is what happened then I believe you.

Quick turnaround on that one then, IHI

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I wouldn't expect you to if the money goes to the priest or the parish. You say it "goes to the priest". I respect this but also respectively submit that you may be mistaken and that it may be going to the parish and that the priest is accepting it on behalf of the parish.

No, with last years proceeds he bought a lawnmower and thanked peeps for it in the parish newsletter.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Great. I think it's better to teach childrens about all religions and their own when they are quite young. Kids like different cultures and beliefs as much as they like different languages.

When they are quite YOUNG? I would have thought when they are old enough to understand the implications of ones faith would be better suitable?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Most kids are curious, even scared, about what happens to people and animals after they die. Cavemen asked each other what happened to their buddies after they died. I'm sure your child is bright and inquisitive. I'd be surprised if, even in a complete vacumn of religious knowledge (if that were possible) such a child might do as all people do and wonder what happens after we die. That is why he might ask you about the rabbit.

CAVEMEN asked each other..? I presume you were there to overhear the conversation? The rabbit died 6 months ago - he would have had plenty of time to ask but since we did not make a big song and dance about it and allowed him to grief for the loss and participate in the funeral of Mr. Bunny, he obviously did not feel the need to ask :rolleyes:. And your veiled implications about my son's intelligence are, well let's say..... I am sure, your are too.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Ahem.. is not a coherent argument. You were right to report her if she was unprofessional. But the very fact that she happened to be a women who had professed reliogious vows and (perhaps...I'm guessing here) lives in community with similar women is not a reasonable argument against allowing her to carry out nursing duties for which she is no doubt qualified (I have to assume she is qualified here, of course, many nuns are nurses and I doubt even the HSE would employ a nurse who isn't a qualified nurse!)

Is it not? The very fact that she is a nun who kept going on about the need of my child to be baptised to *become a member of the community* kind of gave the game away :rolleyes:.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I never said that. Please tell me where I said that.I beg your pardon? Please, show me precisely where I have been patronising to you or anyone else on this thread? Please, I insist.

I insist that you read the whole thread again.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Think I quoted him once. I then defended him against your slurs. That is the extent of his presence in this thread. You seem to fear/hate/resent him far more than I adore him. I don't think that counts as adoration. I don't adore people....well, perhaps my wife.

SLURS?? I quoted the man. And I was being kind as I didn't even quote his remarks about homosexuality such as "although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.". Nor did I mention his membership in the Hitler Youth.

I do not fear or resent him, I am just amazed how supposedly intelligent people can accept that he speaks the truth and nothing but the truth.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

None of the above explains why you claimed that I was "ramming" my beliefs down your childs throat. You must also please explain how I am "bashing you and your children" with my beliefs.
It is grossly unfair that you continue to make those comments (ramming my beliefs down your childs throat and bashing you and your children with my beliefs) without giving a shred of evidence to support them.

It is not my fault that you do not or cannot understand my explanation given in several posts made by me.

I Heart Internet

Dan133269 wrote: »

I hate Internet, in fairness to you, you seem much more patient and tolerant than most true Christians I've met. When I say true Christians, I mean those who actually believe in the teachings and are not just a la carte Christians.

Thanks......................I think. I'm not sure this is as benevolent a comment as you think it might be :rolleyes: Most people are patient and tolerant I find.

Dan133269 wrote: »

However, you really have a fundamental difficulty in grasping the points that are being put to you.

I think I have a fundamental disagreement with SOME of the points being put to me. I hope I'm grasping them fairly well.

Dan133269 wrote: »

I haven't read the last few pages but as far as I can see, this thread can be summarised as follows:

I'll be very honest and tell you I don't have the energy or enthusiasm to go through all of your points (you've clearly spend a lot of time reading, thinking about and summarisming your take on the previous 15 pages) and comment or tell you whether I think they are right or wrong.

I will just repost what I said a few pages back as I think it best sums up the thrust of my input here:

The fact that some people's preference is not met by the current primary schools in their areas is clearly a problem which the Minister is trying to resolve. Best of luck to him. I will point out again though (the original point of my thread), that I forsee difficulties where school communities (teachers, pupils, parents) are asked to change patronage and ethos where a significant number, or a majority do not want such a change.

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

Quick turnaround on that one then, IHI

Yes. I always admit when I am in the wrong. You never mentioned raffle at all.

EGAR wrote: »

No, with last years proceeds he bought a lawnmower and thanked peeps for it in the parish newsletter.

That's bizarre really. I'd tell him or his bishop it's not really appropriate to be honest. It would be better to give funds like that to people who need it for bare essentials - not a lawnmower. You should complain about it. Or boycott these things altogether.

EGAR wrote: »

When they are quite YOUNG? I would have thought when they are old enough to understand the implications of ones faith would be better suitable?

No - I said what I meant.

EGAR wrote: »

CAVEMEN asked each other..? I presume you were there to overhear the conversation? The rabbit died 6 months ago - he would have had plenty of time to ask but since we did not make a big song and dance about it and allowed him to grief for the loss and participate in the funeral of Mr. Bunny, he obviously did not feel the need to ask :rolleyes:.

No. I wasn't there. My casual viewing of Time Team down the years and (limited) knowledge of stone age and bronze age archaeology has informed me that our ancestors did struggle with and think about their own mortality. That's not too controversial a statement I'd say.

EGAR wrote: »

And your veiled implications about my son's intelligence are, well let's say..... I am sure, your are too.

No. There was nothing veiled in what I said. You seem to think I don't mean what I am saying/writing. Why is that? I bear no ill-will or malice against you or your son. I really don't appreciate the conclusions you are jumping to. Can we not just have a polite conversation?

EGAR wrote: »

Is it not? The very fact that she is a nun who kept going on about the need of my child to be baptised to *become a member of the community* kind of gave the game away :rolleyes:.

You are conflating the two things again. As I said:

The very fact that she is a nun

is NOT wrong/bad

who kept going on about the need of my child to be baptised to *become a member of the community*

is bad (as I've said twice now).

EGAR wrote: »

I insist that you read the whole thread again.

I have. And I fail to see where I have patronised you or anyone else on her. Please just copy and past any evidence you have that I did - or withdraw the remark. I also fail to see where I said that "all is well in Irish schools". Please show me?

EGAR wrote: »

SLURS?? I quoted the man. And I was being kind as I didn't even quote his remarks about homosexuality such as "although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.". Nor did I mention his membership in the Hitler Youth.

I do not fear or resent him, I am just amazed how supposedly intelligent people can accept that he speaks the truth and nothing but the truth.

You said he was homophobic. He is not (in my view). The fact that he was a member of teh Hitler Youth is trotted out again and again by some who should know better. If you like, i will explain how this was forced upon him and his efforts to extract himself from that position and carry on with his studies. By criticising him for it you are criticising a whole generation of german pensioners who also had no other choice. You will find that he has consistently and definetly condemned the evil of that particular period of german history and has some interesting commentary on its causes.

EGAR wrote: »

It is not my fault that you do not or cannot understand my explanation given in several posts made by me.

You only attempted to justify your comments (that I was ramming my beliefs down your childs throat and that I was bashing you and your family with my beliefs) once. My critique was that you didn't address the issue at all in that single attempt.

Please explain how I, I Heart Internet, have now or in the past "rammed my beliefs down your childs throat" or "bashed you or your family" with my beliefs. If you cannot, please have the good grace to withdraw those particular remarks.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The fact that he was a member of teh Hitler Youth is trotted out again and again by some who should know better. If you like, i will explain how this was forced upon him and his efforts to extract himself from that position and carry on with his studies.

I suggest you read his book "Salt of the Earth" in which he discusses, unfortunately very briefly, his time as a teenager in Hitler's Germany.

It's been perhaps 8 years years since I read it, but I don't recall him being all that sorry about his activities during the war, his membership of the Hitler Youth, nor his taking up weapons in defense of the Nazi regime (when he manned an anti-aircraft battery protecting, AFAIR, a BMW factory).

Do read it. You might find that it's not quite what you expect.

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

I suggest you read his book "Salt of the Earth" in which he discusses, unfortunately very briefly, his time as a teenager in Hitler's Germany.

It's been perhaps 8 years years since I read it, but I don't recall him being all that sorry about his activities during the war, his membership of the Hitler Youth, nor his taking up weapons in defense of the Nazi regime (when he manned an anti-aircraft battery protecting, AFAIR, a BMW factory).

Do read it. You might find that it's not quite what you expect.

I will, hopefully. I haven't yet.

EGAR

Would I be correct, IHI, if I say that you have no children?

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

Would I be correct, IHI, if I say that you have no children?

You would. I don't have any children yet.

You might please do me the courtesy of answering my questions above. I don't appreciate your insulting comments about my behaviour.

Please put on record how I have, as you continue to claim:

1. Patronised you or anyone else on this board

2. Rammed my beliefs, or tried to ram my beliefs down your child's throat or anyone elses throat

3. Bashed you or your family with my beliefs.

Your discourtesy to me is unwarrented when I have been polite to you and everyone else on here.

We may have disagreements but I will continue to be polite even if you will not.

EGAR

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You would. I don't have any children yet.

You might please do me the courtesy of answering my questions above. I don't appreciate your insulting comments about my behaviour.

Please put on record how I have, as you continue to claim:

1. Patronised you or anyone else on this board

2. Rammed my beliefs, or tried to ram my beliefs down your child's throat or anyone elses throat

3. Bashed you or your family with my beliefs.

Your discourtesy to me is unwarrented when I have been polite to you and everyone else on here.

We may have disagreements but I will continue to be polite even if you will not.

Ah look it, I have posted in detail the answers to all the above. And I am kicking myself that I did not ask the question re you not having children earlier, because if I had then I would have understood how little you actually know about being a parent and what it entails to bring up a child. So come back when you are actually a parent.

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

Ah look it, I have posted in detail the answers to all the above.

You haven't EGAR. That is an outright lie. You are misleading readers of this thread. You have not answered my direct, simple questions. you have not provided a shred of evidence as to how I have:

1. Patronised you or anyone else on this thread
2. Rammed my beliefs down your child or anyone elses throat
3. Bashed you and your family with my beliefs.

AGAIN I ask you to provide this evidence or withdraw these statements. Will you do me the courtesy of doing one or the other??

EGAR wrote: »

And I am kicking myself that I did not ask the question re you not having children earlier, because if I had then I would have understood how little you actually know about being a parent and what it entails to bring up a child. So come back when you are actually a parent.

No way. You can't get out of this debate that easily. Do not use the fact that you have a child and I do not to attempt to claim that I am not entitled to an opinion about education in our society and especially the kind of education I wish for my own future kids.

Answer my questions, stop accusing me of saying things I did not and don't try and conveniently dismiss my views based on your own preconceptions.

I Heart Internet

I'm still waiting for your responses, EGAR, to my request for clarifications above.

You've said some pretty distasteful stuff about me on this public forum so I must insist you back them up or withdraw them.

I was accused earlier of avoiding difficult question (not by you though) so I'm going to ask you to do as I did and tackle them.