Sunday, February 22, 2009

The importance of being Archbishop Cranmer

Meet Mark Zuckerberg.

Mark who?

Cranmer could have commented today upon riots in Dublin, the erosion of free speech, the Conservative Party's plans for government, or Labour’s latest woe. He could even have turned his hand stump to the Myanmar amnesty, the ‘mother of all defections’ from the Roman Catholic Church, or the never-ending troubles of the Church of England. But instead, he wishes to report how is delighted he is to read that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, is having a little difficulty.

For Cranmer has been having a little difficulty himself - something of a Facebook faceoff.

His Grace discovered that his account had been arbitrarily suspended a few weeks ago for ‘violation of (their) terms and conditions’. They accused His Grace of ‘not being a real person’

How dare they.

How very dare they.

His Grace responded to Facebook, insisting in the strongest terms that he was most definitely a real person.

A few days later, without any request for evidence to establish His Grace’s veritable incarnation, his account was restored. But ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ had become plain old ‘Tom Cranmer’.

How utterly, inappropriately and presumptuously familiar of them.

When His Grace appealed against this unauthorised diminution, he was granted the name ‘Thomas Cranmer’. They would not restore his style or title.

His Grace would like all readers and communicants to know that Facebook now officially recognises him as a real person, and that Thomas Cranmer is his name. This ought to be sufficient for him to acquire an identity card at some point in the future.


Anonymous Gnostic said...

Mr Zuckerberg seems to be making rather a lot of claims these days. Such as claiming ownership of things that rightfully do not belong to him. Is it any wonder then that he stole Your Grace's title and refuses to relinquish it?

I think a devine lightning bolt to jolt him out of his delusions is in order...

22 February 2009 at 10:45  
Blogger Damo Mackerel said...

Your Grace, there was no riots in Dublin yesterday just a very big peaceful march.

As for facebook, I wouldn't be bothered about them.

22 February 2009 at 11:47  
Anonymous len said...

You will always be `Your Grace ` to your humble communicants.
Tom, or Thomas doesn`t quite cut it!

22 February 2009 at 12:11  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

When the estimable Mr. Zuckerberg created Facebook as a means of keeping up to date about the goings-on of his friends at Hahvahd, he did not do so with an eye to future class-action lawsuits. Give it time: I predict a big one within less than a year. And I say that as someone who is addicted to, erm, I mean likes Facebook.

22 February 2009 at 14:48  
Blogger Bryan said...

What a sad commentary on modern life when "Miss Piggy" has a page, yet a martyred Archbishop must make due without Title.

Somehow there must be an allegory hiding in here, concerning the defrocking of His Grace by Facebook.

22 February 2009 at 15:06  
Anonymous manfromthefuture said...

They wouldn't let me be Genghis Khan either. Facebook has been in the news a lot recently. My theory is that Facebook honchos are pushing to monetise it. They must be hacked off that the economic downturn prevented them from selling it for a few $1b already.
Watch out your faces are not sold to unscrupulous marketing types, anytime now.

22 February 2009 at 15:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Obama has removed Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office and returned it to the British. Given what Sir Winston had to say about Islam in his book on the Sudanese campaign, the bust will almost certainly be arrested at Heathrow and deported as a threat to public order.

Lyndon LaRouche today congratulated President Barack Obama for being the first President since the 1930s to kick a fascist out of the White House. LaRouche was referring to media reports that one of President Obama's first acts, upon being inaugurated, was to remove a bust of Winston Churchill, that had been loaned to President George W. Bush by the British government, right after the 9/11 attacks. Despite offers from the British government for the President to keep the bust, President Obama had the statue delivered promptly to the residence of the British Ambassador, where it now sits.

``I applaud the President's actions,'' LaRouche declared today. ``After all, Winston Churchill was a notorious sponsor and admirer of the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini. I heartily agree that there is no place in the White House for any icon to the pro-Fascist Churchill.''

22 February 2009 at 17:27  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

I fully empathise with His Grace. These days nobody will recognise those who, for reasons they cannot control, are not of this world.

Facebook clearly does not take account of non-temporal entities. It is a sad reflection of the times we live in.

History is linear to us, but to God there is no such limitation. It is as if all are here, now. Indeed, "now" is something we mortals must live with. You manifest yourself outwith "now" and your words and your very prognostications echo through the canyons of time and the pants of destiny.

22 February 2009 at 18:39  
Blogger Catholic Observer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 February 2009 at 19:32  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Lyndon LaRouche is one of the most imaginative anti-Semites in the world today.

22 February 2009 at 19:54  
OpenID BL@KBIRD said...

I suggest if his Grace desires a title on face book comparable to Archbishop that his Grace may apply under Mullah Cranmer. They are fearful to refuse these requests.

Ayatollah Cranmer, Emir Cranmer, Grand Mufti Cranmer, Mahdi Cranmer. Anyone of those will be respected.

22 February 2009 at 20:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another sad day in the USA.

22 February 2009 at 21:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am sorry to hear your grace that facebook does only deal with the living , it also has considerable struggle with , peados and fraudsters, but such is the way with a system of communication that can be warped so well if intended.

however if i may draw your attention to a discussion going on in the guardian ,"one gene away from disproving god" , i would prefer "one gene away from abaondoning god for the purposes of a profitable speaking assignment"

i suspect a lot of people will be interested in the debate/comments , although containing it to a 1 day blogg smacks all too much of an idealogical prod in the direction of people wishing to return to the pre emmenance of god in society.

22 February 2009 at 23:06  
Blogger Dissenter said...

Anonynous 23.06 posted

'however if i may draw your attention to a discussion going on in the guardian ,"one gene away from disproving god" '

But the every existence of irreducibly complex information bearing genes and their supporting mechanisms (Google on nucleotied excision repair for example) is inexplicable except in terms of an extrardinarily powerful intelligence.

check out Romans 1 vss 18-22.

no excuses.

23 February 2009 at 00:28  
Blogger Dissenter said...

sorry that should be nucleotide excision repair. But do check it out and see if there is any 'numerous, gradual, sucessive adaptation' way to get from zero to fully functioning.

23 February 2009 at 00:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thankyou dissenter
quite a powerful passage !!

the crux of the article seems to be being able to label a behavoir as having a genetic origin , and that the architecture of the brain leads the god idea to be belived when it is delusional .

god is the father , perhaps he gives us all a spiritual vessel , but leaves it us what to fill it or empty it with .

all i know is that god communicates and it isnt a delusion caused by subliminal background uptake and subsequent processing into what could be described as feelings .

i dont know if we have to engage with the language of science when our turning to god gives a very real and important answer.

perhaps the scientist do want it in there langauge , but we cannot comand god to prove it, but i am quite sure he will equipp someone to question it better.

perhaps my question to the scientist would be "if you can explain mystery will people be less intelligent?"

23 February 2009 at 01:37  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

I'm an amateur atronomer. Every time I look at the sky I ask myself, "Where did all this, we, come from?" While I find it hard to believe in an anthropomorphic god there has to be a power of creation at work here.

I prefer to call the power that drove the theorised Big Bang "God". Of course, there's an outside chance the universe was farted out of the backside of some primoridal, mega dimensional quantum goblin. But then I ask myself, who created the goblin?

23 February 2009 at 09:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

23 February 2009 at 10:37  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

If that was aimed at me then I have to tell you, wrong name and wrong sex.

23 February 2009 at 11:22  
Blogger Alfred the Ordinary said...

Hmmm, Guido Fawkes and Blackn-Golden Calf are OK, but not Archbishop Cranmer. Interesting. Does that mean I'll have to revert my entry to Baron Münchhausen again?

23 February 2009 at 16:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older