Mastermason.com Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > PHA > Prince Hall Affiliated
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - We are not all brothers
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

We are not all brothers

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: We are not all brothers
    Posted: March/20/2013 at 1:59am
We are not all brothers

An introduction to Clandestine Freemasonry

Presentation by Antoine Lilly, MPS

I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
NobleShabba View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March/11/2012
Location: MD
Status: Offline
Points: 809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NobleShabba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2013 at 7:41am
A very informative piece, although I have some issues with a few words chosen to explain or describe the matter (wikipedia rules).
 
PS:  I would advise those of enquiring and unpredjudiced minds to take a read, it helps to explain a lot of the background behind the norms that have developed over the years by regular PHA to live up to their obligations in the protection of the institution.


Edited by NobleShabba - March/20/2013 at 7:47am
----------------------

DISCLAIMER: These are my comments, and mine alone - they do not necessarily apply to any group to which I belong!
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2013 at 8:35am
Much of the details given in the Power Point has been stated & argued in various discussions on our forum. And, I have many links & references to those facts, but they are cumbersome to sort out when needed.   

....  I think the link needs to be a sticky on the PHA forum section for quick reference by new Masons and forum members.      ... I always though the IF&AM had a row with Mrs. Banks after Banks died, but i was not able to confirm this.  The Power Point link did.   ... My question now, does Mrs. Banks still own the IF&AM (controlling interest anyway)?   ... ie: Does the GM of the IF&AM answer to Mrs. Banks?  She owns or did own the IF&AM.


Edited by edwmax - March/20/2013 at 8:37am
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2013 at 11:55am
Like I asked you earlier, why is this a PHA topic?
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
rchadwic View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: June/04/2011
Location: Palm Bay, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rchadwic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2013 at 1:20pm
Thanks, Bro. Caution.

This, plus the flow chart you posted earlier, have helped me a lot in trying to figure out who's who and who's clandestine or not recognized.

I suggest that both postings are useful and educational to all, whether mainstream or PHA. Keep up the good work, and again, thanks

Fraternally

Bob Chadwick
Palm Bay#397
Palm Bay, FL
Bob Chadwick
Palm Bay #397
Palm Bay, Fla
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2013 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by Caution1010 Caution1010 wrote:

Like I asked you earlier, why is this a PHA topic?


As I said in the PM:

Because those are the Clandies that either claim to be PH, recognize PHA, try to emulate PHA, and/or PHA Masons have stated on this forum these clandy masons have been accepted into their Lodge as visitors.   .... While this is good info, it is benefit to the PHA Lodges/Masons to know why these groups are Clandistine.
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/20/2013 at 2:19pm
Bro ed,
In jurisdictions that have mutual recognition, men belonging to clandestine groups have gone as far as sit in their tyled meetings under the ignorance of sitting "ms" brothers who either did not know any better or automatically assumed a bunch of african american men claiming to be masons are "prince hall"
I believe it forms good education for all masons, as this is a scourge we can agree we need to tackle in unison. the more informed we are, the more capable we'll be at tackling the issue.
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
squarehead View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: September/02/2008
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 695
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote squarehead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 1:36am
I say make it a sticky in PHA section and the main forum.
MWPHGLTX F A&M
NEW LIGHT LODGE#242
MT. SINAI CHAPTER #42
SOUTH CENTRAL COMMANDERY #37
NUBIA TEMPLE #191 (AEAONMS)
Y.B.Y.S.A.I.A





"Seek first to understand, Then to be understood."  &nbs
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 2:09am
Originally posted by Caution1010 Caution1010 wrote:

Bro ed,
In jurisdictions that have mutual recognition, men belonging to clandestine groups have gone as far as sit in their tyled meetings under the ignorance of sitting "ms" brothers who either did not know any better or automatically assumed a bunch of african american men claiming to be masons are "prince hall"
I believe it forms good education for all masons, as this is a scourge we can agree we need to tackle in unison. the more informed we are, the more capable we'll be at tackling the issue.


I have to show my current Dues card when visiting Lodges within my GL for the first time, even when wearing a purple & gold apron. And, every Lodge outside of my GL cross checks my dues card & Lodge name against their GL's list of recognized GLs.       ... So what you just claimed wouldn't and couldn't otherwise happen unless a known PHA Mason vouched for the Clandy when visiting.

The clandy masons listed in that article can not produce proper due cards to prove their GL is recognized.
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 5:35am
Originally posted by edwmax edwmax wrote:

Originally posted by Caution1010 Caution1010 wrote:

Bro ed,
In jurisdictions that have mutual recognition, men belonging to clandestine groups have gone as far as sit in their tyled meetings under the ignorance of sitting "ms" brothers who either did not know any better or automatically assumed a bunch of african american men claiming to be masons are "prince hall"
I believe it forms good education for all masons, as this is a scourge we can agree we need to tackle in unison. the more informed we are, the more capable we'll be at tackling the issue.


I have to show my current Dues card when visiting Lodges within my GL for the first time, even when wearing a purple & gold apron. And, every Lodge outside of my GL cross checks my dues card & Lodge name against their GL's list of recognized GLs.       ... So what you just claimed wouldn't and couldn't otherwise happen unless a known PHA Mason vouched for the Clandy when visiting.

The clandy masons listed in that article can not produce proper due cards to prove their GL is recognized.

I promise you, it happened. That's all I'm going to say about that. LOL
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
Hyksos View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman


Joined: February/28/2010
Location: FL
Status: Offline
Points: 827
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hyksos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 5:45am
Ed, your GL doesn't have recognition though right?

I think what Caution was saying is that in Jurisdictions with recognition...those MS Lodges are so afraid of the 'race card' that they automatically assume a black man claiming to be a mason is Prince Hall. This wouldn't surprise me that much because even in my lodge when you talk to Brothers about Prince Hall they think it is all the same. Granted we don't have recognition, but I'm willing to bet that in places that do have recognition... The Brothers are largely ignorant.

Also, it would probably seem inappropriate to check dues cards on all the black masons only. I think it is completely conceivable where clandestine PH masons have shown up to MS lodges and the MS lodges are too worried to try them bc they will be labeled racist, or too ignorant to know about clandestine PH organizations.

Here that wouldn't fly because we check everyone's dues cards and such no matter what you look like.
Gainesville Lodge #41
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 9:02am
Originally posted by Hyksos Hyksos wrote:

Ed, your GL doesn't have recognition though right?

I think what Caution was saying is that in Jurisdictions with recognition...those MS Lodges are so afraid of the 'race card' that they automatically assume a black man claiming to be a mason is Prince Hall.  ...


Neither does Alabama, so I don't think Caution has first hand knowledge of these facts and simply repeating something his had read or heard.

Originally posted by Hyksos Hyksos wrote:

...

Also, it would probably seem inappropriate to check dues cards on all the black masons only.
...
    ... This is REQUIRED of ALL visitors, black, white, yellow, red, or pink.    The Dues Cards is the judge & proof of mutual recognition and a visitor MUST produce it when asked.  This was the specific purpose they were put into use in the US.   Further,  that was the point I made above when I visited Lodge within my own GL.  I still had to produce my Card.    .... A visitor, who is denied visitation because he can not produce his card; is his own fault and no one else.   ... that is expected protocol requirements.

Now, Give the names of the Lodges and their GLs which allowed Clandestine masons into their Lodge and I will speak to my GM about pulling the recognition of those GLs.  This is a violation of recondition recognition requirements, Landmarks, and Masonic Oaths.
Any Master Mason, who actively deceives other Masons & Lodges about the recognized masonic status of clandestine masons by vouch, IS NOT a MASON and has violated his Oaths.


Edited by edwmax - March/21/2013 at 2:30pm
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Flotown79 View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Hoover, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 5120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flotown79 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 2:17pm
Edwmax, while the practice of checking dues cards and List of Lodges/GL is should be followed to the "t", Caution is 100% correct in saying that members of these clandestine bodies are now attempting to visit lodges within the GLs of State, and they are getting in.  I have seen the proof from not only a picture that was taken but also a member of the lodge who pleaded with the leadership to not allow the visitor because he was from a JGJ GL also confirmed the event took place.

F. E. Thomas III, MPS
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 2:28pm
Originally posted by Flotown79 Flotown79 wrote:

Edwmax, while the practice of checking dues cards and List of Lodges/GL is should be followed to the "t", Caution is 100% correct in saying that members of these clandestine bodies are now attempting to visit lodges within the GLs of State, and they are getting in.  I have seen the proof from not only a picture that was taken but also a member of the lodge who pleaded with the leadership to not allow the visitor because he was from a JGJ GL also confirmed the event took place.


Then that Lodge should lose it Charter, for two reasons.  First the Wm & members were on notice the visitor was clandestine; 2nd, a member objected & the WM allowed the visitation anyway.   ... I don't care, there is no reason to violate protocol & Obligations.   ... Was this a PHA Lodge or MS Lodge.   We already know from past PHA Masons on the forum this has happened in their Lodge, but I don't believe a MS lodge knowingly allowed it to happen.
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Flotown79 View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Hoover, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 5120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flotown79 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by edwmax edwmax wrote:

Originally posted by Flotown79 Flotown79 wrote:

Edwmax, while the practice of checking dues cards and List of Lodges/GL is should be followed to the "t", Caution is 100% correct in saying that members of these clandestine bodies are now attempting to visit lodges within the GLs of State, and they are getting in.  I have seen the proof from not only a picture that was taken but also a member of the lodge who pleaded with the leadership to not allow the visitor because he was from a JGJ GL also confirmed the event took place.


Then that Lodge should lose it Charter, for two reasons.  First the Wm & members were on notice the visitor was clandestine; 2nd, a member objected & the WM allowed the visitation anyway.   ... I don't care, there is no reason to violate protocol & Obligations.   ... Was this a PHA Lodge or MS Lodge.   We already know from past PHA Masons on the forum this has happened in their Lodge, but I don't believe a MS lodge knowingly allowed it to happen.


This was a "MS" lodge. 


F. E. Thomas III, MPS
Back to Top
Flotown79 View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Hoover, AL
Status: Offline
Points: 5120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flotown79 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 3:02pm
Clearly some action needs to be taken concerning that lodge.  If I was GM I don't think I would go as far as revoking the Charter for that hurts members who had no knowledge.  I would suspend and consider expulsion of every member that knew the situation at hand.

I don't want it to sound like an "I told you so," however a few years ago on this forum I warned about the day these groups would do such. 

F. E. Thomas III, MPS
Back to Top
masonic.truths View Drop Down
Muzzled
Muzzled
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote masonic.truths Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 6:48pm
Thats what happens when you choose being politically correct over being correct.
 
It is sad that so many have chosen the path of the slippery slope of political correctness.
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 7:59pm
Oh shut up.
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
masonic.truths View Drop Down
Muzzled
Muzzled
Avatar

Joined: February/20/2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote masonic.truths Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/21/2013 at 8:11pm
Back to Top
NobleShabba View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March/11/2012
Location: MD
Status: Offline
Points: 809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NobleShabba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/22/2013 at 6:56am
Originally posted by Flotown79 Flotown79 wrote:

Originally posted by edwmax edwmax wrote:

Originally posted by Flotown79 Flotown79 wrote:

Edwmax, while the practice of checking dues cards and List of Lodges/GL is should be followed to the "t", Caution is 100% correct in saying that members of these clandestine bodies are now attempting to visit lodges within the GLs of State, and they are getting in.  I have seen the proof from not only a picture that was taken but also a member of the lodge who pleaded with the leadership to not allow the visitor because he was from a JGJ GL also confirmed the event took place.


Then that Lodge should lose it Charter, for two reasons.  First the Wm & members were on notice the visitor was clandestine; 2nd, a member objected & the WM allowed the visitation anyway.   ... I don't care, there is no reason to violate protocol & Obligations.   ... Was this a PHA Lodge or MS Lodge.   We already know from past PHA Masons on the forum this has happened in their Lodge, but I don't believe a MS lodge knowingly allowed it to happen.


This was a "MS" lodge. 

Didn't we have a LONG discussion in this forum about the need for a dues card or avouchment for a stranger before he is allowed to sit in a lodge?   At the time, some of the responses I got was as if this was an alien thing to do...
 


Edited by NobleShabba - March/22/2013 at 7:00am
----------------------

DISCLAIMER: These are my comments, and mine alone - they do not necessarily apply to any group to which I belong!
Back to Top
khaos16 View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: March/29/2010
Location: Gainesville, Ga
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote khaos16 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/29/2013 at 9:06am
The clandy is Tony Hawkins a PGM of the John g jones Affiliated gl in California. He deceived the good brothers of La Mesa lodge in California. I will post the pic from my pc today. I'm having trouble with posting from my phone
Truth & Union Lodge #594 F&AM
Y.B.Y.S.A.I.A
Back to Top
JackTownBruh View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: November/05/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JackTownBruh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/09/2013 at 8:25am
MW Stringer Grand Lodge(PHA)
J.I. Martin Lodge #701
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/09/2013 at 9:28am
Originally posted by Flotown79 Flotown79 wrote:

Clearly some action needs to be taken concerning that lodge.  If I was GM I don't think I would go as far as revoking the Charter for that hurts members who had no knowledge.  I would suspend and consider expulsion of every member that knew the situation at hand.

I don't want it to sound like an "I told you so," however a few years ago on this forum I warned about the day these groups would do such. 


I know this is an old post ... 

First,  the members that didn't know about the incident at the time it occurred are not entirely blameless.    They have a duty to report and file a complaint with their Grand Master.   ... If the GM did arrest the Charter, it can be later restored on satisfactory adjudication of the incident.  ... Further, the GM can also issue emergent Dimits to those members not involved in the incident to join other Lodges.    ... Arresting a Charter only stops a Lodge from meeting until the Grand Master is satisfied the Officers and Lodge will comply with all rules and Bylaws of the GL and the bylaws of the Lodge.  The Grand Master can restore a Charter or he can permanently suspend it after further investigation or hearing.

Second, ....   We know clandestine masons will try to visit regular Lodges.  This was the very reason the 'due card' system was started'  ... to stop illegal visitation.    And, because of the required 'Dues Card' attempted visitation by clandestine and suspended masons has become rare in many of our jurisdictions.
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 739
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/01/2014 at 7:29pm
Are not all lodges that are not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England for all intents and purposes clandestine?  If they are not recognized and regular, then they are clandestine, and irregular...Right?  I was raised into PHA in Florida when I was in the Navy, only to find out when I returned home to Maine that I had to be entered, passed and raised all over again because PHA is not recognized in Florida.  (Maine has recognition, and one PHA lodge, but it is chartered by the PH Grand lodge of Mass.)  In my travels as a PHA mason, I visited South Carolina (also not recognized) for a HUGE raising of 6 FC's if I recall correctly.  3 from S.C., and 3 from Phili PA. (Pennsylvania does have recognition, and is recognized by the UGLofE)  This big raising and get together of PHA masons from PA., and S.C. took place every year at the time (and may still be to this day)  So recognized PHA lodges seem to still have masonic communication and still recognize PHA lodges that are irregular and not recognized.  That is not right any way you slice it.  There are Grand lodges and lodges that are regular and recognized, and there are ones that are not.  The two should not (and are not allowed) to visit one another, or have official masonic interaction with one another.  PERIOD  
When I first returned to Maine, my local lodge (of which I'm now a member) allowed me to visit after checking my dues card, and questioning me some.  (they should not have) A few days later, I was contacted and informed that my PHA lodge, and Grand lodge in Florida were not recognized by the Grand lodge of England, and that if I wanted to continue to attend at lodge that I would need to be entered, passed, and raised again...  Long story short... You're either regular, and recognized... or you're not.
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
Ozzie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: September/29/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ozzie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/01/2014 at 9:40pm
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Are not all lodges that are not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England for all intents and purposes clandestine?  ....


I am not sure UGLE claims such a power or right except for managing visitation to and from its own lodges.

Also I would tend to distinguish "irregular" from "clandestine"

Irregular seems to mean: not have quite the same rules.  For example I understand that the UGLE recognises at least one order of Masonry that admits women as regular in all respects, except for the admission of women.

This does not seem to me to be the same as clandestine.   I rather think that refers to organisations that keep their existence or perhaps their lineage secret, but from what I have read it is primarily a US problem.

Personally I would prefer if recognition were based on something more than the opinion of Grand Lodge committees.  

For example, if we had access to Masonic Science we could use the working tools in a moral sense to measure how true a brother is to the pattern laid down by the GAOTU.







Edited by Ozzie - October/01/2014 at 10:04pm
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 8:18am
Originally posted by Ozzie Ozzie wrote:

  ...

Also I would tend to distinguish "irregular" from "clandestine"

Irregular seems to mean: not have quite the same rules.  For example I understand that the UGLE recognises at least one order of Masonry that admits women as regular in all respects, except for the admission of women.

This does not seem to me to be the same as clandestine.   I rather think that refers to organizations that keep their existence or perhaps their lineage secret, but from what I have read it is primarily a US problem.   ...



All clandestine Lodges are irregular. This is the nature of being clandestine.    But, not all 'recognized' Lodges are regular. Some can be irregular in some fashion of their ritual, or formation and still be recognized.    

One's GL Code will define 'clandestine'.   Which is usually ANY Lodge not recognized by that GL.  This could include GLs/Lodges which are 'regular & recognized' by other GLs.   However, internet forums attempt to refine clandestine lodge to one not or would not be recognized by any regular GL.

The thread title "We are not all Brothers" is a reference to the fact not all GLs/Lodges represented by the members of this forum are recognized by ALL the Gls.


Edited by edwmax - October/02/2014 at 8:20am
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 8:37am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Are not all lodges that are not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England for all intents and purposes clandestine?  If they are not recognized and regular, then they are clandestine, and irregular...Right?    ...


Not true .... WELL  ... They are clandestine to the UGLE, but may not be clandestine to another GL.   Each GL maintained their own list of recognized Lodges.  A GL/Lodge must ask other GLs for recognition and then the recognition is rededicated when granted.    ... Recondition can be withdrawn from otherwise 'regular & recognized" GLs.  An example would be West Va & Ohio a couple of years ago.
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 739
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 8:44am
Ok, this is confusing... let me see if i have this right. Grand lodges of a state can choose to recognize lodges and grand lodges from other states even if that lodges home state does not have recognition with it? That doesn't seem right. Especialy since all recognized lodges in the US are recognized (and i believe chartered by) the UGLofE. "Please correct me if i'm inacurate in that statement." So again... You're grand lodge, and local lodge are either recognized...or they're not. Having come from an unrecognized PHA lodge and grand lodge out of Florida, and having had to take the blue lodge degrees twice, i can certainly understand the frustration this creates. However, the bottom line remains the same. You're either recognized....or you're not.
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 9:36am
Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

Ok, this is confusing... let me see if i have this right. Grand lodges of a state can choose to recognize lodges and grand lodges from other states even if that lodges home state does not have recognition with it?   ... 
 

Yes that is correct and it has to do the 'autonomous' nature of the GL.   ... Next a GL can not recognize a Lodge without recognizing its GL.  Thus, when a GL is recognized ALL Lodges of that GL are reconized.    A GL has a published list of GLs & their Lodges of which they recognize.

The Florida PHA situation is confusing at best due to infighting and splits years ago. This has been a topic on the forum a while back.    My recollection   ... the GL with PHA in its name is not recognized and the "Most Worshipful Union Grand Lodge of Florida" is the recognized PHA affiliated GL.

You said "... even
if that lodges home state does not have recognition with it? "  I'm not sure specifically what you mean here.   For a GL to recognized a Lodge of another GL not recognized with the jurisdiction of another 'recognized' GL would certainly be a violated of the 'recognition agreement' between to two GLs.

Originally posted by Adept? Adept? wrote:

  ... Especialy since all recognized lodges in the US are recognized (and i believe chartered by) the UGLofE. "Please correct me if i'm inacurate in that statement."  ...


Not true.   Only the early colonial Lodges were Charter by the 'Grand Lodge of England' (Moderns: not the same as UGLE), The Ancient Grand Lodge of England (Ancients), The GL of Scotland, the GL of Ireland and may be a couple of Continental GLs. A few 'Time Immemorial' Lodges were also formed.   As the US expanded West new lodges were Charted by GLs from which Masons came.  Then these Lodges with growth formed new GLs. 

Edited by edwmax - October/02/2014 at 9:44am
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 739
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 3:14pm
Thanks for clearing me up on that max. Let me see if i have it right now. Most; if not all PHA lodges throughout the US have recognition with each other, even though they may not have recognition with the main stream lodges of their respective states?
So in the case case where Pennsylvania and South Carolina PHA get together for their anual meeting its ok because PHA has recognition with PHA even though Pennsylvania has main stream recognition but S.C. does not...they still recognize each other. Do I have that right?
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 3:21pm
Regular: Formed by a legitimate lineage of lodges or a competent grand lodge. Practices freemasonry as prescribed by the generally agreed and accepted customs and traditions of freemasonry. E.g all Lodges and Grand Lodges formed from the (Now United) Grand Lodge(s) of England 

Irregular: May otherwise have been regular except for one thing or the other. E.g National Compact Grand Lodge pre-1876, until recently the GLNF.

Recognized: When two grand lodges agree on a mutual compact. Both grand lodges have to be regular. However, it is known that there have been grand lodges formed even within the same root that for a short time may not have had recognition  with each other. e.g Grand Lodge of WA vs Most of the Grand Lodges in the US (around 1897), Grand Lodge of WV vs Grand Lodge of OH (around the Frank Haas Incident), MWPHGLVA vs MWPHGLLA (around the AEAONMS Protective order 2 incident)

Recognition between a Grand Lodge and the UGLE may or may not indicate the regularity of the Grand Lodge. e.g Most of the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in the South despite their sister GL's having relation with the UGLE and they themselves having descent from the Premier Grand Lodge of England do not have relations themselves with the UGLE due to the "American doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction", (which in itself is a farce in my opinion). However the MWPHGLOK is a regular grand lodge that is in amity with their sister GL in OK.  For some inconspicuous reason, they are not (at least at the time of this post) in relations with the UGLE. 

Clandestine: Formed illegitimately with no lineage to any competent grand lodge therefore there's really no discussion about them. QED. However, a lot of grand lodges have made a huge mistake within their jurisprudence to classify any grand lodges that they have not recognized to be "clandestine". This is totally wrong. Those grand lodges should be assessed on a case by case basis and the determination should be made individually on whether the GL in question is clandestine. If the GL is not clandestine, then the GL in question relative to the assessing GL is simply unrecognized.

I hope this helps.


Edited by Caution1010 - October/02/2014 at 3:28pm
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
Adept? View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August/30/2013
Location: Maine
Status: Offline
Points: 739
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adept? Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 5:18pm
It does help. Thank you for this additional information. Basicly what i'm understanding is recognition is various from state to state.
"It is humanity that creates god, and men think that god has made them in his image, because they make him in theirs."
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 6:21pm
Indeed
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
Ozzie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: September/29/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ozzie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2014 at 7:43pm
Originally posted by Caution1010 Caution1010 wrote:

...
Clandestine: Formed illegitimately with no lineage to any competent grand lodge therefore there's really no discussion about them.....


Unfortunately this is the claimed status of the self-declared Grand Lodge of England formed in 1717.

The claim of time immemorial does not work as the oldest of the 4 lodges was about 50 years and the newest less than 2 years old.





Edited by Ozzie - October/02/2014 at 7:45pm
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2014 at 7:09pm
What are u talking about?
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2014 at 8:19pm
Originally posted by Caution1010 Caution1010 wrote:

What are u talking about?


Right!  ...

He is confused Caution.   And, fails to recognized the 4 old Lodges of London were recognized Lodges. These Lodges claimed Grand Master Christopher Wren was neglecting the craft.   Wren was of the wrong political party and was out of favor when George I became King in 1714.  So 'government' work for the operatives Masons dried up.   ...


Edited by edwmax - October/03/2014 at 8:20pm
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Ozzie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: September/29/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ozzie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/03/2014 at 11:32pm
>Wren was of the wrong political party and was out of favor when George I became King in 1714.

This is the reason for the 4 lodges breaking away to form their own Grand Lodge that was loyal to the German king of England.  The Scottish lodges tended to be loyal to their own royal line.

The question of legitimacy of those 4 lodges is bypassed in mainstream Masonic histories by deeming them time-immemorial despite their recent formation and the identity of the Grand Lodge that chartered them is not considered.






Edited by Ozzie - October/03/2014 at 11:36pm
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/04/2014 at 2:32am
Originally posted by Ozzie Ozzie wrote:

>Wren was of the wrong political party and was out of favor when George I became King in 1714.

This is the reason for the 4 lodges breaking away to form their own Grand Lodge that was loyal to the German king of England.  The Scottish lodges tended to be loyal to their own royal line.

The question of legitimacy of those 4 lodges is bypassed in mainstream Masonic histories by deeming them time-immemorial despite their recent formation and the identity of the Grand Lodge that chartered them is not considered.



 You are obviously applying rules made by the 'Grand Lodge of London and Westminster' (Grand Lodge of England) to the its own founding Lodges before such rules were made.     ... Most (if not ALL) Lodges formed before this period were 'time immemorial'. 
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Ozzie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: September/29/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ozzie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/04/2014 at 5:03pm
>Most (if not ALL) Lodges formed before this period were 'time immemorial'.

That is the official view, but one of the 4 lodges was less than 2 years old and the oldest about 50 years. 

This can be dealt with by defining time-immemorial  as "we don't have the minute books any more".  You may think that a foolish argument but it has been used elsewhere in a post on this topic.

Henry Ford nailed history.




Edited by Ozzie - October/04/2014 at 6:03pm
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/04/2014 at 7:20pm
Originally posted by Ozzie Ozzie wrote:

>Most (if not ALL) Lodges formed before this period were 'time immemorial'.

That is the official view, but one of the 4 lodges was less than 2 years old and the oldest about 50 years. 

This can be dealt with by defining time-immemorial  as "we don't have the minute books any more".  You may think that a foolish argument but it has been used elsewhere in a post on this topic.

Henry Ford nailed history.




"Time immemorial' has nothing to do with the actual age of the Lodge, but is the method of constituting a Lodge by necessity.  And, you should know this.   .... How long have you been a Freemason? ...
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/04/2014 at 7:48pm
Actually, may I ask for references or sites were I can read about what you gentlemen are talking about?

I'm in the dark.
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
Ozzie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: September/29/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ozzie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/04/2014 at 8:33pm

You will need to search widely as the prior history of the 4 time immemorial lodges is left largely silent for reasons that may become obvious.  Here is a start:

"The second Lodge which originally met at the Crown Ale-house is believed to have originated in 1712."

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/goose_and_gridiron_ale-house.htm


Edited by Ozzie - October/04/2014 at 8:34pm
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/05/2014 at 8:51am
Originally posted by Ozzie Ozzie wrote:


You will need to search widely as the prior history of the 4 time immemorial lodges is left largely silent for reasons that may become obvious.  Here is a start:

"The second Lodge which originally met at the Crown Ale-house is believed to have originated in 1712."

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/goose_and_gridiron_ale-house.htm



This is simply a history of where these Lodges met after the formation of the GL of England and has nothing to do with the above discussion and you implications.    ... The reason there no known history of these Lodges before 1717 was there were no requirement for Lodges to keep records & minutes.  And, very few exist.   
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Ozzie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: September/29/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ozzie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/05/2014 at 3:07pm
>The reason there no known history of these Lodges before 1717 was there were no requirement for Lodges to keep records & minutes

You surprise me with that.  Masons tend to be scrupulous about lodge records of initiations, as being the ultimate proof of brotherhood.

Meanwhile the new Grand Lodge in London was struggling a bit:


"At an assembly and feast held at the Goose and Gridiron on the 24th June 1720, George Payne esq. was re-elected Grand Master, and under his mild but vigilant administration the lodges continued to flourish.

This year, at some of the private lodges, to the irreparable loss of the fraternity, several valuable manuscripts, concerning their lodges, regulations, charges, secrets, and usages, (particularly one written by Mr. Nicholas Stone, the warden under Inigo Jones,) were too hastily burnt by some scrupulous brethren, who were alarmed at the intended publication of the masonic constitutions."     http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/preston_illustrations_masonry_book4.html

Thus we see lodges at that time burning, not only their records, but also "secrets and usages", the loss of which is irreparable by the new Grand Lodge.   Lost forever - to them at least.

Some 5 years later the new Grand Lodge receives the 3rd degree for the first time - in the form of Noah and his sons.    Perhaps someone thought to assist them.

Is this the first time we hear of the genuine secrets being lost?




Edited by Ozzie - October/05/2014 at 3:12pm
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/05/2014 at 4:54pm
Now you are trying to infer a single event in 1720 after Lodges started keeping records as being the cause of lost secretes before 1717 and before Lodges keeping records.   ...  Further, the elaborate rituals that we have today did not exist in the 1500 & 1600s thus the secrets you keep referring to did not exist within the operative Lodges.  The candidate was simply read an obligation of which he affirmed.
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
CanadianPaul View Drop Down
Quarryman
Quarryman
Avatar

Joined: June/24/2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CanadianPaul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/06/2014 at 7:10am
There are 'records' dating back before 1717 but they are for lodges which were still primarily operative although they may have had some speculative members as well. The Grand Lodge of Scotland has minutes of a lodge dating to 1599. At the time of the formation of that Grand Lodge in (I think) 1726 a member of the Sinclair family was the hereditary Grand Master Mason of Scotland and recognised as such by the new Grand Lodge. He immediately resigned and surrendered the rights to the office for his heirs so that the brethren could elect they choice as Grand Master Mason (as the 'Grand Master' of the GL of Scotland is still properly called). In my opinion there is some basis for claiming that the modern 'Grand Lodge' system took form in 1717 but there is considerable evidence there were speculative masons long before that.
Paul Miller, Ass'nt. Gr. Sec. (Hon. Scot.)

Past Master, Lodge Conception No 1679, GL of Scotland
Conception Bay South
NL
CANADA

Past Master Farnham Lodge of Research No. 33, GL of NL
Back to Top
edwmax View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: November/06/2007
Location: Georgia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 6864
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edwmax Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/06/2014 at 8:50am
Originally posted by CanadianPaul CanadianPaul wrote:

  ... but there is considerable evidence there were speculative masons long before that.


The discussion isn't about whether speculative masons existed before 1717.   The 4 Lodges that formed the GL of England were largely speculative in its membership and certainly existed before 1717.  

... Yes, there were a couple of old Scottish Lodge that maintain their records back to the 1600 & 1500s.  I think only one still have all those intact.    Very few of the Lodges from the 1500 & 1600 survived much less whatever records they may have had.  What little ritual that existed was taught mouth to ear because most masons of that time could not read or write.  The Lodge was their formal vocational education.   Therefore, very little of any ritual was written down from this time period.

It has been shown by Masonic Historians that most Lodges of this period simply gave the new masons an obligation and then read the 'old charges' (Shaw - Regius or similar) to him.   The elaborate ritual that we use today did not exist within those old Lodges.  Therefore, the secretes that Ozzie is trying to imply as being lost did not exist within the old Lodges.

Now that said ... Dr. Anderson and Dr. John Theophilus Desaguliers researched much of Freemasonry from the existing old Scottish Lodges and put together the basics of our modern ritual.   I believe Dr. Desaguliers was actually sued for stealing the ritual from one Lodge. (wish I can find that reference again). So bits and peaces of the ritual were developing in the early 1710 & 20s.




Edited by edwmax - October/06/2014 at 8:54am
"Until you realize that your viewpoint is incomplete and that's '_' viewpoint is complete, only then can you become teachable in the Mysteries of '_'."





Thomasville 369
Back to Top
Thudson View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: September/22/2014
Location: Ogden, Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thudson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/06/2014 at 10:50am
HMM
I don't mean to get off topic here but, somethings not right about the Ozzie guy. That's just my opinion. This is the second thread I've seen him pop up out of the blue and say something...off. Is it just me or does any one else see this also.
I:28-FEB-2014
P:28-MAR-2014
R:18-APR-2014

Mt. Ogden #20 F&AM PHA
MWPHGLCO & Jurisdiction
Back to Top
NobleShabba View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March/11/2012
Location: MD
Status: Offline
Points: 809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NobleShabba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/07/2014 at 12:10pm
I don't think its off topic.
----------------------

DISCLAIMER: These are my comments, and mine alone - they do not necessarily apply to any group to which I belong!
Back to Top
Caution1010 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Bro. Never Give Up

Joined: November/16/2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 2677
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Caution1010 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/08/2014 at 11:16am
My place as a moderator is to be in between except one seems to be a trouble maker

That being said, Ozzie is being watched closely by me. I can not speak for any others who may be monitoring its activity.
I: 10/1/10
P: 12/3/10
R: 12/31/10

PHA-AL

"You can't trust those fellow-crafts...buncha rogues and murderers!"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03
Copyright ©2001-2011 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
Biver no longer has a day-to-day role in Hublot, but rather manages Hublot replica watches along with other LVMH watch brands from the top. For instance, it was recently announced that he replica watches would be filling in as the interim CEO of TAG Heuer - another LVMH brand. That isn't a job Jean-Claude probably rolex replica wants right now, as he has been toying with retirement for a while - but he steps up when he is rolex replica sale needed. Hublot has been doing a good job of keeping the fire alive without Jean-Claude, but with Ricardo always out and about, I can't help but wonder who rolex replica keeps the peace back at HQ. I mention the above as a semi-explanation of the fact that Hublot doesn't always have all the replica watches details settled when they announce a new replica watches uk partnership or product. The major question on the table is whether or not there will be a limited replica watches uk production "Mr. Brainwatch Edition" watch.