I just noticed something wonderful ... perhaps I should have read the release notes
But look - Logos is making the lectionaries work correctly: (ignore the highlighting from a search and the long expired date - I was doing some testing)
Glad you're happy MJ. Maybe I will try following, as a Bible reading plan.
MJ do you think we will ever see the Catholic Daily Lectionary included in Logos 4?
This is the update to the lectionary resources that I proposed here. The updated resources were published in late December.
I'm glad to hear that you're pleased with it. [:)]
Louis, is there any news on a daily Catholic Lectionary?
We produce our (copyrighted) lectionaries in cooperation with the copyright holder, so what we are waiting for here is the proper permission from the USCCB. I'll discuss it again with our Publisher Relations department to see where the request stands.
Thanks Louis, here's hoping. I assume they gave you permission for the Sunday Lectionary at some point?
I assume they gave you permission for the Sunday Lectionary at some point?
Yes, so I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get the daily readings as well.
I found this old thread yesterday, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to figure out how you got the note reference to look like that. What exactly are you doing?
I replied in a community note note on the Logos4Catholiics group just to check that it worked in Faithlife. I answered:
What I did was open the TOC window to Lent. I then opened Third Sunday of Lent, Year A, highlighted that portion of the title and created a community note. This is a poor solution to the lack of a liturgical date datatype but the best I've been able to come up with so far.
Well, that's what I did as well, but for me it says "Catholic Lectionary", not "Catholic - Latin rite - USA". That's what confused me. Either way, I don't think a simple selection note is of much use to me right now; I just wanted to know the options.
As for Faithlife, I refuse to use it, since Logos decided they have the right to give away my most private information without even asking me first. So I didn't know you'd started a Catholic group. It wasn't there the one time I checked it out -- and it probably took me 20 minutes or more to figure out how to find it now; how's that for intuitive web design? -- and given Logos' complete contempt for my privacy I can't see me joining. There are very few companies I trust less than Logos, but my experience when registering on Faithlife beat just about anything they'd done so far.
since Logos decided they have the right to give away my most private information without even asking me first.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I've apparently not been paying attention. Could you please explain?
I don't remember the exact details, but it went something like this:
This is definitely not "taking my privacy very seriously"! It's the very opposite. The absolute minimum when it comes to privacy must be that you never ever share private information given in confidence without first seeking and attaining an active consent from the person whose info it is. To start sharing first, and let people discover for themselves afterwards that it's being done, that's simply not acceptable!
I'm seriously considering creating a new main e-mail account and transferring everything but Logos away from the current one. When I find the time, I think I will.
Thanks for your answer. I see that I hadn't noticed because I'd assumed that the groups would be small groups that knew each other rather than larger anonymous groups. I see the reasons for your concern.
I see that I hadn't noticed because I'd assumed that the groups would be small groups that knew each other rather than larger anonymous groups.
There isn't really any such thing as a 'small group that know each other' in this internet age. Not on the web. If you join a group, you have no knowledge of who's already in there, no influence on who joins later, no control over what others do with what they learn, and no way of preventing that the moderator hands the group -- and your info -- over to someone else. There are only really two options on the web: either you're open with who you are and accept the consequences, or you're never open with who you are, unless you're on a secure https page.
Besides, those default settings did more than show my info to such intimate groups.
But, like I said, though I strongly disagree with the 'real name and open e-mail' policy, what really bugs me is that they started sharing my confidential data without asking or even informing me about it.
There isn't really any such thing as a 'small group that know each other' in this internet age. Not on the web.
That depends. I am a member of groups in a.nnotate and zotero in which we may not physically know each other but everyone is well known to at least one member of the core group. The core group were in graduate school with each other. But then again, when I presented my thesis for a Master's degree, I could have sent copies to everyone in the world who would be interested for less than $25.[;)]. At least I was better off than a friend who never met the professor who chaired her thesis committee. She'd had the audacity to marry the only person in the US who was qualified.[:)]
I wrote an answer to this on Saturday, but my connection decided to go down precisely when I hit 'Post', so I lost it and didn't have the energy to rewrite it. Here it is again, as best I can remember:
That depends. I am a member of groups...
Yes, but are those groups 'self-contained'? I suspect not. But since your name is all over the web anyway, you don't need to care much. I'd still say that there are [virtually] no groups on the web where someone can safely reveal his identity and trust that it stays there. But of course you have the advantage of being an American with one of the most common names on the planet. No one can guess which MJ Smith you are, or google you to make a profile, unless you yourself give out enough additional clues. But the Christian circles here are fairly small. Any Swedish Logos user might potentially be someone who knows who I am the minute they set eyes on my real name. And I have no way of knowing who's already a member of a group, much less who might join later. Also, even at the very least, everyone who sees my name on Faithlife will also know who 'fgh' is.
No, if you want to stay anonymous on the web, don't start making exceptions.
She'd had the audacity to marry the only person in the US who was qualified.
That must have been one narrow subject! In Sweden we bring in people from abroad all the time, of course. Not because the best qualified has married the defendant, but because he's likely supervised the thesis. Or simply to get the very best in the field. But not to be able to find anyone in the whole wide US!
