I've been avoiding quoting Raoul but I think it's important to point out this line in particular:

What happened was, in our last private conversation, Tele had the gall to blame me for talking about his situation at the SSPX church on CathInfo, when he was the one ranting incoherently about it and I just tried to get the story straight.

However, later, he added insult by injury by going on Fisheaters and wallowing in the whole situation even more. So much for me being the one to spread his misfortunes around, which was already ridiculous in the first place. I made a passing comment about this on CI saying he was "seeking attention" which he was. But that, on top of the fact that he probably saw I lost respect for him and had become wary of him, made him blow up.

It is around this time I also stopped entirely believing his side of the story, because I see now how he is, which is best described as narcissistic or "ox-like."

Now we can see here really how Raoul's broken thought processes work.  He didn't just say he was trying to get my story straight - (he certainly could have asked for that in a non-adversarial way) he said he was trying find out if I was a creeper.  Then he says I added "insult to injury" to him by going on fisheaters.  I added insult and injury to him by going to post on fisheaters?  That is a bizarre statement. Let me point out right now I wasn't the one who brought up my situation on fisheaters.  It was the other posters who started viciously attacking me on it, so much so that posters like Iuvenalis stopped posting there.  Augustine Baker was banned because of that thread.  I'm not surprised that Raoul, raised in this society and in LA, is acting just like the fisheaters were acting, albeit in a somewhat less crass (but even more obsessive) way.

So because of these perceived "insults" to him. (posting on FE is an insult to him?), he stopped believing my accounting of facts, that I simply recalled from memory and honestly recorded here.  This shows that his opinions have no basis in facts, only in what he wants to believe at the moment.

As for the rest of Raoul's post about the girl, how supposedly I wanted to make her more domestic than she was at the time (she was very hearth and home, nature and country life oriented at that time), as though being a talented violinist somehow she is no longer a simple girl, no longer suited for being the wife of an intelligent man who sees her role is in the home?  

I think this gets to the crux of the issue.  When Raoul found out how special the girl was, that is when he decided, like so many other people decided, that someone like me was beneath someone like her.  And I think there is some jealousy inherent in that.  I think there is clearly an obsession on the part of Raoul in relating these stories.

And it is quite disgusting how Raoul is playing the gallery about how I'm supposedly "authoritarian" or "macho" because I simply believe about the role of women what Catholic men in Catholic societies believed in the past.

Do you realize SS that you are doing exactly the same thing you did before?

You're calling me a narcissist in so many words but then saying you're sorry at the same time?  I don't think you figured anything out.

I will forget about it when I'm convinced you're not acting that way anymore.

I already said what I hope you'll do.  Stop acting the way you've been acting.

One more thing: all these people in these families that have accused me of lying or being delusional know I'm not lying and that I'm not making anything up.

They know that because when they asked me about my work/money situation I told them point blank what it was.  They know the reason they treat me like dirt is because of that situation, not because I'm some sneaky cad.