Assuming NX is telling the truth that these accounts are all the same person, I'm still wondering why a second account was created in the first place when that is against forum rules.  At the very least that is .... less than truthful.

Get rid of this guy, Matthew. 

He's serving no good purpose here.  He's just a Motarian preaching religious indifferentism and constantly attacking Traditional Catholics.  And he's totally self-serving.  He distorts and cherry-picks information out of context in order to work R&R members of the forum up against sedevacantists, but then condemns the principles of R&R.  He does the latter more quietly because he knows he'll get kicked off the forum for it.  But he actually agrees with the SVs (and against R&R) regarding whether it's possible for the New Mass to be offensive to God, etc.  So this guy disagrees with both SVs and R&R.  He just has more of an emotional thing against SVism (and the Dimonds on particular).  I've pointed out to him that his allegations of heresy regarding Universal Acceptance apply to both both Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre and, actually, most Traditional Catholics.  He's derided the Resistance as schismatics for opposing the efforts of +Fellay to reunify with Rome, but then he praises Bishop Williamson to no end when he happens to agree with one of his other opinions and he can use that as a weapon against the sedevacantist.

After being about 5,000 - 6,000 ahead in upvotes over down, he's now very quickly drawn even.  He starts one thread after another where it's him against pretty much everybody else on CI.

He's trying to divide and causes dissension among true Traditional Catholics while promoting his Indultarianism, his pan-Christian religious indifferentism (despite falsely claiming to be strong on EENS), and defending the New Mass as a good thing.  He doesn't belong here.

Plus, if he's actually Nishant, then he's done the very unusual thing of going from someone with the maturity of a middle-aged man to behaving like a petulant teenager.

Liarslaus constantly lied and slandered me when I first signed up here as XavierSem

I did nothing of the sort.  Closest thing was when I said, half in jest, and admittedly in speculation, that you "likely" got tossed from the seminary due to your immature behavior.  "Likely" immediately indicates that I am not claiming to have concrete information, and way basically a rhetorical was of saying that you SHOULD have been tossed out.

You on the other hand declared that I have no love for souls, as if you now also had the gift of reading souls.  But that's not lying and slandering?  On the other hand, I have caught you lying and distorting multiple times on various threads, mostly by way of your intellectually-dishonest where you filter out any information that's contrary to your agenda.

You've become an insufferable twit.

Just a quick survey.

On this thread alone, Nishant Xavier has accuмulated ...

0 upvotes, 43 downvotes (and counting)

And I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find a single upvote in the last 3 weeks or so.

You're just afraid you'll be compelled to see the Indult Traditionalist Position is the Truth.

Uhm, no.  Not by the likes of you anyway.

You remain entrapped in your SVism mire and quicksand if you want. Why should I care? The Truth is virtually no one loves you sedes, especially you Dimondite Sedes, ...

You see, Xavier, this here is evidence of your lying (slander?).  You repeatedly call me an SV and a "Dimondite" despite the fact that I have corrected you about this a dozen times.  You are in fact the liar and slanderer.

I have corrected you many times on this matter, and yet you ignore this and continue to lie.  I have rebuked the Dimonds repeatedly for a schismatic mentality for declaring outside the Church those who disagree with their opinions.  I still have e-mails directly form them excoriating me for this.  Ironically, Xavier, I bring the same reproach against you.  You're just the Motu equivalent of the Dimond brothers, whom you despise with a passion.  Despite my differences with the Dimonds, I also say that they do good work in many areas, and I pray for them, because they could be a great force for good if they were to get past elevating the theological note on their opinions.  And that's EXACTLY what you do; you take your syllogisms and equate their "unimpeachable" logic with Magisterial pronouncements.  During this Crisis, there are many Catholics who have come to different theological conclusions.  Some of them are valid, some probably not.  Ultimately the Church will decide.  But in the meantime, we're on our own due to the vacuum of real/legitimate authority in Rome.  I have even expressed sympathy with the Motarian conclusion when it's theologically consistent.  I can't fault someone for doing their best to apply the "hermeneutic of continuity" to V2, etc. ... if they in fact believe that it's certainly true that these men have been and are legitimate Catholic popes.  I do not declare Motarians to be outside the Church.  I have long fought against the dogmatic SVs who do have that attitude, that you're ipso facto outside the Church if you adhere in any way to the Conciliar Church.  I have defended +Vigano against the dogmatic SVs, etc.

Beside that, it's also a lie to call me an "SV".  I have repeatedly explained to you that I lean more SedePRIVATIONIST or even Chazalist, or whatever you want to call it.  I have also stated that I believe that a fair number of bishops in the Conciliar Church, especially in the Eastern Rites, still have active ordinary jurisdiction, thereby making your charges of "ecclesia-vacantism" not even apply to me.  Yet you keep bringing that charge.  No, you call me an SV simply because I have defended the SVs against your repeated charges of heresy.  They too are Catholics who have the Catholic faith, who have done nothing more than apply the principles taught by St. Robert Bellarmine to this crisis.  They might be right; they might be wrong.  But there's nothing HERETICAL about their opinion.  Nor are they inherently schismatic for believing it, as a dozen Canon lawyers can be cited who state that it's not schismatic to refuse submission to a pope if it's done based on well-founded reasons to suspect their election, their legitimacy, or their person.

So I have defended both Motarians against charges by the dogmatic SVs that they're not Catholics, and I have also defended the SVs against charges by the dogmatic Motarians like yourself, who assert that THEY are not Catholics.  I have been entirely consistent.

Nor am I a Dimondite on the EENS issue, but rather a "Feeneyite".  I have explained this to you numerous times as well.  I have an opinion that most resembles that of St. Benedict Center, with a few nuances.

But I have explained these distinctions to you a dozen times.  Yet you persist in "slandering" me as a Dimondist SV, when I am neither a Dimondist nor an SV ... simply because I defend them against your spurious charges of heresy.

Will you retract your slanderous accusation that I'm a "Dimondite SV"?

You know it's not true, and I know that you know it, but it shows your immaturity that you pull that from your bag of "insults" every time you don't like something I write.