Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound  (Read 1797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22910
  • Reputation: +20056/-240
  • Gender: Male
Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
« on: November 29, 2009, 02:34:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I received a copy today (about time!) of Robert Rawhide's slanderous e-mail that he sent out.

    But first, the bombshell: Robert Rawhide DID use more than one account at CathInfo.
    I have proof. Robert Rawhide and OrthodoxHound (a banned member) both used the same IP address.
    In his e-mail, Robert Rawhide explicitly stated that he only had one account. That is a lie. What else has he lied about "for the cause?"

    Robert Rawhide's slander is a complete falsification of the facts. We have before us a man who will twist facts to achieve his desired aim -- slandering my good name and that of CathInfo. "The ends justify the means" for people like him. All the while, he pretends to take the moral high ground with a sanctimonious air. Disgusting!

    I don't know who else will fall (has fallen?) for it, but I never will, because I know the facts of the case, and am 100% sure that Robert Rawhide has maliciously lied so as to smudge my reputation!

    If you have a man charged with murder, and during the trial it comes out that the prosecuting attorney lied, don't you tend to believe that the accused man is innocent? On the other hand, if the defense attorney submitted testimony that is later proven false, aren't you inclined (rightly so) to presume the man is probably guilty? It makes sense. Why else would they lie?

    I have never set foot in St. Gertrude the Great. I'm not even a Sedevacantist. So I had no dog in this fight. But I believe I am good at being impartial, and putting clues together.
    So far, I've only seen The Devil's Tactics used on "Father Cekada's" side. How else can I conclude, but that they are probably guilty of something?
    Innocent, excellent priests don't attract only "bad guys" to their side. That defies common sense. Why are all the "good guys" uttering sad complaints about SGG, while mostly liars, character assassins, etc. are defending SGG?

    Obviously, we have a war going on here. Eamon Shea and MANY OTHER past parishioners of SGG say one thing -- are they all crazy? -- while Fr. Cekada and his close circle say another.
    The two stories are completely contradictory. One of them has to be lying -- that is to say, malicious. I don't think either side could just be "mistaken".

    If I had to guess "who is right" based on what I've seen and what I know, I'd have to side with Eamon Shea.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22910
    • Reputation: +20056/-240
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #1 on: November 29, 2009, 02:39:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would also like to state that in an "Internet slugfest", as in most wars, the bad guys always have an edge -- because they aren't restricted by moral behavior.

    While the good guys can get good at shooting, strategy, etc. the bad guys can do all that PLUS acts of terrorism, torture, civilian atrocities, etc.

    While the good guys are taking Sunday morning off to attend Mass, the bad guys lob a grenade into the church!

    The good guys could win a battle through courage and strength, and then return home to their village to find it burned by the bad guys, their wives violated and/or killed.

    It's very difficult to win, when your adversary is willing to play dirty.

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-7
    • Gender: Female
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #2 on: November 29, 2009, 03:00:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ChantCd


    It's very difficult to win, when your adversary is willing to play dirty.

    Matthew
    Filthy dirty.  Threats against children is about as low as it gets.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22910
    • Reputation: +20056/-240
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #3 on: November 29, 2009, 06:00:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As an aside, I should point out that I ONLY have evidence for  "OrthodoxHound = Robert Rawhide"

    Robert could have countless other aliases, but as long as he used a different computer address consistently, there is no way for me to link to them together with any scientific certainty.

    However --

    Things like this make me scratch my head. I've banned other SGG defenders before who I agreed with on political matters -- who "know what's going on in the world". Look at this recent post by St.SimonOfTrent, for example:

    Quote from: St. Simon of Trent
    Never saw evidence?

    We (Nato & USA) bombed the Christians Serbs for 78 days, and committed many war crimes, in aiding the Kosova Muslims and KLA

    Milosevic defied the NWO.
    Yugoslavia is mineral rich and had to be balkanized by the Judaics in power.

    Its also key in its proximity to gas and oil pipelines to the Med.

    No more wars for Israel.

    As Christians we are compelled to speak out FOR Justice.


    I got a feeling of "deja vu" as I read this post by a banned member, who I agreed with 100% on political matters.

    Again, I don't have the kind of time to track down the WHO, and it would all just be a guess anyhow.

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22910
    • Reputation: +20056/-240
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #4 on: November 30, 2009, 12:13:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • After further investigation, I have determined that Robert Rawhide was also Laurencio.

    If Gladius is correct in that Laurencio = Rob Sheahan, then Robert Rawhide = Rob Sheahan.

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Belloc

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6601
    • Reputation: +614/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #5 on: November 30, 2009, 07:42:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BakedHide...... :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2:

    We can disagree on many things, but this is a hoot my friend...I am still LOL   :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
    Proud "European American" and prouder, still, Catholic

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22910
    • Reputation: +20056/-240
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #6 on: November 30, 2009, 09:55:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Robert BakedHide
    And J. Laurencio Casio too, if I am not mistaken.   :detective:

    My opinion is that this Web operative with all the pseudonyms owes a whole bunch of folks a sincere apology for leading them to commit the sin of rash judgment.


    Ok -- you're not the first person to bring this up.

    Let me get this straight -- calling a person with the pseudonym Robert Rawhide, "Fr. Cekada" is rash judgment now?

    Do you even know what rash judgment is?  Either A) you don't know the definition, or B) you're intentionally misleading the forum with your post.
    To not commit rash judgment, I will assume the best of your actions -- that you are ignorant about the definition of rash judgment.

    Rash judgment is to assume the worst about another human being -- to impute evil motives without cause. To presume that another is sinning.

    If I guess wrong, I'm not committing rash judgment. For Rash Judgment -- as in the sin of rash judgment -- you have to rashly judge another to be sinning.

    If my wife comes in the door with a package, and I rashly judge that she bought me something, but she only bought groceries, I don't have to go to confession!


    According to the warped definition of Rash Judgment from some of these SGG defenders, I would!

    Anyhow, back to the definition of Rash Judgment.

    For example:
    To assume that a man carrying a 5 gallon gas can out of Wal-mart is shoplifting -- that would be rash judgment. For all you know, he paid for it. It might be too big to fit in a bag.

    But if someone joins a forum -- without giving any clue as to who they are -- people are free to guess.

    That's like saying it's a sin to conjecture about what a secret might be, when someone says to his co-workers, "I have a secret; I have a secret!". If you start thinking, "Is he engaged? Did he win some money? Is he getting a new house? a new car?" you wouldn't be sinning -- because he basically forced you to wonder. Humans ARE naturally curious.

    Now if you let yourself wonder, "Is he a murderer? Yes, he's probably a murderer." or "Did he get his girlfriend pregnant?" That wouldn't be called for, and it would be uncharitable. If such a wild thought entered your head, you should banish it as ridiculous and certainly not take any sick pleasure in thinking such low thoughts about your neighbor.

    Back to our case here --

    If Robert Rawhide shows MANY SIGNS of being Fr. Cekada -- in fact, Fr. Cekada wouldn't act much different at all -- how is it wrong to presume they are the same? None of us have any reason to believe otherwise. Being Fr. Cekada isn't a sin, is it?

    Obviously, I would be violating the truth if I knew he was Joe and then advertised to the world that he was Frank. But I had NO CLUE WHO HE WAS. Maybe that's his fault for being so secretive? Why can't he give out his identity, anyhow? Is there something he's trying to hide? Makes you wonder.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22910
    • Reputation: +20056/-240
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #7 on: November 30, 2009, 09:58:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Robert BakedHide and Hoss C. are the same person -- I am banning them both.

    P.S. For those of you curious -- Yes, I have proof. Not just a strong feeling.

    I am the forum owner, and a computer programmer. When I view CathInfo I see a lot more information than a "Member" or "Guest" would.

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline TheD

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 673
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #8 on: November 30, 2009, 10:10:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Robert BakedHide
    And J. Laurencio Casio too, if I am not mistaken.   :detective:

    My opinion is that this Web operative with all the pseudonyms owes a whole bunch of folks a sincere apology for leading them to commit the sin of rash judgment.

    Moderator:
    You don't even know what Rash Judgment is.

    If my wife comes in the door with a package, and I rashly judge that she bought me something, but she only bought groceries, I don't have to go to confession!

    To commit rash judgment, you have to rashly judge another to be SINNING. Is it a sin to be Fr. Cekada now?

    YOU CANT BE SERIOUS!  ROBERT BAKEDHIDE?  "Father" Cekada must think we are all idiots or something!

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6172
    • Reputation: +1234/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Bombshell: Robert Rawhide = OrthodoxHound
    « Reply #9 on: November 30, 2009, 11:00:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ChantCd
    If Gladius is correct in that Laurencio = Rob Sheahan, then Robert Rawhide = Rob Sheahan.


    The evidence is pretty straightforward.  Let me know if you would like to see it.

    FWIW, his long-time, public alias has/had been J. Lawrence Case.
    + Vincit veritas +

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16