Author Topic: Nome de Plume, Trinity or both bad (Read 5013 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** January 27, 2012, 05:40:12 PM »

From Trinity:

Nome de Plume's representation of Kathleen's article was so far off the mark it was a lie.

From Nome de Plume:

Did anyone read The Four Marks article by the editor that included the defense of Bishop Pivuranus against Father Ramolla and Tom Droleskey in the November issue?

I found it interesting that the editor chose to pick a side without giving both sides of the story or interviewing Father Ramolla, Tom Droleskey, or any of the Seminarians involved. I was a little surprised and disappointed about this. I wonder if anyone complained to the editor about this.
__________________________________________________________________
I am trying to gage a couple of people here. I'm looking form a dispassionate answer from someone who is objective like Hobbleday or Elizabeth or anyone else who fits the bill.

I know Bishop Pivuranus is a good Bishop but I do not know much about Father Ramolla.

1. Did the above mentioned article defend Bishop Pivuranus against Father Ramolla and Tom Droleskey?

2. Did the editor chose to pick a side without giving both sides of the story? (I suppose if the answer to number 1 is yes then the answer to number 2 would also be yes.)

3. Did the editor interview Father Ramolla, Tom Droleskey or any of the Seminarians involved? If this question is answered I would like to know how they know.

4. Was Nome de Plume's referance so far off the mark that it was a lie?

If the answers to the above questions are "no" then what Nome de Plume did is deplorable.

If the the answers to the above questions are "yes" than what Trinity posted is deplorable.

If the answers are some mixture of "yes" and "no" then it seems like an overreaction by Trinity which would lead me to think that there is some tiff going on between the two and Trinity is taking out his frustrations publically. Has Nome de Plume, being he was the one named in the post, had bad words to say about Trinity or hurt his feelings somehow?

I guess I could just ask Trinity directly. It seems no one had an interest in your rant to the point that you had to bump it up again. What was the purpose of your rant? What is the objective you are trying to obtain?

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2012, 06:10:42 PM »

The "article" was a very small report on a Q&A session at the 2011 Fatima Conference at CMRI. It was reporting what Bp. Pivarunas said in answer to a question by somebody attending the conference. Bp. Pivarunas sided with Bp. Pivarunas, which is understandable, isn't it? :-)

I found and posted the entire article. I didn't think the publisher was "taking sides" nor do I think it fair to assume so. I also think calling someone a "liar" over it is inappropriate.

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2012, 07:54:33 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: SJB
Bp. Pivarunas sided with Bp. Pivarunas, which is understandable, isn't it? :-)

Absolutely awesome!!!

What is it that you think is "awesome?"

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2012, 08:47:32 PM »

Trinity is a she, not a he.

What's the point of this thread anyway?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:35:36 AM »

1. Did the above mentioned article defend Bishop Pivuranus against Father Ramolla and Tom Droleskey?

ANYBODY, INCLUDING THE EDITOR WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE, WHO WAS AWARE OF THE SITUATION KNOWS THAT TO PICK ONE SIDE ON THIS ISSUE IS TO PICK AGAINST THE OTHER SIDE. SHE MADE HER CHOICE.

2. Did the editor chose to pick a side without giving both sides of the story? (I suppose if the answer to number 1 is yes then the answer to number 2 would also be yes.)

SEE ABOVE.

3. Did the editor interview Father Ramolla, Tom Droleskey or any of the Seminarians involved? If this question is answered I would like to know how they know.

NO.

4. Was Nome de Plume's referance so far off the mark that it was a lie?

NO. THAT WOULD BE A FALSE AND UNCHARITABLE ACCUSATION.

If the answers to the above questions are "no" then what Nome de Plume did is deplorable.

NOT TO WORRY NOME BOY.

PM me anytime I don't check often and prefer to be written to at my regular address, I am who used to write for the editer of the 4Ms and have first-hand and direct knowledge of what happened and why. It was wrong for NOME to post this and for me to jump in but that does not make us liars.