Author Topic: Nome de Plume, Trinity or both bad (Read 2461 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.

Trinity · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:00:28 AM »

Nome de Plume wrote that Kathleen had written a biased editorial when she had actually written an article covering the 2011 conference. This gave the impression that Kathleen was doing something bad which was entirely wrong. A misrepresentation is essentially a lie. LOT my disappointment in you is growing. Nome de Plume haven't you caused enough trouble?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2012, 11:32:43 AM »

Quote

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.

Lot, I think Trinity does not understand your above statement. From there I'd like to know if it is true or not. I can't PM you because it says I'm "not established". How do they know whether I'm established or not.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:00:48 PM »

Mr. Gregory (aka LOT, NDP, AMDG), please refrain from having conversations with yourself.

Trinity · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:31:17 PM »

Thanks, Mater. I don't know if they are all one or not, so I will continue to treat them as plural. No AMDG, you are the one who doesn't understand. Kathleen wrote a factual report on the 2011 conference telling what Bishop Pivarunas said. NdP inaccurately called it a biased editorial and LOT has been all over it with his complaints that Kathleen didn't get FR. R's side of things. As someone pointed out the bishop was obviously on the bishop's side. This was absolutely not Kathleen's biased reporting. NdP misrepresented it whether deliberately or unintentionally I don't know. It still speaks to his accuracy which isn't accurate at all and this over an article there in black and white for everyone to see. What really hurts and upsets me is that LOT went along with it. I really thought better of him than that.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:43:52 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Thanks, Mater. I don't know if they are all one or not, so I will continue to treat them as plural. No AMDG, you are the one who doesn't understand. Kathleen wrote a factual report on the 2011 conference telling what Bishop Pivarunas said. NdP inaccurately called it a biased editorial and LOT has been all over it with his complaints that Kathleen didn't get FR. R's side of things. As someone pointed out the bishop was obviously on the bishop's side. This was absolutely not Kathleen's biased reporting. NdP misrepresented it whether deliberately or unintentionally I don't know. It still speaks to his accuracy which isn't accurate at all and this over an article there in black and white for everyone to see. What really hurts and upsets me is that LOT went along with it. I really thought better of him than that.

I'm getting the gist of it now. So NDP says KATHLEEN wrote a biased report but really she wrote a factual report.

You say LOT complains that Kathleen didn't get Father Ramolla's side of the story. Was this at least accurate or do they/him keep getting the facts wrong, innocently or not?

The thread seemed to be about Kathleen rather than the bishop and whether he defended himself or admitted his errors.

Quote

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.

I still have not seen this answered yet. Was the editor aware of the situation before she posted the article? If yes it would seem that she, right or wrong, did indeed pick a side. If no, then your anger seems justified as NDP and LOT felt the need to blab all over the place for no reason, which seems odd, but I hear there are alot of bad people on this site that just do things to be mean.

When does one get established so they can write PM's?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2012, 02:30:29 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Thanks, Mater. I don't know if they are all one or not, so I will continue to treat them as plural.

Feel free, Trinity. Just don't be surprised when two of the three disappear.

I'm all for extending the benefit of the doubt, but I just saw in another thread where one is asking for a PM from the other despite the fact that they are in the same physical location.

I just saw your Anathema thread too. Go back and read again and you won't be surprised to find that JG agrees with JG and everyone else thinks he's made a mountain out of a molehill.

Trinity · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2012, 02:51:05 PM »

You hit the nail on the head, Mater. They made a mountain out of a molehill and proceeded to scourge innocent people over it. Kathleen merely reported what the bishop said. She did not take sides. Then accusations started flying like machine gun bullets and the next thing we know we are being invited to start a march for Catholic "rights". Spare ,me. I have seen the results of too many "rights" activists to never want that visited on anyone, never mind the Church.

AMDG the answer to that question is NO. We can't answer you because the whole question is fabrication. Based on a falsehood. But God forbid it should be called a lie.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2012, 03:18:34 PM »

A shame that LOT has multiple accounts... I sort of liked the guy up until this point. I will not trust him any longer.

Trinity · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2012, 03:34:34 PM »

It could be a group working from the same computer. Who knows. I did think to warn people that if they start offering land for sale in Florida, RUN.

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2012, 04:20:56 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

You hit the nail on the head, Mater. They made a mountain out of a molehill and proceeded to scourge innocent people over it. Kathleen merely reported what the bishop said. She did not take sides. Then accusations started flying like machine gun bullets and the next thing we know we are being invited to start a march for Catholic "rights". Spare ,me. I have seen the results of too many "rights" activists to never want that visited on anyone, never mind the Church.

AMDG the answer to that question is NO. We can't answer you because the whole question is fabrication. Based on a falsehood. But God forbid it should be called a lie.

Well, Mary, I was the one who found the "article" and posted it. I thought it was a non-issue and was the first to say so, but I don't think anybody was "scourged" over it, either.

Do you deny that Catholics have rights? Does quoting a commentary on canon law make me a "liberal?" You seem to care only about your own unorthodox opinions.