Author Topic: Nome de Plume, Trinity or both bad (Read 4859 times)

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?