I have no accusations for you about anything against the Faith- which is why I haven't made any. But Capistrano wasn't necessarily banned for outright accusations against the faith on this forum- it took a little bit of, "hey look over here" to prove who he was. If this isn't you, you have nothing to fear. I only point out what I see as interesting correlations amongst 3 different members within a very short period of time. I leave it up to moderator to decide if he can see anything else (with what he as access to as moderator).
And its not like I'm dragging this on; I've made only one post on these curiosities this thread that I noticed this morning; the other posts I made were good enough for Moderator to respond to. Again, its nothing personal and if you're truly an honest person, then hopefully we can become friends and have good discussions here.
I've seen someone use the posting style you just used...one post containing numerous different spaced-out lines. Can't remember exactly who used that posting style. In another post, you underlined some words in your post, a posting style that Rob Sheenan used.
So, did
I do a "look over here" to any offensive sites? I did post a few secular sites, but in the context of asking people to help evangelize the Faith there. Last time I checked, none of you helped me, but there was no shortage of time and energy devoted to carping about "suspicions."
What "correlations"? That I found it interesting that Capistrano offered docuмentation of very surprising WW 2 history I had never heard before? "Correlations"? Only imaginary. There is no bogeyman here. That I defended him? I hope someone defends
you when
you deserve it.
I am not Capistrano. I am not Richard Ibryani. I am not Rob Sheehan (whoever that is). I had not even heard the name Ibryani until Matthew mentioned it and I looked him up. As best I can discern, he is a character of no great consequence. Then,
after I heard the name here, I mentioned it and you became "suspicious." Look at the date stamps of Matthew's mention and my mention. I asked Matthew personally to clear this up, but he has not. Still "suspicious"?
Hear this: I am sympathetic to the grievances of sede vacantists, but I do
NOT reach their conclusions. I am
NOT a sede vacantist. I am
NOT a missionary for sede vacantism.
Further, I had not even heard the name Robert Sheehan until SpiritusSanctus mentioned it. Is he a sede vacantist? I sure don't know.
Besides, give all of us a break! When my comments are bullet points, I use the spacing that makes you "suspicious." When I am posting something more comprehensive (e.g., the Judaism 101 post to the Library), I don't use the same bullet point spacing.
You were suspicious because of the esthetics on my posts???!!! Good Heavens! I think it is "suspicious" that someone would adopt the name of God, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, to represent their human self on the internet.
You say, "You have nothing to fear." Fear you? I am appalled.
Certainly you may detect that your behavior has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Yes, I will forgive 70x7, but I expected much better behavior here—a discussion of Catholic news and doctrine, not
ad hominem sniping or tribal suspicion of outsiders.