Quote from: tradical

Quote from: Novus Weirdo

Quote from: tradical

Quote from: Zeitun

tradical don't be a sore loser because you were on the wrong side.  DNF was a witch and stalked people, made threats through PM.  She's a blight on the tradosphere.  That in of itself was enough for her to banned had there been a real mod.

Why don't you start your own forum?

My blog is sufficient for now.

God Bless!

Then stay there.

If I didn't know how open this forum was to debate and discussion I would believe that you are trying to get rid of me.

Not to worry, that was the reason why I stayed at Ignis Ardens.  I made one post asking a question and zing 'Accordista Alert'.


Only here, the word Accordista has been exchanged for 'Troll'.

Now that I feel properly welcomed - I think I'll hang around for a while.


God Bless!!!

Unless of course I'm mistaken about my first statement concerning this site.

God Bless!!!

Troll!

You see Tradical, one of the differences between IA and this forum, we could not ignore your posts on IA.  On Cathinfo, we can hide your sarcastic "bless you's" and indeed your entire posts by the press of the HIDE button, letting you to talk to yourself until you fall off the vine.  I hope all will ignore your wasted words from here on out.  

I made a slight change to the OP after the following e-mail exchange.

I'm not going to add anything -- read it for yourself.

(The newest e-mail is at the top, and the original e-mail is all the way at the bottom)



Here is the link

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sharon-Jane-Ballatine

 

If I took the same rude attitude towards you that you have taken towards me, I’d be making equally sarcastic remarks about you clearly having some role on CathInfo (or why would you be receiving the emails from the site) but not even knowing what is on the site.

 

And the fact that you presumed the charge was “false” really says it all.  Catholic charity presumes the opposite. You do not presume someone to be mentally unstable without firm evidence.

 

It’s much more likely that someone with a clear role of responsibility on a public internet forum who doesn’t know if he’s on horseback or foot, is in need of mental health treatment but I would not dream of posting that opinion on a public forum.

 

Now remove the lie or leave it – I am definitely NOT wasting even 30 seconds of my precious time registering for that site.

 

Patricia

 

 

 

From: Matthew [mailto:matthew@cathinfo.com]
Sent: 09 September 2013 20:38
To: Catholic Truth
Subject: Re: HIGHLY UNSTABLE MODERATOR AT CATHOLIC TRUTH CALLING!

 

It's not an article!  Did you read my response at all!?

You didn't even give me a link to the so-called "article", as if I knew very well what "menu" the "article" is under, as if my site were an informational website like yours.

I also never said I wouldn't remove it. But I THOUGHT we were having a little discussion. I was planning to ask you for a link to the offending post.

I don't know... I was PRESUMING that the charge was false. You're not giving me the best impression of your stability...

You also assume that I know you, and that a charge of mental instability should be immediately understood as "false". For all I know, you've been treated by psychiatrists and committed to an institution several times. How am I supposed to know? To use a colorful Irish expression (that my dad often used), "I don't know you from a can of paint."

And you've had time to write 2 long e-mails to me, but registering for an account takes too long? Sorry, I know that's not true. It takes 30 seconds to sign up for an account.



On 09/09/2013 01:23 PM, Catholic Truth wrote:

    Matthew,

     

    Sorry, but your response does not wash. If you had received a legal threat over the defamation about me on the CathInfo forum, someone would have had to remove that comment and they would have done so in double quick time.  So, don’t gimme a Pontius Pilate response, please and thank you.

     

    Happily, those who know me, and who have read the CathInfo article, have all reacted in exactly the same way: that to say such a scurrilous thing, to publish (and allow to stand) such a blatant falsehood about me or any other individual, reveals a far from Catholic spirit on your forum.

     

    I simply do not have the time to devote to registering, correcting that lie and then leaving myself open to a barrage of responses, so I’m going to leave it on your conscience, that you have allowed a lie to be peddled on the CathInfo forum, which could greatly damage the Catholic Truth apostolate, in the knowledge that you will have to answer for such a grave sin at your judgement.

     

    Patricia

    www.catholictruthscotland.com

     

     

     

    From: Matthew [mailto:matthew@cathinfo.com]
    Sent: 09 September 2013 01:02
    To: Catholic Truth
    Subject: Re: HIGHLY UNSTABLE MODERATOR AT CATHOLIC TRUTH CALLING!

     

    Patricia,

    There is something you need to know. Unlike you, I am not the "Editor" of CathInfo. If I were, everything on CI would be "from my mouth" as it were, and I would be running a blog or informational website, and as a matter of fact I would be responsible for everything posted there.

    But as it stands, I'm not the editor, I'm just the owner and moderator. But to be clear: I don't pre-emptively moderate the posts (approving them before they appear). If I did, my site would effectively (and legally) be equivalent to a blog.

    I visited your website briefly, and sure enough, it's a "website" with an editor, one person who approves all content, etc. That might be what you're used to, and why you're confused. But in your e-mail, you make references to "me" and "my post" about a dozen times, as if I'm running a site like yours. I'm not. I'm running a Catholic Message Board and a very open, almost "free-for-all", one at that.

    I let people talk about whatever they want to. Especially current events that everyone is dying to talk about. I certainly don't try to curb every "sin against charity" because most people aren't saints -- I'd have to shut down the forum. So I don't bother. Only the most egregious violations are dealt with.

    For one thing, I have this little problem of not being omniscient. One man's slander is another man's whistleblowing. One man's "insurgency" is another man's "freedom fighting". When insurgents fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, they're the enemy. When they're in America circa 1776, they're called Patriots and Founding Fathers. How is little old me the Moderator to know the difference?

    I suggest you join CathInfo and add your comments to the discussion.  I have no idea why the image wouldn't load -- if you look at the site, there doesn't seem to be any technical problem with the software, server, etc. as CI gets several new members every day.

    Generally speaking, I'd say just sign up and contradict the person who claimed you were unstable. You know, it's a losing battle to try to "moderate" every persistent rumor about you.

    If someone had no basis in calling you "mentally unstable", I guess it's best to just make them look like an awful Catholic by calling them on it. People have to be able to figure out the truth for themselves about each person, case, organization, etc. there is always much conflicting information out there. Unfortunately, we don't have an "Information Pope" that can sort the wheat from the chaff definitively. Hence the "babel" of information on the Net.

    Hope to see you on the forum,

    Matthew



    On 09/08/2013 01:07 PM, Catholic Truth wrote:

        Hello there,

         

        This morning after Mass, I was pointed in the direction of your post on “spiritustempore”  (31 August) by a blogger at Catholic Truth (we’re not called Catholic Truth Scotland, by the way, just Catholic Truth – only our domain name includes “Scotland” for technical reasons)

         

        Anyway, I was completely riveted by your expose of Sian Ballantine (or whatever her name is) whom I met some time ago – at her request - when she visited Glasgow.

         

        However, I was disappointed to see myself described as “highly unstable” and would make the following two points:

         

        (1) it strikes me as curious, to say the least, that you would publicly describe me in such a derogatory and damaging way when we’ve never even met and I’d be interested to know how you reached your diagnosis of my mental health

         

        (2) I must be one of the few people in the land, if not the world, with a piece of paper from my doctor testifying to my sanity of mind - obtained when modernists in one teaching establishment did what you’ve done, and alleged that I was psychologically disturbed (because I held to traditional Catholic doctrine and morals – puts you in very dubious company....)

         

        I did try to register on your forum to say this, but got stuck when I was asked to type the text in the image, there being no image.

         

        Anyway, if you would be so kind as to notify your readers that I’m really not at all unstable, but that I thank your forum for the information about the former Catholic Truth blogger, spiritustempore.  I found that an extremely formative post and well worth the insults!

         

        God bless you.

         

        Patricia McKeever

        Editor

        Catholic Truth

        www.catholictruthscotland.com

         

     

 

SJB posts on CathTruth under the username CrofterLady.

Whatever they did to IA and ALF must not have worked here, or they wouldn't have bothered Matthew with any "nicities". IMO

From what little I have seen of this lady's site, she uses the SSPX as something of a refuge while focussing heavily on the local Scottish diocesan scene. She thinks that her own brand of traditionalism is the authentic one and naively assumes that bishops there (who are some of the worst in the world) will therefore sit up and take notice. While the Society remains Rome-friendly her mission is to single-handedly unite the church; on its own it would be too small for the size of her ego, especially in Scotland, and she would accuse it of having schismatic tendencies.  

The lady is quite transparent. She does not wish to pursue the avenue of defending herself as she knows that means scrutiny and exposing her activities and associations.
She simply cries victim and accuses Matthew as her latest persecutor, not to mention that it is she who was rude and abusive in her accusations and in her tone.

 A good response by Matthew by the way.