The Zostrianos Affair: A Preliminary Report

On the morning of February 27, an individual using the monicker “Zostrianos” posted the following message on the Suscipe Domine forum:

Hello SD I am Zostrianos I am a member of the te deum forum. As you no doubt no there has been strife between our respective forums. All started by Jayne and Kaesekopf who banned members of TD over frivolous reasons. Here is evidence: https://sbyvl.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/4172/. Now then I have taken it upon myself to deliver this message.
Issue an apology to the banned members and reinstate them. Write a post detailing the events and how they really happened. Until then we are at war
Sincerely
Sbyvl , Voxxpopulisuxx , Mithrandylan, and all members of TD

A second post in the thread contained the following message:

This is my mission. I have caused problems there and to redeem myself I am doing this.

The individual who posted these messages used the name and profile picture of the Te Deum forum member of the same name. This incident occured just days after I posted my chronicle of the various scandals on the Suscipe Domine forum, available two posts below this one on Sbyvl’s Blog.

This is the second time an individual has trolled SD whilst imitating a TD member. This also occurred on September 15, when an individual using the monicker “sheerheartattack” posted this:

The vile rumors about the Te Deum forum and its members is despicable!
And I bring to you the truth that the mods wont tell you!
Jayne/voldemort has trolled TD on a few occasions in the last week. Here is a quote from a post of hers on TD
Next time I infiltrate this forum I will not warn you and I will not leave a trail of clues. (By the way, you were faster than I expected. Well done.) As long as this forum considers it acceptable to make negative comments about me as J A Y N E, voldemort, “certain individual”, or any other circumlocution, I will consider it acceptable to spy on you and infiltrate you. Leave me alone and I leeave you alone. Making me into an enemy is a bad idea. Bzmom was harmless. Don’t push your luck.-Jayne
That sounds like the aggressor right? We only are reacting in the way we feel we should.
But Jayne and your mods are not telling the truth. So I advise all sedevacantist here to leave this forum and join TD instead for you will receive a warm welcome and the ability to use your freedom of speech. And I ask the mods and Jayne especially to apologize to all of us and cease to troll and spread lies. Until then this is war!
Sheer heart attack.

The “sheerheartattack” fellow made his post the day after I posted this explanation of the occuring scandals on TD:

We were banned from SD for proving to KK that voldemort was trolling our forum under a different name. The information that proved this was briefly visible here, before being taken down. We contacted KK to ask him to discipline voldemort for trolling TD and posting about it there (which is exactly what I was banned for about a month ago, as you recall). He refused, and instead banned us for briefly posting the info about voldemort, and said on SD that we ‘stole’ information, an assertion I have still not determined the basis of.

Since then, voldemort has trolled this forum multiple times, and today, she was joined by another SD user, who we believe may be KK himself. They attacked and insulted me personally, my moderators, and the forum for over an hour before being banned again. Their posts were deleted, and non-registered guests are no longer able to post.

Does that answer your question?

The “coincidence” is obvious enough for anyone to catch. Whenever I make a public statement about the scandals involving SD, I can expect some idiot to pose as a TD member and troll SD. Moreover, as the email exchanges at the end of this post will show, KK has refused to cooperate directly in any investigation, instead demanding that I present the IP information of TD member Jefffab1993, who Sheerheartattack imitated, through Jayne, who has inserted herself into this mess, clearly with a vested interest, and acting as the “middle-man” between us. This struck me as odd because Jayne is supposedly on a self-imposed two week vacation from SD, supposedly in protest (or whatever) regarding Maximilian’s recent banning from SD (link: thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html?m=1)

This should demonstrate to any reasonable individual that Jayne wields much more influence over the SD leadership than she claims, despite her constant statements to the contrary (Link: thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/02/echo-chamber-cannibalizes-another-member.html?m=1)

—————————————————————-
The pertinent email exchanges, with added commentary.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, Jayne K wrote:
KK asked me about whether I sent a threatening email to one of your members and told me about this alleged virus. I did not send such an email. I checked with my husband, who is a world class software designer (working with Blackberry for 17 years), and he says such a virus is not possible. Even if it were possible, I did not need a member email to insert it. As you know, I still had a member account on TD after I was banned. Also, if I wanted to threaten you (which it should be obvious that I do not), I would post in on your forum or I would approach you directly. I would not go through a member’s email. You know that I am willing to apologize to your forum and am not demanding any apologies in return.

Is there any evidence that this email ever existed or that the conversation with the IT person actually happened? This sounds more like a person trying to make trouble than anything real. It’s rich that she says “if I wanted to threaten you [ . . . ] I would post in your forum or I would approach you directly,” after her deceptive bzmom account was busted and she used the “pat” account admission as some bizarre leverage (I’m so honest, I’m going to show you this other deceptive account I made on your site. Trust me now? Typical Jewish “honesty” alright…)

One should also note that the bogus email address Jayne used for the account which sent me this message read in part: “pawnsmove”.  I think this is very telling, for it shows that Jayne views this as a game.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Sbyvl wrote:
Hi Jayne,
I mentioned the story to KK because my mods were watching it yesterday afternoon. We have since concluded that the reports were false, which is why I never mentioned it publicly or spoke to you about it. We have also determined that such a virus is impossible to make. No worries.

We are in the process of determining the correct disciplinary action for this member. We believe this was an attempt at defamation of your character, which we will not tolerate.

We have reached an understanding with KK.

Although the virus was, indeed, impossible, Jeff’s description of it as a “virus” may have in fact been merely a misdiagnosis of something else. But whatever it was, we were never able to definitively prove or disprove anything Jeff’s muddled reports attempted to communicate.

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Jayne K wrote:
There have been three apparent attempts to start a forum war between TD and AD. There have been the two posts on SD (by Sheerheartattack and pseudo-Zostrianos). These seem to me to have been written by the same person. Both speak of “war” and demand apologies. There is no way that Zostrianos wrote the SD post bearing his name. Among other reasons, he has another name on SD.

I suggest the prime suspect is the member who came up with this completely falsified virus story. This member has showed himself determined to cause trouble and not concerned about the truth, the same characteristics of the mystery poster(s). I think this would make a fruitful line of inquiry, much more than pursuing a false flag theory. I find it unlikely that there is more than one person unbalanced enough to be doing these things and you already know about one person.

Perhaps a member in good standing on both forums, such as Lydia Purpuria or some similar person, could act as an emissary to SD to request IP information on these posters. It is in both forum’s interest to work together to stop this malicious person. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know.

From the beginning, Jayne rejects the idea it’s Zos. Remember that Zos has defended Jayne in the past.  Immediately, she suggests an unnamed Jeff, referencing the old “virius” issue. Where she sees a vulnerability, she takes advantage. Also starts from the beginning discouraging the false flag angle.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Sbyvl wrote:
If you can suggest the idea to KK to request the IP’s of the members, that would help. We can try to match them to members of TD and SD. I suspect whoever is behind these accounts is trying to dismantle the reputation of TD.

I don’t think Lydia wants to get involved, but you can certainly be of help.

We should not, however, exclude the possibility of it being an inside job.

With regard to the virus story, I vaguely recall the TD member Jeff saying something about a virus and leading us on a wild goose chase. Is this what you are reffering to?

Regards.

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Jayne K wrote:
I was never told the name of the member who made up the story. I only knew that somebody claimed to have received a threat of a virus attack from an IP in Ontario. But if Jeff lied about that, then why believe him when he denied being sheerheartattack? It was obviously his style, as is this latest attempt to start a forum war. And Jeff, under his own name, has used the word “war” about this situation. Everything points to him.

KK is tired of the whole subject and just wants it dropped. There is no way this is coming from him or anyone operating with his knowledge. It does make your forum look bad, so I suppose you want to consider that being the purpose. However, if you take the three incidents together there is a pattern.

I will suggest to KK that he give you account information from the trolls.

Sure, she “was never told the name of the member who made up the story. But she is apparently perceptive enough to connect the dots between sheerheartattack and pseudo-Zos; if she were to read TD for any length of time and read any of Jeff’s many posts, she would be able to connect those dots, too.  She didn’t need to be told any name — she even writes “It was obviously his style” (!!!). Again attacks Jeff’s credibility, although contrary to Jayne’s manipulative language, Jeff has not used the word “war” about the new situation — only the last one, from September.  Moreover, there has hitherto been no positive evidence to suspect Jeff as the culprit.  Who is to say after all their lies and deceptions before they wouldn’t manipulate their “evidence” after seeing ours, thus bringing a scandal on TD’s 2nd most prolific poster and casting TD itself in a negative light for fostering such behavior? With this demand, KK oversteps his “jurisdiction” in asking for a TD member’s IP address instead of volunteering the banned member’s IP address to us.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Sbyvl wrote:
If KK wants the matter dropped, he should remove the lies about me from his forum as he said he would do.

We will look into the matter.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Jayne K wrote:
What KK has on his forum is not lies. It is what he honestly believes happened. Besides, mostly it’s screen shots, so that does not leave a lot of room for lying. Accusing people of lying is not a way to get them cooperate. He did originally intend to let you back on SD, but this sort of thing has annoyed him.

It seems to me that the thing that most bothers him is the question of how tmw had information that would only have been available to him when he was a moderator at SD. It looks like tmw kept SD moderator information when he quit as mod. It does not matter to KK whether or not tmw intended to post it publicly. KK is upset that tmw had it in the first place. I can’t see KK doing anything you want until that matter is resolved.

His main problem with you, as far as I can tell, is that you are permitting your moderator to do something he finds unethical. If tmw did in fact retain moderator information, it seems to me that KK wants to you to reprimand or discipline him in some way. I do not expect to see any action from him until this gets clear up. The only outcomes that I expect to move him are either you (or tmw) provide an explanation of how tmw had that information without retaining it after quitting as mod or he be censured for retaining it.

I already proved he lied by that last blog post of mine. Screen shots do not tell the whole story — they don’t show which part of the forum tmw’s quotation of my report on bzmom came from, for example. His screen shots are even more unusual insofar as they are screenshots from a phone, not the full desktop version of the site. While accusing someone of lying may not be the best negotiating strategy, if this person has in fact lied (which KK has) then he is clearly in the wrong, and by standing by it as if he is honest, he is being unjust. She brings tmw up again out of spite over his history of exposing her, glossing over how KK practically ignored Jayne’s wrong-doing because he didn’t like how we had caught and humiliated her for her scheming. That she not-so-subtly suggests punishing tmw is her trying to flex her influence.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Sbyvl wrote:
Yes, he has told lies. I demonstrated this in my blog post.

And as I said, Tmw offered to speak to KK about the issue through face book, but KK refused, citing lack of time, as I recall.

Furthermore, he originally told me that the issue of my reinstatement and his reinstatement were completely separate matters. I even removed the entire Other Catholic forums thread to the private chatroom because he objected to it. It seems that every time I do what he asks, he wants more, and then never follows through. When he tells me repeatedly he will do something, and then never does it, how is it not lying?

And he accused me of many worse offenses, so he needs to get off his high horse if he truly wants to discuss this. If not, it’s on him, because the truth has been exposed now, and he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

More truth, which will summarily be ignored…

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Jayne K wrote:
He does not want to discuss it. He is fine with matters being left as they are. You are the one who wants something. I am telling you my best understanding of what might get him talking to you.

She drops the matter of how he didn’t lie because… it’s clear I am not buying her BS.  She tries to make it look like I’m the one with the problem, whereas this started with her email to me about pseudo-Zos. Her “best understanding” happens to align very nicely with her own wants.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Sbyvl wrote:
Of course he is fine with matters left as they are. He views me as competition, and he has been relentlessly trying to stop TD’s expansion. You seem to have glossed over the main reason for this exchange, which is my question of whether or not he is willing to cooperate in the investigation of the identities of sheer heart attack and Zostrianos. If he doesn’t, it only raises the suspicions of a false flag.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Jayne K wrote:

This is what KK proposes for the investigation. He would like you to take a screenshot of jeff’s account info and provide it to me and I will forward it to him. He will then do likewise for the two accounts over here which I will forward to you.

Obviously KK trusts me as a go-between. Do you? I have seen people hinting that I am the person responsible for the SD trolls and also people openly accusing me of dishonesty. I will understand if you prefer someone else in this role.

This message above is what we like to call “the smoking gun.”

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Sbyvl wrote:
Allow me to just ask you a few questions before we proceed, and I request that you answer them honestly.

1. Are you the individual behind, or did you orchestrate the actions behind, the SD accounts “sheerheartattack” and “Zostrianos”?

2. Does KK specifically ask you to be the go-between?

3. Would KK accept the information directly?

Once these questions are answered, and after consultation with my moderators, we will either proceed or not proceed through you, but you will be informed as soon as possible either way.

Regards.

From: Jayne K
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2015
Subject: Re: Virus story
To: Sbyvl
1. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the posts by sheerheartattack and Zostrianos, other than responding to the former.

I was so appalled by sheerheartattack’s intent to turn this into a forum war that this was the reason I unconditionally surrendered at that point. That is why I turned over the TD account you had not discovered and promised never to post there without permission. When you first found and banned bzmom, I still had plans against TD.

2. KK explicitly asked that the screen shots be sent to me.

3. From the way he phrased it, I have the impression that he will not accept the information directly, but he did not say so in those exact words. I can ask him to clarify this if you like.

RE 1, Does she have any credibility left at this point?

If you didn’t bother to read through the exchanges (and that is not all of them; click on the links below), be aware that Kaesekopf will only cooperate with the investigation if I send him the (let’s quote him, shall we?) “private” Ip information of the TD-member-in-good-standing jefffab1993, trusting him that he will neither reveal said information to the public, and also trusting him that I will not be double-dealed again (either with a manipulated image of the trolls’ ip’s, or otherwise).  So basically, I have to trust that, after five months of being double-dealed and lied to, and after KK’s refusal to remove the falsehoods about myself and others, I am expected to believe he is suddenly going to come full circle, and will now treat me in an honest and equitable way?

Not to mention he is demanding the ever-trustworthy Jayne to be the middle man.

I don’t think so.

Moreover, We will protect our good members from the slander of (what appears to be) SD’s false flag operation and book-lickers like Jayne who pander to the crowd one minute (Maximilian is banned, therefore I leave for two weeks!) and turn around and act as intermediaries for SD’s leadership the next.

And just as a little aside, please take note that Jayne has been using the same tactics for years now.  Get a load of this post on Fish Eaters by our very own Tmw back in January of 2012.  No, she is not the innocent grandmother with a keyboard that some make her out to be.

Chronicle of the Various Scandals on the Suscipe Domine forum

The purpose of this post is to present a truthful chronicle of the various scandal that erupted on the Suscipe Domine forum in August 2014, in order to disclose to public inspection the facts of the matter.

This post will be written in a question-and-answer format.

Which “various scandals” are you referring to?

I am referring to the scandals involving the administrations of the Suscipe Domine and Te Deum forums, as well as the SD/TD members Jayne and Sbyvl (myself).

When did this all start?

These scandals began at the beginning of August 2014, shortly after my first major interaction with Jayne.

What occurred during your first interaction with Jayne?

On July 30, 2014, an atheist using the moniker “Shadow Fox” felt the need to join Suscipe Domine forum and attack Catholicism (link here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8010.0).

Whilst we waited for the administration to ban him, Jayne and I proceeded to correct Shadow Fox’s horrid grammar, which in turn led to the creation of the SD-Grammar Gestapo. We were “officially” friends when we agreed that the Oxford comma is a necessary comma. And no, I am not making this up. The link is there if you don’t believe me.

But the frivolousness aside, from this point until September, I sincerely viewed Jayne to be a friend, and we interacted quite a bit until things broke down the following month.

Okay. So tell me about the CAF escapade.

The thought process behind my paying Catholic [sic] Answers a visit was as follows. “Gee, this place calls itself Catholic and has a reputation for being completely modernist. Let’s see how long it will take them to ban someone who is unabashedly Catholic”.

The escapade earned me a three-day ban, for allegedly violating SD’s “do not disparage other forums” rule, despite opening post of the thread explicitly stating it was not intended to be a disparagement, the thread was locked after Jayne warned it would turn people away from tradition. One can read the entire thread here (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8327.90). One will notice that I did not post anything particularly outrageous at CAF, and instead defended the Catholic faith on a forum that advertised itself as Catholic.

 

“Sbyvl36 has been banned 3 days for trolling CAF and posting about it here. In principle this is no different than what the atheists did to us.”

Was Jayne correct in believing the CAF escapade would turn people away from tradition?

Not exactly (link: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8341.0)

Did anyone contact you during your ban?

Yes. Then-SD member RobertJS, who wrote to warn me that the SD administration was targeting sedevacantist members, searching for pretexts to ban them, was the first to contact me. He had been repeatedly accused of “dogmatic sedevacantism”, the favorite excuse of SD to rid themselves of sedevacantists. For the record, I do not know of a single poster on Suscipe Domine who held that belief in the present vacancy of the Holy See is an article of faith. Moreover, RobrtJS had previously requested a number of times for a firm clarification of what constituted “dogmatic sedevacantism”. Despite showing willingness to adhere to SD policies, RobertJS was banned on August 27 for “Dogmatic sedevacantism and for lack of charity towards other members”. The “dogmatic sedevacantism” bit was edited out on September 1.

Then-SD member Voxxpopulisuxx also contacted me during my ban, to warn me that the SD administration was banning members who Jayne had an animosity towards. Voxxpopulisuxx had himself been a victim of this, and he believed Jayne had convinced the moderators to ban me. I later checked the timestamps and found there was a twelve-hour interval between the locking of the CAF thread and the time I was banned.

Another individual later informed me that Jayne had indeed orchestrated my ban.

Why did you create the Te Deum forum?

I had been growing tired of SD’s policies of banning sedevacantists on ridiculous pretexts whilst allowing feminists and the occasional atheist to roam free. Back in December 2013, I was shouted down for questioning Kaesekopf and the moderators regarding their policy of permitting the atheist “Crimson Flyboy” to post subtle attacks on the Catholic faith in numerous places.

I believe Traditional Catholics need a forum where there is not an official “party line” to tow, and where all non-heretical positions on the present ecclesiastical Crisis are permitted, and where the leadership will not find an excuse to ban an individual simply because he holds a slightly different opinion on the Crisis than the administration.

Jayne was at this time also a factor. Even aside from the CAF thread, she had felt the need to constantly and publicly scold me over trivial matters. She had clearly become a favorite of the SD administration, and despite her endless manipulations being exposed a number of times (example here: http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-echo-chambers-fears-of-honesty-and.html), she still wields enormous influence with the administration of Suscipe Domine.

What was the initial reaction from Suscipe Domine?

Initially, there was no reaction, because I was not publicly advertising my forum on SD. However, within days, Jayne found TD through a Google search, and proceeded to immediately “warn” Kaesekopf of the existence of the Te Deum forum.

Following this, Jayne made it publicly known that I had created a new forum. Fearful of being banned again, I invited a few SD members to join Te Deum, but did not (and this is very important) ask them to cease posting at Suscipe Domine. Many posters are members of multiple forums, so there was nothing abnormal going on here. Moreover, at the time Suscipe Domine was founded back in 2012, Kaesekopf and his moderators embarked on an aggressive campaign to encourage members of the Fish Eaters forum to join SD.   Therefore, complaints from the SD leadership regarding this would be inconsistent with their own previous actions.

When did Jayne join Te Deum?

I had invited Jayne to TD in late-August, but she declined. On September 2, she registered as a member of Te Deum under the moniker “bzmom”, posed as a sedevacantist, and attempted to disguise her posting style. She was truly posting “under cover”.

What were the first signs of the brewing scandal?

On the same day “bzmom” registered for an account on TD, I received a PM from Jayne, wherein she accused me of pretending to be her friend, of bad will, and a whole slew of other accusations. The goofiest charge was that I wrote a post on TD wherein I “confessed” to not really being her friend, and only acting as such to stay on SD. Of course, I never made any such post, but nevertheless, she blocked me from sending her PM’s, and in order to determine for certain if I was on her “ignore” list (and to get through to her to ask her what was going on), I started this thread (link: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8510.msg183635#msg183635) with the following opening post:

“Is there a way to tell who’s ignoring you?  Because I think somebody is”.

Several days later, Jayne posted this reply; emphasis mine:

I am ignoring Sbyvl as most of you have probably guessed after all the hints he has dropped.  There is no misunderstanding.  Since he has drawn attention to it, I will explain.

 

He sent me PMs professing friendship and inviting me to join a new forum he was starting.  When I checked out this forum, I found multiple posts by multiple authors trashing both me and SD, including some by Sbyvl himself.  He wrote on his forum that he acted as my friend on SD because it was necessary for getting along here and that he blamed me for his most recent ban from here.

 

When I wrote a PM to Sbyvl objecting to this, the offending comments disappeared (presumably removed by S himself, since who else would or could remove a forum owner’s posts) and he responded to me in PM that he had no idea what I was talking about.  He also said that it was not possible for him to control the posts of others there.  This would be more convincing if there were any sign that he had tried to discourage the vicious attacks on me.  (He has, since my complaint, warned people against it on the grounds that I am “spying” on them, not because there is anything wrong with it.)

 

The thing is that I have been in a similar situation before and I have seen how a man of integrity deals with it.  When SD was started up, KK and his mods made rules against trashing other forums and people, locked threads in which it happened, and set a good example.  When people here made comments about how I would never be allowed to post on SD, KK publicly announced that I, like anyone else, would be allowed to post here as long as I followed the rules.  He did this in spite of our relationship being rather strained at the time and in spite of the unpopularity of the decision.  KK earned my respect and loyalty.  Sbyvl has earned a spot on my ignore list.

 

My response (link: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=4452.msg183772#msg183772):

I didn’t remove any of my own posts, though Voxx did say that he had issues with Jayne, and I only made one, minor comment about Jayne.  That comment has not been removed.  Other people have complained about Jayne, and so I did mention that she was watching our posts.  I never disparaged Jayne, though I made an observation.  It was something along the lines of her publicly scolding other users.  I never removed it, so you can find it if you want.  If this upset her, she needs to be less sensitive. 

 

I’m not going to regulate what other people say about SD.  There were some nasty things said, but you can’t get into a huff over everything.

 

Jayne then attempted to find “evidence” for her claim, linking to a thread where Voxxpopulisuxx posted an afterthought to a post he made regarding SD.

The original post:

“Look the ONLY reason so far I would leave SD is because of Jayne. Its obvious many of the youngster men there have not had alot of dealings with manipulative humorless shrews. I have much life experience with many linds of folks…and some folks are just poison. The number one sign of a person who isn’t coming from the right place is an inability to laugh at themselves or take some ribbing. And for the record she had something to say to KK about syvls forum almost the instant he started it. Im not sure of she will lurk here or not…but I remember bitterly her attempt to get me banned from SD for posting in the Atheist forum…accusing me of disgracing catholics and SD because I was ” uncharatable”…it nearly worked..I had to send emails back and forth with KK defending myself….So be assured that any poster who is corrosive and divisive…no matter how polite…will be moderated against strictly…( the Irony is not lost on me that some think that of me)”

 

The afterthought:

I tried friending jayne as well…it was a mistake. THAT nearly got me banned.

 

It is clear from context there was no additional post between these two. Further, this incident occurred several days before I even figured out how to delete posts from TD. One wonders what her motivation was for calumniating me whilst at the same time bragging about her infiltration on TD.

No further dialogue occurred in that thread, because the moderator Archer locked it and posted a message that read in part (emphasis mine):

“Sbyvl, please stop the self promotion of your forum and any attempt at recruitment of SD members. We have never allowed our members to trash talk other forums and ask that you leave what is said by your members on your forum.”

 

For an explanation of the irony of the bolded section, please see above.

How did you find out Jayne was trolling TD as bzmom?

Jayne made several posts on SD gloating about her “infiltration”, taunting the TD leadership with numerous “challenges” to find out which moniker she was posting under on TD. Current SD members can find these posts by looking at Jayne’s posts between September 2 and 9, when a moderator at TD was able to gather enough evidence to confirm bzmom’s true identity.

What did you do when you were presented with the evidence?

I PM’ed bzmom to ask her point-blank if she was Jayne. She admitted that she was, and she was banned. What follows are my messages to her. I will not be publishing her messages to me, as this would violate the TD forum rule of not publishing other members’ private messages.

“We have credible evidence to suggest that you are Jayne in disguise. I would appreciate it if you responded to these charges.”

“This is what we have. Honestly I do not wish to believe you are Jayne. I hope you can explain this.”

 “Let’s start at the basics. The evidence is overwhelming that you are Jayne.

So let me ask you: Are you Jayne?”

 “Let me be clearer. Are you J a y n e ?”

“It saddens me that you have stooped to this level. After talking about me behind my back on SD, then claiming I was slandering you, and now this.”

“I would have expected better of you.”

“Someone else must have written that post, because I did not write what you claim I wrote.”

“If it happened to me, it would have been handled entirely via PM. I do not like the way you went about it.”

 “We will continue this discussion on SD. Voxx will be banning you shortly, and the reason will be listed under the General Announcements section. The evidence gathered will be posted publicly, unless there are objections. This will make things clearer for everyone.”

“Ok, thank you.”

 

What did the evidence contain?

  • Her LinkedIn account, which showed her general location.
  • IP addresses from SD and TD, which matched the general location, Jayne posted in her LinkedIn account.
  • The internet hostnames of her accounts, showing they matched.
  • A link to an article from the Toronto Sun which she had previously linked to when she was a member of Fish Eaters. The article pertained to her family’s farming activities.
  • The email address she used to register at TD, which matched the last name she published on Fish Eaters and elsewhere.
  • Posts she under the moniker “bzmom” on TD and Archbishop Lefebvre forum that showed her usual posting habits, as well as a fancy for farming.

One should note that all of this information is public to some degree or another, and that Jayne did not object to me posting it when given the opportunity. Moreover, the post in the “Banned Members” thread was to be publicly visible for merely twenty-four hours, in order to establish conclusively that bzmom was indeed Jayne. This also aligned with the Te Deum forum policy of explicitly justifying any and all bans handed out by the administration.

Did you contact the Suscipe Domine forum to inform them of what had occurred, and if so, why?

I dispatched Moderator Tmw89 to ask Kaesekopf to take administrative action against Jayne. I did not handle communications myself because 1) there were events occurring in my personal life that demanded my attention at the time; and 2) Tmw was more familiar with the technology behind IP addresses and hostname websites.

The following email was sent out to Kaesekopf on September 9, a mere two hours after bzmom was banned from Te Deum.

Kaesekopf, Admin of Suscipe Domine, and

Archer, LouisIX, and Penelope, Moderators of Suscipe Domine:

 

It has come to our attention viz. IP address and posting content that a member of your forum, “J ayne,” has trolled our forum, Te Deum Forum (TD), and another forum, Archbishop Lefebvre Forums (ABLF), under the username “bzmom.” Deception such as this is little better than what the atheists did on Suscipe Domine (SD) some months ago, as she has purposefully posted in such a way as to conceal her identity on TD and ABLF while posting in a generally abrasive and antagonistic way to members of the leadership of these forums on SD. We formally ask you to take administrative action against this member of your forum.

 

Sincerely,

Sbyvl, Admin of Te Deum Forum

Mithrandylan and tmw89, Global Moderators of Te Deum Forum and Moderators of Achbishop Lefebvre Forums

Voxxpopulisuxx, Global Moderator of Te Deum Forum

cleves and Patman, Moderators of Te Deum Forum

 

As previously stated, during the week she was a member of TD, Jayne posted a number of comments on SD challenging us to identify and ban her. “Anyone who wishes to shoot me on site will have to identify me first” is the one that immediately comes to mind. The reader will recall that the SD administration banned me (in all likelihood, upon Jayne’s recommendation) for: trolling CAF and posting about it here. In principle this is no different than what the atheists did to us.”

 

Is this not precisely what Jayne was presently doing at TD? And if so, what reason would Kaesekopf have for not dealing out the same penalty to Jayne that he did to me?

Once again, current SD members are advised to examine Jayne’s posts between September 2 and 9 to judge for themselves the validity of the above statements.

What was Kaesekopf’s response?

We received this response a few hours later.

Sbyvl, tmw89, Mith, Voxxpop, cleves, and Patman,

Thank you for the notification. I have a number of questions, though, in addition to a large concern.

 

First, why does your “Banned Membership” post say this:

SD IP & hostnames

108.—.—.—

69.—.—.—

Hostname: dsl.——–.—-

Email she used: j—-.———–@gmail.com

  

How did you acquire the SD (I can only imagine that the “SD” refers to Suscipe Domine) information? I did not provide you with any information, and I am confident that none of my moderators did, either.

Second, what has she done wrong, other than being a contributing member to ABLF and TD?

Third, what has she done wrong here at Suscipe Domine to warrant action taken by me?

 My large concern, actually, my VERY large concern.

In your Forum Rules thread, you have the following:

  1. Posting private information about other users, including, but not limited to, identities, addresses, or phone numbers, is prohibited.

 

In addition to that, you have the exchange between Patman and Sbyvl on the thread “Suggestions for the rules”:

From Patman:

  1. I would like to see a privacy statement included, explicitly guaranteeing that no member will ever have his personal messages read by any administrator or moderator on the forum. I have seen, even among traditional Catholics, those who think that being an administrator or moderator would, by default, allow peeking at private messages. That is not Catholic morality.

From Sybvl:

Patman, you have guarantee for 1. I don’t have the ability to read your PM’s, nor would I want to, nor would I view it as morally acceptable. 

It has been established on your forum that you respect the privacy and information of a poster who registers at your forum. How is it not a gross violation of your VERY OWN RULES to publicly broadcast a fellow Catholic woman and mother’s personal information, her IP and host name information, her email, an article detailing her personal family history and information (along with the names and ages of minors), along with an email purportedly belonging to her minor daughter?

Along with that, how does any poster at your forum have any moral certitude that the entirety of their Internet presence won’t be broadcasted at Te Deum Forum if they butt heads and upset the moderation staff there?

 Thank you for your time and consideration,

Kaesekopf, Administrator of Suscipe Domine

 

Tmw sent Kaesekopf a swift reply within hours, and privately offered to speak to KK about the IP issue, but KK refused, citing lack of time.  Tmw’s reply was excellent, addressing everything except this:

“My large concern, actually, my VERY large concern.

In your Forum Rules thread, you have the following:

  1. Posting private information about other users, including, but not limited to, identities, addresses, or phone numbers, is prohibited.”

If one examines the Te Deum forum rules, one will find that the alleged rule quoted by Kaesekopf does not exist. The rules have not been changed since the foundation of the forum, with the recent exception of the addition of Roman Numerals to each section.

Tmw’s reply:

RE what Jayne has done wrong: like we stated in our original latter of September 9, she has purposefully posted in such a way as to conceal her identity on TD and ABLF while posting in a generally abrasive and antagonistic way to members of the leadership of these forums on SD. To elaborate: she has exhibited a remarkable two-facedness. The admin of TD was not worthy of Jayne’s attention on SD, but she goes ahead and uses his forum? The behavior is shameful, hardly befitting a Catholic woman and mother.

RE why you should take action: she posted publicly on SD the challenge that “anyone who wants to shoot me on sight [an allusion to a figure of speech at TD] will have to identify me first.” She was identified, and subsequently banned. Posting by a member of SD on another forum has resulted in a ban before (see Sbyvl36’s ban from August 23).

RE your “VERY large concern,” “bzmom” was not a user of TD when the explanation of her ban was posted, as she had been banned, ceasing to be a “member” of the forum proper [N.B. This point was moot as the information had already been taken down, per the 24-hour statement, and no private messages were ever published]. The article is publicly posted online, and we are not responsible for it. Any email associated with her accounts were by registration supposed to be hers; using an email not her own for registration is not something we can control, and have no knowledge that any one of the emails associated with her accounts are anyone else’s but hers. Maybe you know something we don’t know about those email addresses, but if indeed Jayne has used email addresses that do not actually belong to her, that only digs her hole deeper.

RE the PM concern, it does not apply, as no private messages by bzmom were publicly divulged. What’s more, we do not deal with all members in this way (see the case of “voxizadork”), but in the case of this duplicitous troll, saw fit to expose for everyone her hypocrisy and malevolence.

Sincerely, …

Kaesekopf’s final reply was received on September 11, and is available on Suscipe Domine. We did not respond to it quickly enough for his tastes (I was offline for the vast majority of the three-day interval, due to aforementioned personal reasons). Tmw and I were banned from Suscipe Domine on September 14.

Did anything of importance occur whilst the messages were being sent back-and-forth?

Yes. Jayne and another individual, who used the moniker “voxizadork” trolled Te Deum on a number of instances between September 10 and 14, each time posting as an unregistered ‘guest’. Amongst her more ‘memorable’ posts was the following:

“Next time I infiltrate this forum I will not warn you and I will not leave a trail of clues. (By the way, you were faster than I expected. Well done.) As long as this forum considers it acceptable to make negative comments about me as J A Y N E, voldemort, “certain individual”, or any other circumlocution, I will consider it acceptable to spy on you and infiltrate you. Leave me alone and I leeave you alone. Making me into an enemy is a bad idea. Bzmom was harmless. Don’t push your luck.-Jayne”

Jayne also publicly objected to the evidence against her being published, despite previously having no objection to it, and later admitting as such (link: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8677.msg186374#msg186374)

On September 14, the settings of the forum were changed to only allow registered members to join, and in response to a question from a TD member as to what was going on, I posted the following:

We were banned from SD for proving to KK that Jayne was trolling our forum under a different name. The information that proved this was briefly visible here, before being taken down. We contacted KK to ask him to discipline Jayne for trolling TD and posting about it there (which is exactly what I was banned for about a month ago, as you recall). He refused, and instead banned us for briefly posting the info about Jayne, and said on SD that we ‘stole’ information, an assertion I have still not determined the basis of.

Since then, Jayne has trolled this forum multiple times, and today, she was joined by another SD user, who we believe may be KK himself. They attacked and insulted me personally, my moderators, and the forum for over an hour before being banned again. Their posts were deleted, and non-registered guests are no longer able to post.

Does that answer your question?

What’s the deal with Kaesekopf’s “Airing the Facts” thread?

Kaesekopf issued the rather ambitiously entitled thread on September 15 (link here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8666.0)

Dear Forum,

I wasn’t going to do this, but I do not appreciate my name, my moderators, nor my forum being calumniated…

The definition of calumny: “a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something.” Kaesekopf did not even bother to show where the alleged calumny occurred. 

…As such, I am taking time out to address these issues that have especially cropped up on a Sunday (I don’t know why people aren’t SANCTIFYING their Sunday, but how they waste their time backbiting and calumniating is not for me to answer for).

I received the following PM from tmw89 (I am posting these PMs because of the nature of the calumny leveled against me, for the record, and to clear everything up that has happened between tmw89, Sbyvl36, and myself).

What follows here are the aforementioned posts.

Which is followed by:

What was posted at TD?

The following is a screenshot taken by my phone of the post in which Sbyvl36 posted information from tmw89 detailing Jayne’s personal info (her IP address, host names from SD, TD, ABLF, an article on her family which revealed her age, her family members’ names and ages which also includes her minor children’s info, along with a map from her city to Toronto).  Jayne’s info has been mostly redacted, because there is no reason whatsoever for any forum owner to publish that data publicly.

Kaesekopf’s wording makes it seem as if we posted information about minors, which was not the case. An article from the Toronto Sun was linked to. The article is in the public domain, and is readily available. Everything else published was public information, as previously stated.

Map redacted from TD posts due to creepy factor.  I have also left out “bzmom’s” other posts tmw89 and Sbyvl36 used to “establish” Jayne’s identity at TD.  Mostly because of the weird way my phone saved the screenshots.

So, there’s everything that was posted and what was said between the moderators and admin of TD and myself. 

Kaesekopf did not even bother to address why the issue occurred in the first place, namely, Jayne’s trolling TD, bragging about it on SD (precisely the same offense I was banned for, as you recall), and Kaesekopf’s blatant refusal to do anything about it.

The next few paragraphs address the IP business. RobertJS wrote an excellent response to this section, on TD, which will be posted below.

To clear up three other things while I’m clearing things up…  Petrie was permanently banned on a decision from the moderators.  She PMed me asking for her account to be banned of her own volition.  However, after she sent that, she had zero regard for the rules of this forum, and went wild posting, which earned her a permanent ban.  I didn’t reply to her email because I am lazy, and didn’t really see a need to address the issue to a woman who 1)  wanted to be banned from my site and 2)  earned herself a permanent ban.  Why would she care?  But, here we are, over three months after she received her permanent ban, and she is still very concerned about my forum and what goes on here.

“I didn’t reply to her email because I am lazy, and didn’t really see a need to address the issue to a woman who 1) wanted to be banned from my site and 2) earned herself a permanent ban.”

According to Petrie, this is patently false. Here is a response she posted on TD:

And KK is now LYING AGAIN.  In his explanation to his forum about this whole debacle, he took the time to “clear some things up”.  He said that after I (Petrie) asked him to ban my account I had “zero regard for the rules of this forum, and went wild posting, which earned her a permanent ban”. I wrote ONE post (maybe two) before I could no longer view the forum.  Those of you who knew me there and remember my leaving know that is the truth. 

And his reasoning for not responding to my email asking why he banned me as a guest so that I couldn’t even view the forum?

And he’s going on and on about doing the right thing and not calumniating others, huh?  Don’t I have a right to know that I was permanently banned and the reason (at the very least)?  The thing is the reason isn’t the one he wrote here because that one is a lie.    

RobertJS earned himself a permanent ban simply for posting like an abrasive person.  He had numerous chances to change his style and way of posting, yet was continually and repeatedly abrasive.  Heck, I even gave him a free pass on one incident he had (a few months ago) because I respect his point of view, his opinions, and in general the content of his posts.  However, he was unable to get along here in a good fashion and post in a becoming and unabrasive way, and thus was shown the door. 

RobertJS’ response:

I am going to comment on a new post at suscipedomine by the owner, Andy (Kaesekopf). It is in the “General Information” entitled:

[Read This] Airing the Facts – Suscipe Domine’s Recent Bannings, & Misc Comments

This is my personal post, and does not represent TD.

I think Andy should get out of an apostolate that he cannot handle. He is now publicly accusing someone else of both “calumny” and “stealing”. His level of moral knowledge really is not equal to the task of his position. My advice to him? Get out as soon as possible, for your own good!

Do you know, Andy, that falsely and publicly accusing another of calumny can also be a calumny?

Here are two excerpts from from the beginning of Andy’s recent post:

“I do not appreciate my name, my moderators, nor my forum being calumniated “

the nature of the calumny leveled against me “

Andy, “calumny” means a deliberate lie that seriously harms one’s reputation.

Who has done that, Andy? If someone from TD asked you to discipline one of your members, is that a calumny? No, it is not.

 If someone from TD rashly presumed that you were posting on TD under another name, is that a calumny? No, it is not. It would be a mistake.

 Every error is not a calumny, Andy.

The request was to take administrative action against Jayne for supposedly writing abrasive things on SD about other forums. I don’t personally know what they are, but if she did, then that would be against SD rules, so someone from TD informed you of it. From there you can either do something, or nothing.

The big thing you are trying to tear your garments over is some personal information revealed on TD about a member of your forum.

 What is worse you made the accusation of “stealing”!

 Andy said, “I decided to ban tmw89 for his stealing of that personal data and for the public posting of that data and I also decided to ban Sbyvl36 for being complicit and enabling the public posting of that stolen data.”.

 Andy, “stealing” means to take property of value away from another so that the person no longer has it. A digital IP address is worthless in itself, and didn’t deprive another of any property. You are just trying to throw mud.

It would be an “invasion of privacy” (not stealing) to reveal private information about another person who doesn’t want it publicized. However, if a person had already willfully allowed his private information to be public [See above], it would not be an invasion of privacy.

Sbyvl said, “she has not made a secret her identity, and her name and location have been known publicly since her time on FE.”

JK said in response to that: “That information is not readily available.”

 It doesn’t matter how “easily at-hand” the information is. JK had made it available before (so says Sbyvl), and has even had a photo of her whole family as her avatar at cathinfo. Go to images.google.com and type in her username (with a “k”) and “catholic”, and the first result is her family photo. Providing a family photo itself opens the door.

 Now here is the SD “banning schedule”:

 1st offense – Warning

2nd offense – 1 day ban

3rd offense – Warning

4th offense – 3 day ban

5th offense – 14 day Ban

6th offense – Perma-ban

When this was invented about 9 months ago, it was publicly announced that it would work PER MONTH. That is to say, at the turn of each calendar, everyone’s ban slate would be wiped clean. It’s not at all perfect, but a pretty good system. Then some time, weeks afterward, the SD mods decided to NOT wipe everyone’s slate clean each week….and what is worse, they decided NOT to tell anyone! That is certainly not fair.

Andy said, “We try our best to keep everyone here. We honestly, really do.”

You have some work to do!

Without the slate being reset periodically, the banning schedule is rigorist and not in accord with Catholic mercy. You don’t see it yet, Andy, but just wait two years and probably most of the prolific posters at SD will finally be banned. That is how silly it is. Think about it.

Finally, you felt the need to write the following. Apparently, members at SD have already expressed a problem with that banning:

 

“RobertJS earned himself a permanent ban simply for posting like an abrasive person. He had numerous chances to change his style and way of posting, yet was continually and repeatedly abrasive. Heck, I even gave him a free pass on one incident he had (a few months ago) because I respect his point of view, his opinions, and in general the content of his posts. However, he was unable to get along here in a good fashion and post in a becoming and unabrasive way, and thus was shown the door.”

Firstly, there is no SD rule against being “abrasive”. That is merely a catch-all any time a person says another person is wrong too many times. RobertJS was a member with over 1400 posts, mostly defending sedevacantism….and it was becoming too “abrasive” to the ears of the spixxies running the forum. A bully makes up rules as he goes along so that he gets his way. RobertJS got a full two weeks ban by Penelope for “dogmatic sedevacantism”. He patiently waited it out this completely UNJUST charge, and then resumed posting after two weeks. He notified Kaesekopf (Andy) via email about the unjust banning and Kaesekopf said he wasn’t aware of the case but would look into it. Then the final perm-ban came weeks later with the charge of “dogmatic sedevacantism”, even while the previous change was pending revision! Completely unjust. Archer even removed that last charge days later….but didn’t alter the perma-ban. They wanted RobertJS gone, and couldn’t even be honest with themselves about it. They tried to say there was “lack of charity” and could only point to a post where RobertJS asked Penelope why her healthy newborn needed prayers if it was merely being baptized. And the other so-called example? After voldemort offered to say her daughter just notified her she was going to have a baby in October, RobertJS asked the obvious question as to why she didn’t inform her sooner. When voldemort said it was private, RobertJS said, “fair enough”. voldemort even admitted it was NOT uncharitable. Those were supposed to be evidences of a problem RobertJS had with “lack of chariity” (which is not in the rules either).

You know, Andy, falsely accusing a person publicly of having a serious problem with charity is itself a calumny. The 1400+ posts of RobertJS showed no such problematic pattern. People infected with Liberalism are the types who, when told they are “wrong”, project their own hurt by accusing the other of being “abrasive”. Sure, it’s not fun to be told you are wrong, but that is not a reason to fabricate charges and ban people.

 

So what happened following this?

On September 21, an individual using the moniker “sheerheartattack” joined Suscipe Domine and posted the following statement:

The vile rumors about the Te Deum forum and its members is despicable!

And I bring to you the truth that the mods wont tell you!

Jayne/voldemort has trolled TD on a few occasions in the last week. Here is a quote from a post of hers on TD

“Next time I infiltrate this forum I will not warn you and I will not leave a trail of clues. (By the way, you were faster than I expected. Well done.) As long as this forum considers it acceptable to make negative comments about me as J A Y N E, voldemort, “certain individual”, or any other circumlocution, I will consider it acceptable to spy on you and infiltrate you. Leave me alone and I leeave you alone. Making me into an enemy is a bad idea. Bzmom was harmless. Don’t push your luck.-Jayne”

 

That sounds like the aggressor right? We only are reacting in the way we feel we should.

But Jayne and your mods are not telling the truth. So I advise all sedevacantist  here to leave this forum and join TD instead for you will receive a warm welcome and the ability to use your freedom of speech. And I ask the mods and Jayne especially to apologize to all of us and cease to troll and spread lies. Until then this is war!

Sheer heart attack. 

Being this individual’s posting style mirrored that of TD member Jefffab1993, our initial reaction was to ask Jeff if he was responsible, and if so, to apologize. However, Jeff informed us he was not responsible for this post. As another TD member would later state, “I thought it was an open secret that whoever was behind the account sheerheartattack was doing a Jeff impersonation”. Obviously, this raises many questions, and we will allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Because of this individual’s trolling, I thought it necessary to write to Kaesekopf and inform him that we were not responsible for “sheerheartattack”’s actions. Kaesekopf acknowledged my reply, and discussion between us recommenced.

Were these additional discussions fruitful?

Initially it seemed they would be. Within days, Kaesekopf told me though instant message he would lift my ban and remove the calumnious “Airing the Facts” thread from Suscipe Domine.   After waiting a few days, I messaged him again to ascertain when he would be following through. No response was received. I attempted once per week to reach him, for three months, to no avail. One wonders why he did not follow through with what he said he would do, and instead go back on his word.

Did you ever receive a response?

I finally received a response on December 22, and discussions resumed once again. On December 30, Kaesekopf sent me an email that read in part:

I’ll remove your ban, and I’ll remove the Airing thread, but tmw89’s ban will remain, you will not recruit members to Te Deum from Suscipe Domine (either privately or publicly) [See above, please.], and I would as a sign of good will, expect you to delete the posts negative towards SD from the Other Catholic Forums thread [The entire thread has since been moved to the private chatroom subforum].

 Did he follow through?

Nope. Within hours of the previous email, KK sent me another email, this time stating he would not remove the falsehoods about myself and others in the “Airing” thread, nor would he lift my ban, until I removed all the posts I made regarding the situation in the “Other Catholic forums” thread on TD. The entire thread was eventually moved to the private chatroom subforum.

So once again, I followed through with what I said I would do, whereas Kaesekopf did not.

Did Jayne ever apologize for all this?

Yes. This is the apology she sent me from another account she had created on TD.

Please forgive me for my bad behaviour on this forum. I hope that I can clear some things up.

I was in contact with Sbyvl after he first posted my information and did not make it clear to him that I wanted it taken down. I was too proud to ask him directly. It was not until the next morning that I made it clear to him what I wanted and threatened to report him for it.

I do not have the information available to reconstruct the actual sequence of events. At the time, I believed that Sbyvl’s post about leaving my info up for 24 hours was made after I had clearly asked him to take it down. However, he says that took it down before that and I accept his account.

My posts here as bzmom were not made in good faith. I did not intend them to be disruptive in themselves, but to be a means of upsetting you when you discovered that I had written them. This was immature and irresponsible behaviour, as was my continuing to post here as a guest in order to prove that you could not stop me. I was deliberately provocative and bear some responsibility for Sbyvl being angry enough to post my info.

I posted on SD something that amounted to “nyah nyah you can’t catch me” aimed at TD. I think this is comparable to Sbyvl posting on SD about his adventures on CAF. Moderation decisions are often made slowly on SD, so I met yet be disciplined for it. If so, it will be deserved.

Kaesekopf has told the truth to the best of his knowledge. If he has written anything false it was an honest mistake and I hope that everything can be cleared up. He should not have been accused of lying. I think all the people involved should express themselves in a less inflammatory way. I am to a large extent responsible for how emotional this situation is and I apologize for causing so much trouble.”

Shortly after this, Jayne sent me an email informing me her priest had forbade her to spend more than one hour per day on internet forums, after “[she] confessed her “forum-related sins”.  Only days after receiving that email in my inbox, this thread appeared on SD (link: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8832.0).

Did you give Jayne and Kaesekopf a chance to respond to this email?

Yep. Both were offered the opportunity to correct anything they perceived to be inaccurate. Jayne declined to do so, and Kaesekopf sent me an email that read in part:

This happened five months ago.  You have your forum, I have mine.  I don’t really care.  I’m not interested in dealing any further with this.  Life is too precious, time too short to waste on this rubbish.  

 My reply to him:

Back in September, you told me you would lift my ban regardless…Then you did not respond to me for three months.  You told me the same thing in December, and again did not follow through.  Now you tell me you do not care?

 Why won’t you just follow through with what you said you would do, in lifting my ban and the airing thread?

I removed the entire “Other Catholic forums” thread simply because you claimed I said bad things about you.

Why can’t you show enough Catholic decency to remove the calumnies you posted and be honest to me and everyone else?

After hearing nothing back for another forty-eight hours, this post was published.

On the Charlie Hebdo spectacle.

Quite the public spectacle has ensued ever since several Muslims (yes, Muslims) killed several journalists of the “Charlie Hebdo” newspaper, along with several police officers and bystanders.  As if this were the single greatest attack on Western society since the onset of Nazism, four million souls descended upon Paris to partake in a “free speech” rally, led by a conga line of European heads of state walking arm-in-arm though the streets of the French capital to “show support” for freedom of speech, amongst other things.

Yours truly (who is more than a little cynical at times) was quite amused when he witnessed Angela Merkel amongst the parade of European dignitaries marching in defense of “free speech”, being that the nation she leads in one of the most repressive in Europe when it comes to expressing what is deemed “hate speech” by the government.  To wit, the always-excellent Novus Ordo Watch has presented an example of a Traditionalist Catholic website being forced off the web in Germany for expressing rudimentary elements of Catholic doctrine.  And let us not forget that one can be imprisoned in Germany for the thought crime of “Holocaust denial”, and that Bishop Williamson was convicted in absentia on this very charge.  One could find other examples of this hypocrisy in other European nations, but the point of this post is not to argue in favor of free speech, so we will conclude the digression here.

In saner times, it was universally held that error has no rights.  You didn’t have the right to say whatever you pleased, and Jews and Muslims living amongst us had restrictions on what they could and could not say.  They did not have the right to publish the sort of material found in “Charlie Hebdo”, and they understood that.  The reason for all of this is rather simple, actually.  The weakness of the human mind being what it is, man can easily be led astray from the truth via error and heresy, both of which have the power to condemn souls to an eternity in Hell.  To assist in keeping error under reins, secular governments actively restricted the dissemination of error, and therefore were able to prevent the pollution of Western culture by nefarious elements.  However, with the advent of the French Revolution, and the exportation of the Masonic creed of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” to all of Europe under Napoleon Bonaparte, the first cracks in the mortar that sustained Christendom began to emerge.  For two-and-one-half centuries thereafter, Western society was confronted with a battle between Christianity on one hand and Le Révolution on the other.  But despite the ongoing descent into the Age of Insanity, secular powers attempted to halt the descent into barbarity, by actively regulating the circulation of information.  In normal times, it was recognized that the ideas of free speech, free press, and religious liberty are in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, and the faithful avoided these dangerous beliefs like the plague.  But at the present time, in the Age of Insanity, good and evil have been turned upon their heads; free speech, free press, and religious liberty are “the best things since sliced bread”; and political correctness is the highest virtue.

Sbyvl

Winning the war with language.

Originally posted on :

Make no mistake the war is for the mind…and can only be won with it. In the present war against the demonic homosodomite* agenda ( a war we are totally losing) I propose at least one simple tactic that every single concerned Catholic can implement right now and for the rest of their lives.


“They seem to want to obfuscate the meaning of words. Step into the stream of what gay means or homosexual means or same-sex attraction means and you find you step with them into a fun house mirror. It seems to me that the truth of things, including the meaning of words, ought to be clear, precise, even simple. Confusion is the sign of something else gong on, perhaps something troubling”.Austin Ruse- Austin Ruse has been head of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) since 1997 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/forwardboldly/2014/01/19/forward-boldly-interview-with-austin-ruse-on-the-new-homophiles

Love this quote because it speaks directly…

View original 608 more words