Comments Posted By Ian James
Displaying 31 To 60 Of 153 Comments
Well, glad to be of help but why do you have a gay icon on your site?
» Posted By Ian James On November 9, 2011 @ 7:16 pm
Kraeff, I’ll take this as a tacit admission of defeat. You aren’t getting rid of +Jonah.
But now you are telling us +Jonah has got to shut-up.
“I do expect the primate…” — cute. We’ll be sure he get’s the memo.
» Posted By Ian James On November 8, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
Stankovich, what’s with that gay icon on your site?
It looks like a knock-off from a Catholic site. Maybe it’s the other way around.
I thought you guys were all about “legacy” and all that.
» Posted By Ian James On November 7, 2011 @ 11:26 pm
Stankovich, why are you dodging my question? Why do you have a gay icon on your website?
» Posted By Ian James On November 10, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
Kraeff, when you’re stuck in a hole, quit digging.
» Posted By Ian James On November 4, 2011 @ 10:18 am
He already went through one evaluation.
Remember, you are not dealing with fair-minded people. Their goal is to remove him, and they only way they can do that is declare he is crazy. Nothing else will work — no crimes, no sex, no greed, nothing.
Understand that his enemies really are enemies.
» Posted By Ian James On November 3, 2011 @ 10:19 pm
Kraeff, you are a weasel. You accuse +Jonah of narcissism and then try to soften the charge by saying “…I may be afflicted a bit by that as well.” Your self-effacement is self-serving and tries to manipulate the reader into accepting your odorous suggestion.
I don’t think you can help yourself. You may not even see it.
» Posted By Ian James On November 3, 2011 @ 6:45 pm
All the research presented here should be given to +Jonah. He can still refuse. Word has to get to him. We also need to know who suggested this facility.
» Posted By Ian James On November 3, 2011 @ 6:40 pm
Our boy has already started. He “reported” only on the first half of +Jonah’s speech. +Jonah To Enter “Evaluation” Program November 14th
Jonah’s full speech:
» Posted By Ian James On November 7, 2011 @ 3:21 pm
Knock off the Mr. George stuff. Makes you sound like Pee Wee Herman.
Then do us a favor. If George missed something you sent, just resend it. If it was a comment, repost it. George doesn’t moderate the comments unless a person is a troll, and even then most of think he waits too long to do that.
» Posted By Ian James On November 7, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Stankovich, you still haven’t answered the question. Why do you have a gay icon on your website?
» Posted By Ian James On November 10, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
Thank you Bp. Tikhon.
So Stankovich, why do you have a gay icon on your site?
» Posted By Ian James On November 9, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
Stankovich, why do you have that gay icon on your site?
» Posted By Ian James On November 9, 2011 @ 1:50 pm
Sure is. Creepy.
» Posted By Ian James On November 7, 2011 @ 3:35 pm
Thank you Lola. Actually I do have faith. It pains me however to see the self-destruction of the OCA at the hands of lumbering men short of vision — men without chests as C.S. Lewis put it.
They take their lead from disgruntled homosexuals, small-minded careerists and other miscreants to savage a man who is leagues ahead in understanding how the Church that they claim to serve could bring healing into the world.
» Posted By Ian James On November 3, 2011 @ 8:05 am
It’s not going to end well. They are trying to destroy +Jonah and will kill the OCA. Evil triumphs.
» Posted By Ian James On November 3, 2011 @ 6:27 am
I am absolutely outraged by your fundamental lack of boundary, outrageous pride, and “self-will run riot” in shamelessly promoting mean-spirited, and scurrilous gossip as truth; and far worse, you do not seem to be interested in whether what you say is truth.
Too bad. I’m sick of corruption that hides behind false calls for charity and outrage that obfuscates.
» Posted By Ian James On November 2, 2011 @ 6:48 am
Matovic is part of the coven?
» Posted By Ian James On November 1, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
Benjamin can’t fix anything not until he deals with his alcoholism. Did he enter treatment after his DUI?
» Posted By Ian James On November 1, 2011 @ 4:28 pm
You just can’t help yourself, can you Kraeff. Never a critical word except for +Jonah.
» Posted By Ian James On November 1, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
It’s a hit piece. The careerists want a compliant figurehead like Theodosios who was so compromised by his homosexuality that he was basically useless. They propped him up. It’s the only way to secure their salaries ($8 million wasted in the last three years alone).
The careerists use the homosexuals, the homosexuals use the careerists. Kishkovsky needs Stokoe, Stokoe needs Kishkovsky. Your money keeps their sordid affair alive. Their sin will strangle this Church.
» Posted By Ian James On November 1, 2011 @ 7:35 am
It was inappropriate to include +Jonah in your initial comment but I let it go. My hunch at the time was that you wanted to tar him. This comment confirms the hunch. You are like the Paul Begalia of the Stokovites.
» Posted By Ian James On September 23, 2011 @ 5:40 pm
It is premature to ask these questions when you are not in possession of all the documents. Minutes are not canonical releases.
» Posted By Ian James On September 23, 2011 @ 10:57 am
Careful Anon. Kraeff’s next step will be to try and discredit you.
» Posted By Ian James On September 22, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
Kraeff, glad to see your new found concern for slandering priests, even if it is selective.
» Posted By Ian James On September 22, 2011 @ 8:55 am
One other point. Motivation is not a constraining emotion. But, since you used the term, the logical question becomes: motivated to do what? Looking at the energy you put into your increasingly obscure explanations, it looks like your motivation to smear Fr. Fester is as hard as concrete.
Why don’t you come out and admit what everyone already knows: the reading of the two bits of ‘evidence’ you supplied has been manipulated to paint Fr. Fester in the worst possible light — something you hold forward as fact.
By the way, I don’t even know Fr. Fester. I just don’t like seeing people get smeared.
» Posted By Ian James On September 16, 2011 @ 9:12 pm
Two assertions: +Jonah listened to the wrong person (singular) and Fr. Fester was +Jonah’s Swengali leading to the conclusion once again that Kraeff blames Fr. Fester. After all, “It’s been made clear…” Really?
All this is contextualized in the emotion of disappointment, as if these unsubstantiated assertions carry authority because they engendered some negative feelings in the author. Yet even here, who is to blame for the negative feelings? Why +Jonah of course. And if +Jonah, then Fr. Fester too!
Do you expect us to sympathize? Anyone with a clear mind can see the point here is not to express your disappointment, but to take another hit at +Jonah and Fr. Fester. Your disappointment is merely the rhetorical container that carries it. Yet, just to ensure that no one can come back and accuse you of working against Fr. Fester you come up with this:
Another possibility is that I am projecting my disappointment with +Jonah unto Fr Fester.
Leave the self-analysis at home, especially if you are tempted to use it to besmirch other people.
» Posted By Ian James On September 16, 2011 @ 8:54 pm
You have a habit of arguing secondary evidence in order to promote a premise that suits you but is not confirmed by any evidence. People sense this, thus the questions about your motivations despite your words. It is something you bring on yourself, just as you argue above that you don’t really call Fr. Fester a liar yet leave clear the implication that he is:
Regarding Father Fester, Father Fester’s letter to the DOS priests and his attempt to get Bishop Mark to lie on behalf of Metropolitan Jonah amply justify Father Hopko’s rightful condemnation of him.
So you don’t come right out and say Fr. Fester is a liar — yet there is no room for doubt, at least in your mind if we take you at your word, that a liar is exactly what he is. (That’s also why you invoked Fr Hopko.) There really is no difference between compelling a person to lie on your behalf and lying yourself, but it’s a distinction you draw not to excuse Fr. Fester, but to excuse yourself.
You need to face up to fact that you smeared Fr. Fester. No amount of the ever increasing words you supply can erase this. The error is yours. You entered in territory you know nothing about and pontificated as if you did. When people do this someone usually gets hurt. The intention was to smear Fr. Fester, but it has come back to bite you.
» Posted By Ian James On September 16, 2011 @ 8:33 pm
You directly accused Fr. Fester of lying. You showed no evidence. You smeared the man.
And you apology is a weasel apology:
To prove that anyone has lied, I would have to prove premeditation and knowledge of truth. I cannot do so in Father Fester’s case and therefore apologize.
You want to leave air tainted with the rank odor you injected into it.
A real apology sounds like this:
I accused Fr. Fester of lying. I was wrong. I ask his forgiveness and I apologize to the readers.
Sorry Kraeff, I am not going to let a good man get smeared, just because you don’t like him.
» Posted By Ian James On September 16, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
Back To Stats Page
You don’t provide any proof though, do you. You smear the man, and then expect everyone to sit by and watch you do it.
» Posted By Ian James On September 16, 2011 @ 1:31 pm