A Refutation of Zechariah 4:14's "Why Pope Francis..."
GTV user Zechariah 4:14 posted a treatise called "Why Pope Francis is an Antipope: Canon 332.2". Edit: Zechariah 4:14 has changed his name once again. GTV should seriously consider disabling the …More
GTV user Zechariah 4:14 posted a treatise called "Why Pope Francis is an Antipope: Canon 332.2".
Edit: Zechariah 4:14 has changed his name once again. GTV should seriously consider disabling the function as it serves no productive purpose.
In this work, the author makes numerous false claims on the subject and about me in particular. Normally, I'm indulgent with this user's errors, his ignorance and his rampant propensity for telling lies. Given the formal nature of his treatise and the severtiy of his accusations, that is no longer an option.
This is a point-by-point refutation of the author's claims.
--> "Canon Law frequently discusses both parts of the papacy, the ministry and the office of the post. Ministerium and munus."
No citations given. Unsupported claim and irrelevant to Canon Law 332 §2. which does not mention or discuss "both parts of the papacy" either in English or Latin.
Canon Law states: 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required …More
Edit: Zechariah 4:14 has changed his name once again. GTV should seriously consider disabling the function as it serves no productive purpose.
In this work, the author makes numerous false claims on the subject and about me in particular. Normally, I'm indulgent with this user's errors, his ignorance and his rampant propensity for telling lies. Given the formal nature of his treatise and the severtiy of his accusations, that is no longer an option.
This is a point-by-point refutation of the author's claims.
--> "Canon Law frequently discusses both parts of the papacy, the ministry and the office of the post. Ministerium and munus."
No citations given. Unsupported claim and irrelevant to Canon Law 332 §2. which does not mention or discuss "both parts of the papacy" either in English or Latin.
Canon Law states: 332 §2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"This "news item" is that a poster to stop from being attacked by ultraviolet has blocked ultraviolet." @Saveusfromhell
No, this is a refutation on Canon Law. It is also a refutation of attacks made against me. Funny how, like every cross-eyed hypocrite, you ignore that fact.
Zechariah 4:14/ 4:06/ whatever else he's calling himself, the name he's registered to vote under is James Michael Yerian, …More
"This "news item" is that a poster to stop from being attacked by ultraviolet has blocked ultraviolet." @Saveusfromhell
No, this is a refutation on Canon Law. It is also a refutation of attacks made against me. Funny how, like every cross-eyed hypocrite, you ignore that fact.
Zechariah 4:14/ 4:06/ whatever else he's calling himself, the name he's registered to vote under is James Michael Yerian, misrepresented Canon Law. Worse, he lied about me. They are lies since I have corrected the false information directly to him numerous times. Yet he persists in repeating those falsehoods for the obvious and self-evident purpose of defaming me. That, incidentally, is a grave i.e. mortal sin.
"This is simply baiting another poster to engage so ultraviolet can continue to abuse the poster."
Wrong. This post is the only option I have to publicly answer a.) the falsehoods Mr. Yerian has told regarding Canon Law and b.) the lies he told about me.
Not surprisingly, like him, you see only what you want to see, through the distorted lens of your own personal bias.
"So many get banned or suspended for percieved slights to ultraviolet yet this poster can insult other posters at will."
That simply isn't true. The very fact Mr. Yerrian is still here and, obviously, you are is proof of that. Also, since we're discussing "insults", in the interests of truth I am insulted here more or less on a daily basis. I've been accused of being a "Bergoglian," a supporter and a defender of Pope Francis, an advocate of the Pope's malign agenda, a pagan, and an "effeminate", I have been accused of being a Jewish intelligence agent, a satanist, a false Catholic, a transgender, one insanity after another, all according to whatever hiearchy of evil the accuser has.
I don't complain, I don't report it, I don't whine or beg "pleaseee stop insulting meeee... those nasty comments hurt my feeelinz." Oh, no. I take it, roll with the punches and then I mock my attackers. Admittedly, I do so ruthlessly sparing nothing, save well-deserved profanity out of deference to the sensitivities of other readers. Christ Himself wasn't above outright name-calling. See Matthew 23:33
Since, as Catholics, we know (or should know) Christ was born without sin and committed no sins in His life, then such vicious mockery wasn't a sin.
Christ aslo say in John 13:15 "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also."
You ask the Lord "Saveusfromhell"
I ask the Lord "Saveusfromfalsehood"
In this case, save us from yours.
"My account was banned for my post to ultraviolet."
That is false. Your account was banned because, if you are the person I think you are, your claims about "mind control nano machines" were factually disproven and then you threw a tantrum attacking the person who disproved your claims. Your account was banned because you started ranting literally top to bottom down the GTV news feed, one post after another, hitting each comments section with some spurious ugly remark.
In, point of fact, I did not even complain or report the posts. I recognized your behavior as an open admission of defeat just as I do with anyone who "blocks" another user, me, or anyone else for that matter. At the risk of repeating myself since you've clearly ignored the point.
By contrast, this post is open to all and I have never, ever blocked anyone on GTV for any reason.
"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat. It means the "blocker" is incapable of answering someone else's claims.
I never have, I never will, because I don't need to.
"Here i didn't say it in the post but bullies always yean for a reaction.The next time i logged on @rafferju i was banned."
That is wrong. "Here" is dated May 30, 2019
BREAKING - Attack Against Minneapolis Churches
The nex time you logged in as @rafferju you were NOT banned at all! A quick look at your user account shows you made additional posts right through October 19, 2019
@rafferju
You replied to me here, and you weren't banned.
Ireland's Health Minister With Blood-Curdling Smile Against Doctors Who Don't Perform Abortion
You made an additional thirteen posts after that one as well and you weren't banned, none of them were replies to me. Whatever you got banned for it wasn't replying to me.
Your claim is false, demonstrably so. Let's see if you have a supposedly Catholic dedication to the truth to offer me the apology you should. My own cynicism predicts you won't. You're like so many hypocrites, Mr. Yerian included. You lie and then call the truth an insult. You complain about insults when delivering them yourself. And, like always with your kind, you don't know what the bloody blue blazes you're talking about. Your own post history disproves your claims, you simpleton.
" last week i was suspended for simply reporting ultraviolet."
Cool story, champ. Needs more unicorns. No. You were, I believe, suspended for attempting a cut-and-paste spam campaign.
So you weren't suspended for "simply reporting" anyone. You were suspended for spamming one post after another. This is what grates on me no end, the blameless sanctimonious lies you people tell, the rampant re-writing of what actually happened into some narcisstic fantasy where you're always the martyr at the hands of the terrifying UV.
In fact, lucky you, I still have the screen cap from your profile! You see? This is why I don't "block" people. This is why I never "block people." This is why I don't need to. I don't need to lie, the way you do, buttercup.
The truth is an infinitely more effective weapon. :D
No, this is a refutation on Canon Law. It is also a refutation of attacks made against me. Funny how, like every cross-eyed hypocrite, you ignore that fact.
Zechariah 4:14/ 4:06/ whatever else he's calling himself, the name he's registered to vote under is James Michael Yerian, misrepresented Canon Law. Worse, he lied about me. They are lies since I have corrected the false information directly to him numerous times. Yet he persists in repeating those falsehoods for the obvious and self-evident purpose of defaming me. That, incidentally, is a grave i.e. mortal sin.
"This is simply baiting another poster to engage so ultraviolet can continue to abuse the poster."
Wrong. This post is the only option I have to publicly answer a.) the falsehoods Mr. Yerian has told regarding Canon Law and b.) the lies he told about me.
Not surprisingly, like him, you see only what you want to see, through the distorted lens of your own personal bias.
"So many get banned or suspended for percieved slights to ultraviolet yet this poster can insult other posters at will."
That simply isn't true. The very fact Mr. Yerrian is still here and, obviously, you are is proof of that. Also, since we're discussing "insults", in the interests of truth I am insulted here more or less on a daily basis. I've been accused of being a "Bergoglian," a supporter and a defender of Pope Francis, an advocate of the Pope's malign agenda, a pagan, and an "effeminate", I have been accused of being a Jewish intelligence agent, a satanist, a false Catholic, a transgender, one insanity after another, all according to whatever hiearchy of evil the accuser has.
I don't complain, I don't report it, I don't whine or beg "pleaseee stop insulting meeee... those nasty comments hurt my feeelinz." Oh, no. I take it, roll with the punches and then I mock my attackers. Admittedly, I do so ruthlessly sparing nothing, save well-deserved profanity out of deference to the sensitivities of other readers. Christ Himself wasn't above outright name-calling. See Matthew 23:33
Since, as Catholics, we know (or should know) Christ was born without sin and committed no sins in His life, then such vicious mockery wasn't a sin.
Christ aslo say in John 13:15 "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also."
You ask the Lord "Saveusfromhell"
I ask the Lord "Saveusfromfalsehood"
In this case, save us from yours.
"My account was banned for my post to ultraviolet."
That is false. Your account was banned because, if you are the person I think you are, your claims about "mind control nano machines" were factually disproven and then you threw a tantrum attacking the person who disproved your claims. Your account was banned because you started ranting literally top to bottom down the GTV news feed, one post after another, hitting each comments section with some spurious ugly remark.
In, point of fact, I did not even complain or report the posts. I recognized your behavior as an open admission of defeat just as I do with anyone who "blocks" another user, me, or anyone else for that matter. At the risk of repeating myself since you've clearly ignored the point.
By contrast, this post is open to all and I have never, ever blocked anyone on GTV for any reason.
"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat. It means the "blocker" is incapable of answering someone else's claims.
I never have, I never will, because I don't need to.
"Here i didn't say it in the post but bullies always yean for a reaction.The next time i logged on @rafferju i was banned."
That is wrong. "Here" is dated May 30, 2019
BREAKING - Attack Against Minneapolis Churches
The nex time you logged in as @rafferju you were NOT banned at all! A quick look at your user account shows you made additional posts right through October 19, 2019
@rafferju
You replied to me here, and you weren't banned.
Ireland's Health Minister With Blood-Curdling Smile Against Doctors Who Don't Perform Abortion
You made an additional thirteen posts after that one as well and you weren't banned, none of them were replies to me. Whatever you got banned for it wasn't replying to me.
Your claim is false, demonstrably so. Let's see if you have a supposedly Catholic dedication to the truth to offer me the apology you should. My own cynicism predicts you won't. You're like so many hypocrites, Mr. Yerian included. You lie and then call the truth an insult. You complain about insults when delivering them yourself. And, like always with your kind, you don't know what the bloody blue blazes you're talking about. Your own post history disproves your claims, you simpleton.
" last week i was suspended for simply reporting ultraviolet."
Cool story, champ. Needs more unicorns. No. You were, I believe, suspended for attempting a cut-and-paste spam campaign.
So you weren't suspended for "simply reporting" anyone. You were suspended for spamming one post after another. This is what grates on me no end, the blameless sanctimonious lies you people tell, the rampant re-writing of what actually happened into some narcisstic fantasy where you're always the martyr at the hands of the terrifying UV.
In fact, lucky you, I still have the screen cap from your profile! You see? This is why I don't "block" people. This is why I never "block people." This is why I don't need to. I don't need to lie, the way you do, buttercup.
The truth is an infinitely more effective weapon. :D
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
P.S @Saveusfromhell
I don't mind saying so, none of this speaks very much for your intelligence.
You claimed that you got banned for replying to me (obviously false).
You complained that you got suspended for reporting me (also false).
And now here you are again, being abusive and hostile to the same user supposedly responsible for all your woes!
That... now that's just dumb. :P If you encountered …More
P.S @Saveusfromhell
I don't mind saying so, none of this speaks very much for your intelligence.
You claimed that you got banned for replying to me (obviously false).
You complained that you got suspended for reporting me (also false).
And now here you are again, being abusive and hostile to the same user supposedly responsible for all your woes!
That... now that's just dumb. :P If you encountered a user with such a mysterious source of influence, prudence would caution you to leave them alone. But not you. Oh, no. You go out of your way to see what else will happen.
"because this account will now be banned for the sin on gloriatv of crossing ultraviolet."
No, it won't. Mr. Yerian's account(s) have posted far worse and he's still here. Again, the truth refutes your lies and your fabricated victimhood.
"ultraviolet claims to know a VIP here on gloria tv."
In point of fact, many here do and routinely engage the VIP, both publicly and in "chat".
I'm just egotistical enough to gloat about it with the full knowlege others will appreciate the inside joke.
Those who also "know" this VIP probably get a big chuckle out of the way such a claim terrifiies gullible idiots like you.
This, for me, is the best and finest sort of mockery possible. The joke is on you, you don't even know you're the butt of the joke, and the joke doesn't even present itself until you insist on making yourself the butt of it.
It's like setting up the old half-opened door with the pail of water prank. Except here I tack a sign on the door saying, "Danger, Falling H2O! Do not enter!" Naturally, a moron ignores the sign, assuming they know better and they get soaked.
"but it seems ultraviolet has that power"
I don't have any power and I can say this truly, before the Amighty, I didn't "report" your spam-campaign.
I don't need to. Your claims are easily refuted, factual examples disproving all your accusations and, yes, your lies, are abundant. Ban you? Suspend you? That's like "blocking" you and as I've said before.
"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat. It means the "blocker" is incapable of answering someone else's claims.
I never have, I never will, because I don't need to.
I don't mind saying so, none of this speaks very much for your intelligence.
You claimed that you got banned for replying to me (obviously false).
You complained that you got suspended for reporting me (also false).
And now here you are again, being abusive and hostile to the same user supposedly responsible for all your woes!
That... now that's just dumb. :P If you encountered a user with such a mysterious source of influence, prudence would caution you to leave them alone. But not you. Oh, no. You go out of your way to see what else will happen.
"because this account will now be banned for the sin on gloriatv of crossing ultraviolet."
No, it won't. Mr. Yerian's account(s) have posted far worse and he's still here. Again, the truth refutes your lies and your fabricated victimhood.
"ultraviolet claims to know a VIP here on gloria tv."
In point of fact, many here do and routinely engage the VIP, both publicly and in "chat".
I'm just egotistical enough to gloat about it with the full knowlege others will appreciate the inside joke.
Those who also "know" this VIP probably get a big chuckle out of the way such a claim terrifiies gullible idiots like you.
This, for me, is the best and finest sort of mockery possible. The joke is on you, you don't even know you're the butt of the joke, and the joke doesn't even present itself until you insist on making yourself the butt of it.
It's like setting up the old half-opened door with the pail of water prank. Except here I tack a sign on the door saying, "Danger, Falling H2O! Do not enter!" Naturally, a moron ignores the sign, assuming they know better and they get soaked.
"but it seems ultraviolet has that power"
I don't have any power and I can say this truly, before the Amighty, I didn't "report" your spam-campaign.
I don't need to. Your claims are easily refuted, factual examples disproving all your accusations and, yes, your lies, are abundant. Ban you? Suspend you? That's like "blocking" you and as I've said before.
"Blocking" another user is an admission of defeat. It means the "blocker" is incapable of answering someone else's claims.
I never have, I never will, because I don't need to.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"so many silly lies it’s laughable, 'mind control something' ?? . @Saveusfromhell
That isn't a lie. I said, "if you are the person I think you are," then my statement would be correct. If you're NOT the person I think you are, then my statement is incorrect. A lie requires a statement to be a.) false and b.) told knowing a.) applies.
Frankly, people like you are why I've repeatedly argued the …More
"so many silly lies it’s laughable, 'mind control something' ?? . @Saveusfromhell
That isn't a lie. I said, "if you are the person I think you are," then my statement would be correct. If you're NOT the person I think you are, then my statement is incorrect. A lie requires a statement to be a.) false and b.) told knowing a.) applies.
Frankly, people like you are why I've repeatedly argued the following.
Banned users should be banned immediately the moment they rejoin. On sight. No second chances. Most websites follow this policy.
Since you don't belong here, you shouldn't be allowed to come creeping back in like some foul serpent. Your posts under this second account are a perfect example why.
You caused trouble and you got banned.
You rejoined and the first thing you did was resume causing trouble.
You got suspended. Now you're still out for blood.
When, hopefully, the administration eventually follows my advice, idiots like you will be moaning how you got banned because of my mysterious influence.
You got banned for being a jerk.
You got suspended for being a spammer.
It wasn't giving the "same advice". You could have given it privately with none the wiser.
No, you were trying a "cut and paste" campaign, in one post after another. That was and is your only input... trouble-making.
Look at yourself, the way you white-wash what is obviously malicious campaign! In your warped world-view, blameless Catholic martyr that you are, you were just "giving the same advice".
How fitting, how truly just, that it backfired on you. In truth, I hope it backfires even further. ;-)
"Other than that’s what you reported me for and Gloria tv did your bidding again."
Ah, but I -didn't- report you! Truly. You betray your guilty-conscience. You did wrong, you did wrong with evil intent, you obviously KNOW you did wrong and with evil intent, and you're unhappy you were punished for it.
If GTV did my bidding, I'd be at least a moderator by now and this site would see a dramatically increased number of both users and donors.
GTV would run much more smoothly, there wouldn't be these long-simmering grudge-matches and flame-wars. Catholics would be able to post on a postively-focused site without having to, as I do, grit my teeth, for another boxing-match with Mr. Yerian or some foaming at the mouth, no-hope nutter like yourself.
In this case, all I did was screen-capped your comments and post the screen-cap. Nothing more. Someone from GTV's administration noticed and dealt with you accordingly.
Since you raised the matter, it's incredibly rare that I -ever- actually report a post and in most cases I'm not even being addressed. I typically report posts only when their content posts an immediate legal threat or embarrassment to GTV.
I can deal with a miserable little mouth-breather like you entirely on my own. Rest assured. ;-)
That isn't a lie. I said, "if you are the person I think you are," then my statement would be correct. If you're NOT the person I think you are, then my statement is incorrect. A lie requires a statement to be a.) false and b.) told knowing a.) applies.
Frankly, people like you are why I've repeatedly argued the following.
Banned users should be banned immediately the moment they rejoin. On sight. No second chances. Most websites follow this policy.
Since you don't belong here, you shouldn't be allowed to come creeping back in like some foul serpent. Your posts under this second account are a perfect example why.
You caused trouble and you got banned.
You rejoined and the first thing you did was resume causing trouble.
You got suspended. Now you're still out for blood.
When, hopefully, the administration eventually follows my advice, idiots like you will be moaning how you got banned because of my mysterious influence.
You got banned for being a jerk.
You got suspended for being a spammer.
It wasn't giving the "same advice". You could have given it privately with none the wiser.
No, you were trying a "cut and paste" campaign, in one post after another. That was and is your only input... trouble-making.
Look at yourself, the way you white-wash what is obviously malicious campaign! In your warped world-view, blameless Catholic martyr that you are, you were just "giving the same advice".
How fitting, how truly just, that it backfired on you. In truth, I hope it backfires even further. ;-)
"Other than that’s what you reported me for and Gloria tv did your bidding again."
Ah, but I -didn't- report you! Truly. You betray your guilty-conscience. You did wrong, you did wrong with evil intent, you obviously KNOW you did wrong and with evil intent, and you're unhappy you were punished for it.
If GTV did my bidding, I'd be at least a moderator by now and this site would see a dramatically increased number of both users and donors.
GTV would run much more smoothly, there wouldn't be these long-simmering grudge-matches and flame-wars. Catholics would be able to post on a postively-focused site without having to, as I do, grit my teeth, for another boxing-match with Mr. Yerian or some foaming at the mouth, no-hope nutter like yourself.
In this case, all I did was screen-capped your comments and post the screen-cap. Nothing more. Someone from GTV's administration noticed and dealt with you accordingly.
Since you raised the matter, it's incredibly rare that I -ever- actually report a post and in most cases I'm not even being addressed. I typically report posts only when their content posts an immediate legal threat or embarrassment to GTV.
I can deal with a miserable little mouth-breather like you entirely on my own. Rest assured. ;-)