Tuesday, September 19, 2017

MAE, DIANA, CRISTOBAL, PUTRID PIUS, WRITING COMMITTEE OF THE NEO BLOG. HYSTERICAL OR HYPOCRITICAL?

Hysterical?

The last two years, we have been bombarded in the western media by a slough of hysterical women from all walks of life, regarding a wide array of subjects ranging from the serious subject of a first woman president all the way to the totally ridiculous  "men spreading".

Here on Guam, we have a special treat known under different monikers, the most popular being :
The Diana.
Personally I do not care much for it, since I would prefer picture the name of Diana, with the memory of the young princess who died tragically in Paris 20 years ago; rather than that of the delusional Mae.  

The question remains: " is Diana really an hysterical wrench" who is zealously doing the biding of her gurus? Or is she more of  an
                                             
HYPOCRITE....??


 
 The answer appears to be somewhat in the middle, depending on the subject and the need Pius wants to remedy.

Recently one of our many anonymous reported an exchange between himself and the Diana on her blog regarding the Yona property. It went as follow:

{Diana Sept 4, 2017, 10.54pm
Dear anonymous at 3.16pm

It is called "sarcasm". After all, it is CCOG who keeps calling it a hotel demanding rent. CCOG has no idea that it is the archdiocese who pays the seminarians, When the Archdiocese sent three seminarians to study at St Patrick Seminary, who is paying for their education? The RMS seminarians belong to the Archdiocese.}

Here you have the perfect example of Diana, going back to her roots, and following the old Pius technique: Deny, Deflect, Destroy

  • Having been called to the carpet by anon, she denies and deflects at the same time: "it is called sarcasm".
  • Then she continues the deflection by introducing the CCOG and assigning to them the Hotel description.
  • Finally she attempts to destroy with a side show to justify her urban myth, that the RMS seminarians belong to the Archdiocese.


Here Diana is not being hysterical at all, because she does not need to be. 
Rather she is very hypocritical on several subject.


The CCOG is not the one who called the Yona property the "hotel". Actually this property was planned, designed and build as a Hotel.
Many people around the island still call it the Hotel for lack of better word.
Diana is probably hard pressed by the fact that despite years of effort by the NCW to identify that property as the Seminary, many people still do not buy the bill of sales, and most likely never shall.

It is not the fault of the CCOG, if Apuron and Pius elected to run a scam, which they attempted to pass as a seminary. They might have succeeded for a short while, but the veil has been lifted.
The whole house of cards is crumbling on all sides.
Rumors have it that their endorsement by the Lateran University has been rescinded , probably due to the revelation about their fake academic body and the report sent by the Bishop of Samoa to the Nuncio.
The whole professor scam of people teaching subjects they are not trained for, and the listing of full time professors, who were never there, or only once every two years, has been revealed and they have never recovered from it.
Their refusal to give proper term papers and exam to the students, and to endorse candidate that would never make it any other place has finally come to bite them in the proverbial rear.

The CCOG did not come with that Hotel description, they might have use it at times, like most Guamanians do.

So Here Again a big H for hypocritical.

Diana continues to deflect on the subject of the Hotel, because she knows that the reason some are pushing to find out who is lodging there, is tied to the fact that what is left of the seminary has indeed become a Hotel.

Lets put it simply.
If indeed there are between 25 and 30 students, plus a half a dozen "professors",  you should not have more than 40 people residing at the fake seminary.

Yet, it appears, that between 70 and 80 people are residing there free of charge.

The question being who are these 30 to 40 extra boarders that reside and board at the Yona property?

Ultimately the Archdiocese can be held liable for what is and/or could happen to these mystery guests.

A whole serie of question come to mind.:
  • Are these residents here legally?
  • Is Quitagua staying at the seminary?
  • What is their role?
  • Are they working , and if so, is that allowed by their residency title?
  • How many are they?
  • Do they have insurance?
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Probably Mr Eusebio will explain us that they are taken care of without any help from the Archdiocese.
 Yet they keep using the building. The wear and tear on the facilities, the air conditioning units, all the equipments, from the kitchen to the chairs etc....are being used at twice the rate of what the seminarians themselves would used them.

Definitely another H for hypocritical.



Finally the Seminarians.

As I  reminded us earlier, the situation of the RMS Guam is a disaster. No Bishop in their right mind would agree to take any of these poor people as priests. We have seen the poor quality of their predecessors. ( from the old billy goat, to the vice rector of the Cathedral who tell happily to all that want to hear it: " They did not want me in Hawaii, so I came here. I probably would have never made it otherwise" .

We will have to deal with the remnants of Apuron's decisions taken under the gun from Pius.

Samoa, could not get out of here fast enough. If RMS Guam wants to survive, the whole gas factory will have to be cleaned and the rotten fruits discarded.

May be Bishop Balin of Qatar will be willing to take two or three?  He is so gung ho on the NCW, he owes them that much?
Perhaps they can send the less challenged to learn Chinese in Kaoshung, for further service in Mainland China as Kiko promised?

It is extremely doubtful that Guam would accept any new presbyter from this failed institution.

This my dear Diana tells us that the RMS seminarians do not belong to the Archdiocese.

Just for that, Diana deserves another H for hypocrite.




  

Recommendations by JungleWatch