An 'Interesting Conversation" with PolishSTL (R Bach?)

>
*** Updated *** I added limited color to make this easier to read. Comments by "PolishSTL" are in BLUE.

A person using an ID of "PolishSTL" recently posted the following in response to my postings of 1) the Appeal (by Faithful Members of St Stanislaus) and 2) a response on the number of people "in exile", so to speak.

I have separated the post by "PolishSTL" into segments for ease of reading and for my response (I made no changes, but left the post as is, except for the separations):

There is no 'lrslattery' on the parish roles & tell the truth as to who wrote the letter.

First, I never claimed to write the letter nor did I claim to be a parishioner. When I posted the Appeal Letter at FreeRepublic, I said: I received this via email this evening. It comes from those parishioners "in exile", so to speak. These are people who know first-hand what's going on...Maybe those who are so quick to judge Archbishop Burke might learn something from these people.

I further stated, as a point of clarification: The signatories to the Appeal Letter above are: Andrzej Blek, Danuta Krol, Teresa Blek, Basia Najarro, Jarek Czernikiewicz, Joe Skudrsyk, Ewa Dyk, and Bozena Skudrzyk.

The, at most, 60 (not 150-200) could not write such a letter without intervention or assistance.

Remember the number "60". The 150-200 number was what I used in a followup posting as a count of those "in exile". This was stated as a guess, yet to be verified...

Also, for some reason, it is said that those 'in exile' (numbering 60, remember) "could not write such a letter without intervention or assistance". There are any number of assumptions one could make here.
1) The Archdiocese is behind the letter.
2) The Archdiocese helped in composing the letter.
3) The 60 are incapable of writing such a letter, or
4) Maybe our Lord inspired them to write it.

"PolishSTL" leaves us in the dark why we should not accept this letter which is signed by eight people representing the faithful of St. Stanislaus.

My actual response to "PolishSTL" was

What is the insinuation here? Do you mean to say that they are incapable of writing an eloquent letter? Do they lack the mental prowess for such an undertaking? Do they not have a sufficient grasp of the English language? Please clarify yourself - tell us what you mean.

"PolishSTL" continues:

In adition, 150-200 signatures contains a large gap of 50!

Caught me! I was deliberately (sarcasm intended) inflating the figures - cooking the books, so to speak! Mea culpa! Nevertheless, I now know that 200 minus 150 equals 50!

The 10-11 families were not exiled, they left with the ADMINISTRATOR after no explainations for questionable expendatures caused him to lose signatory rights to the operating account.

I'm not certain how to get 60 parishioners from 10-11 families unless we're talking about 5-6 people per family and all being counted in the 60 number from above. Furthermore, I have no way to verify the veracity of this claim. In light of the inadequate information at my disposal, I cannot comment on this. Perhaps someone with details could provide them?

Annulments, jobs, and other monetary considerations have been provided to those 60 in exchange for their WORK against the parishioners of St. Stanislaus.

Now, I must admit that I'm confused again...It is being alleged that the "60" are receiving annulments and jobs from the Archdiocese as a means to garner their support, and I suppose that those who cannot work or have no need of seeking an annulment are just paid cash or receive other unspecified benefits. This, of course, allows them to work against those who work against the Church...It's a novel idea. And, of course, we have seen nothing to prove, much less support, these goofy allegations.

THERE HAS BEEN A 3RD PARTY AUDIT CONDUCTED AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE!!! (FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME).

This statement, while somewhat ambiguous, conflicts with this statement by other parishioners: "...the Board refused to provide a complete detailed written report of all the financial accounts of the parish. As far as we know, the Corporation has never gone through an independent audit of all financial accounts it holds."

Two different versions. Not too surprising.

The individuals that left are NO LONGER parishioners of St. Stan's or St. John's. They are parishioners of St. Agatha's.

Not worthy of a comment, mainly because I'm tired of listening to and reading about these rants. I'm still left wondering if the original articles and by-laws apply? Will "PolishSTL" answer that question?

"PolishSTL" signs his post:

R BACH

I said in a post on another site that I have "no horse in this race." However, it doesn't seem right to sit by idly while forces are about attempting to impugn the integrity of Archbishop Burke, those with whom he works, or the faithful parishioners of St. Stanislaus.

One of the objectives in covering this issue has been to show "up close and personal", the flagrant disrepect for, and at times, the malice toward Abp. Burke that exists here and to try to provide the necessary information one would need in arriving at the truth. I, personally, did not need to know all of the details as Archbishop Burke's words and directives are sufficient for me. I see it as a matter of humility and obedience. The information and facts only confirmed what in humility and faith, I already knew.

Source.