Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt/Evidence

=Bernie's Input to Arbitration= I have not done this before, so if the format or content of my input missed the mark, let me know and I'll try to clean it up. If it is too long, I also apologize. I was trying to make it easier to access the content that I consider to be relevant. Bernie Radecki 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been married for 25 years, have three grown sons. I worked for 22 years for Hewlett Packard/Agilent Technologies. I graduate from Nursing school in 8 days. I could care less what Schuckardt believes about religion. I was a member of his church from my adolescents to adulthood. Looking back on it with more mature eyes, I am appalled at what I had gone through and I think the article needs to show all sides of Schuckardt. I am not sure why I hung in here and continued working on the article instead of giving up under the rain of Athansius303's wiki-lawyering and reverting. I think it is his attitude that he is always 100% right. Whether Wikipedia policy or Catholic Church teaching, he is right and all others are wrong or worse. I am afraid to admit that Athanasius303 brings out the worst in me. I definitely do not have the ability to work with him. On the other hand, I have learned a lot during these last 5 months about the human condition. It has been frustrating, but there was some enlightenment too. Bernie Radecki 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

=Gimmetrow=

I would like to explain my connection to this article.

While I was working on a different article, Radecki made a comment on the talk page (after seeing a RfC as I recall), which led me to this article where he is active. This article seemed to need work. I fixed some spelling and started watching the talk page, and first got involved when a quote from a court case came under dispute. It didn't seem to me very relevant, so I asked about it.

Athanasius' responses did not set well. He said the questions were a rehash, and more or less said that anyone who disagreed was a partisan. I felt a little offended. I have no connection to any of these events, I've never met Schuckardt or Chicione, and I've never been to their churches or "Mount Saint Michael". The "personal experiences" related by Radecki et. al. that I saw made me a little uneasy, not verifiable and not article content, but it seemed within wiki custom as I observed on other pages. I think Athanasius' refactoring is justifiable, but it didn't help the atmosphere. Ironically, Athanasius' own attitude has influenced my views on this topic more than the "personal experiences" or the content in the article.

In Athanasius' defense, I'm sure he feels like the others gang up on him, and feels like he is being persecuted. Gimmetrow 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

=Athanasius303=

To Gimmetrow: Sorry if I came down on you, that wasn't my intention. I hope that you can understand that after being beaten up by verbal name calling "myopic" "mind control" ... a person can get a little defensive and perhaps start to read into comments by others things that may not be there.

This experience is an extremely frustrating one for me because unlike most/all of the editors contributing to this article - I was there. I know exactly what took place as far as an eye witness can know. And I know for a fact that much of what is being said about the Bishop, media not exempted here, is not true. I understand that my personal experiences are not verifiable and therefore not proper content in Wikipedia, and therefore I have not knowingly tried to edit the article based on my experiences.

When the Bishop left (yes - in fear for his safety) all of us were satisfied to simply let them keep the millions of dollars worth of church properties and settle down in rural CA and live our lives in peace. We are not about money. Three year later when a SWAT team busted down our doors we realized the folly of that mindset and were forced to deal with Chicoine and associates. We prevailed in every court case against them but the media war was already lost. Even though we successfully sued a CA newspaper in federal court, there seemed to be no turning back the tide of misinformation that seems to have taken on a life of its own. That is why I am probably defensive and again, I apologize if I have misjudged you. Be that as it may, you do seem to me to have a POV that is not neutral, at least that is how I see it. Athanasius303 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased Input
I have followed the evolution of this article and the tumultuous discussion on the talk page for the last six months. As a bystander, I am very impressed by the forceful and cogent explanations / arguments / defenses put forth by Athanasius 303. I am a little suprised to see how often he was attacked, asserting that he did not have enough proof for certain changes. However, it appeared to me that he supplied sufficient evidence or explantion for everything that he wrote.

Perhaps others do not grasp the essence of what he is writing precisely because they do not understand the things of God because they are not of God.

In a word, I sincerely hope his input will be seriously considered for the final version of the article. Mikael rds 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is priceless! Bernie Radecki 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)