An anonymous commenter to the post below is going to great lengths to cast a bad light on Fr. Don Armstrong. He even accuses your humble blogger of moaning about anonymous comments. If asking him to identify himself is moaning then I am guilty as charged. However, I would think that someone with such an intense interest in a particular issue would have the integrity to tell us who he (or she) is. This would help us readers to know where this person is coming from and why he is so interested in piling on Fr. Armstrong. When a person makes substantial charges against someone else it is to a certain extent about the person making the charges.
My suspicion is that this is a pecusa apologist in the Diocese of Colorado who has a vendetta out on Fr. Armstrong. It might be the chancellor of the DoC.
I have read the beginning of the plea agreement. It says to me that Fr. Armstrong agreed to an Alford plea with no admission of guilt. It further says that judgment on one felony count has been deferred for four years. This is not what Fr. Zimmerman or Chancellor Hitt have said about the agreement nor is it what Fr. Armstrong has said either. It appears that both sides are spinning this agreement. Fr. Armstrong makes no mention of the deferred judgment on one felony count and Zimmerman, Hitt, and our anonymous commenter paint Fr. Armstrong as a felon. If there's more to this I'm sure anon. will fill us in.
For the record, I do permit anonymous comments and there are good reasons in some cases for those who comment to remain anonymous. It also allows people with obviously bad motives to sling mud without any of the mud being attributed to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment