Technically, it's Monday morning here, so the conversation's okay. :-)

First, to be really tangential here (and it's my fault, I brought it up) Griswald was Poe's executor, though you're right that it's difficult to tell if Poe appointed him or not. It's a gray area. Actually, so is Poe's alcoholism, since he had almost no physical tolerance for the stuff. That's why the argument that he died on a binge rings false. He was physically incapable of it. Of course, Griswald accused him of more than alcoholism.

Secondly, I didn't consider your comment condescending. Funny you should worry, though, because I had worried my comment about being my being "way cool about plurality of opinion" would read the same. I'm glad it didn't.

You say our differences relate to a definition of facts. This is correct. You say the accusations in those articles are are well-researched and that critics have claimed they are well-researched. But other than your stating that, and their stating that, I can't verify that they are truly objective reporters/reviewers. And I don't think all the positive commentators who are Catholic can be dismissed on the grounds of their Catholicism.

You make very strong anti-Catholic statements. The Pope is a "bigot" to you. You don't seem to understand the doctrine of salvation through suffering and it leads to a misunderstanding of how a Catholic holding that position would still seek to heal people. You seem very antagonistic about Mother Theresa based on her beliefs about contraception. You are disturbed by their attitude towards gays.

Heck, I'm a gay man, but I have no problem with the Church's teachings. I completely disagree with them, of course, but that's a different issue. Knowing the teachings of the Church, I get that a believer would have not choice but to condemn homosexuality. I'm not antagonistic towards them for it. I just see a clear demonstration that their view of the nature of reality is wrong.

It seems to me you have serious issues with Catholicism, and so when people say "I was there. I saw what she was doing and it was wrong" and someone else says "This person has it right" you are ready to accept it. I don't have the same predisposition, and so when they say that, I can only think of the many people who say the opposite.

And, to clarify, I am not saying she's proved to be innocent of the charges, let alone a saint. I'm saying I really don't see conclusive proof for one choice over the other.

The majority of what makes you disparage this woman doesn't really come into play for me in assessing who she was. She was anti-contraception. Makes sense considering her beliefs. She believed there was salvation in suffering. Truth be told, so do I. I don't think her statements carry the implications you suggest they do. She accepted money from disreputable people? What charitable organization does not, and how can a charitable organization survive if it doesn't take what money it can get?

The thing it really comes down to me is the management of funds. Did she use her money inappropriately? It seems highly unlikely. Of course that money didn't go to ease the life of herself and her nuns. They take a vow of poverty for goodness sakes. That's why that ex-nun's complaints ring hollow to me. I don't know what life she was expecting. Did Mother Theresa use funds for convents rather than hospitals? You're sources say so, but I don't find the statements conclusive proof in and of themselves. I'm not even sure if that were the case that that would be a mismanagement of money, because I don't know what the doners were led to believe their money was going towards. I understand why she would spend money on building convents. I wouldn't have used the money that way, but then I'm not a practicing Catholic who believes the central concern of this life is an acceptance of God and his laws to prepare us for salvation in Heaven rather than damnation in hell. I can see why she would think it is, and why the people who gave her money nine times out of ten would agree, and why therefore the money wasn't misspent.

Unless I can verify that she was deceiving people about where the money was going, then I really don't have an issue with her.

I hit the "publish my letter" button, and I was brought back to the preview page, so I hit it again.

I'm a big Havrilesky fan, but WTF, why bother writing a column that is almost entirely a synopsis? Did anyone need a synopsis? What I want is an analysis. All we get of that is a lone paragraph at the bottom of the page. Unusual for Havrilesky. And lazy, lazy, lazy.

but mediocre bunnies are better than no bunnies. They'll bounce back next intallment.

I've enjoyed discussing this with you.

Tom Sawyer says

"we don't know WHO, exactly" not WHOM...

Isn't "whom" in fact correct. The subject is "we" the object is "whom." "Who" would only be correct as the subject. I always thought an easy trick was to see if you could place "he" or "him" in it's place. You wouldn't say "we don't know he." You'd say "we don't know him." Therefore, "we don't know whom." Right?

I know that's not the issue at stake in this article, but still. I'm very good at grammar, but my understanding of who/whom sucks. Someone explain this, please.

Yes, it's repetitive on Salon's part. I'm not quite convinced that it won't alter people's opnions. Well, what single interview can do that? But Wolpert's calm, friendly manner, and his good argument in favor of his position (he uses logic, not vitriol) might have an effect on people's thinking.

Of course, when your interviewee makes a point of saying his friend saw a ghost that gave accurate information she couldn't have come by on her own, and your interviewer recounts his grandfather's very odd experience at the time of his own grandfather's death, and a scientific study that supports ESP phenomenon is included in the article, it kinda shoots a hole in the theory. Even if those occurances don't strictly prove God's existence, or the existence of the supernatural.