SNAP's uneasy relationship with the truth:
(l to r) SNAP leaders David Clohessy, Barbara Blaine, and Barbara Dorris
It is an alarming and incontrovertible fact: False abuse accusations against Catholic priests, which have always been present, are on the rise. The mainstream media rarely runs stories about false accusations, and there are groups – especially the anti-Catholic group SNAP – who are desperate to hide the shocking truth about false accusations from the public.
What are the facts about Catholic sex abuse and false accusations? Consider:
- A veteran Los Angeles attorney who has worked on over 100 clergy abuse cases recently declared:
"One retired F.B.I. agent who worked with me to investigate many claims in the Clergy Cases told me, in his opinion, about ONE-HALF of the claims made in the Clergy Cases were either entirely false or so greatly exaggerated that the truth would not have supported a prosecutable claim for childhood sexual abuse."
- Over an 18-month period in the Archdiocese of Boston, the Archdiocesan the review board – comprised largely of law enforcement and lay experts on abuse – "did not find that probable cause of sexual abuse of a minor had occurred" in 45% of the cases it thoroughly examined, again suggesting about half of the claims were bogus;
- Last year in the United States, nearly half (45%) of all priests accused of abuse were long-ago deceased and thus unable to deny the charges – and this percentage continues to rise every year;
- In weighing the costs of fighting lawsuits versus settling them, dioceses routinely pay out sizable settlements even for abuse claims against long-dead priests whose records were completely unblemished when they were alive and where accusations were never even substantiated.
Therefore, contingency lawyers have been incentivized to bring claims against dioceses which are either completely bogus or greatly exaggerated, or to seek outsized sums for minor claims.
Over the recent past, we have cataloged a shocking number bogus cases against Catholic priests, but clearly this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Lone voices in the media wilderness: Acknowledging the fraud
Speaking truth to power:
Vincent Carroll from the Denver Post
In truth, the media is structured in such a way that few reporters, editors, or columnists are ever brave enough to pursue a story which runs counter to the accepted narrative on an issue.
In 2010, Vincent Carroll at the Denver Post fearlessly noted, "[F]raudulent or highly dubious accusations are more common than is acknowledged in coverage of the church scandals — although they should not be surprising, given the monumental settlements various dioceses have paid out over the years."
In 2005, Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal, writing about abuse lawsuits against the Church, asserted, "People have to come to understand that there is a large scam going on with personal injury attorneys, and what began as a serious effort [to help genuine victims] has now expanded to become a huge money-making proposition."
In addition, in 2001 (!), an East Coast attorney wrote, "I have some contacts in the prison system, having been an attorney for some time, and it has been made known to me that [accusing a Catholic priest of abuse] is a current and popular scam."
Who knows how many more such scams are being perpetrated today while the mainstream media sleeps?
We may never know unless a news organization is finally brave enough to run with a counter-narrative and expose the ever-widening scandal of bogus claims against priests.
Dennis Ecker, It does no children being abused in our society by anyone any good at all by getting on a site that examines media integrity and the veracity abuse claims, and pretending to be concerned about victims. If you're really concerned, get off the computer and help children. Don't just sit there and type verbal insults toward Catholics. As I've explained before, where I live, I see lots of kids living under really bad circumstances. Not necessarily sex abuse, but it is out there. Lots of neglect, etc. It's rampant.
The Times went after Mahoney!!!! Whooo Hooo!!!!!!!!
Julie,
Who is questioning the integrity of the media ? Its not me. Blame has been put on the media for not reporting on issues regarding the child abuse by clergy that would shed a positive light on your church.
But if there is no positive and only negative what else is the media to report on, and what is the media to believe ? The catholic church does not have a good track record of telling the truth unless its done through law enforcement, courts and judges. But again, that is another group of people the catholic church thinks are out to get them. We have seen it in the past like in Philadelphia and we are seeing it as I write this comment in St. Paul. The pulling of the teeth as I may call it for the truth.
Then you give these false claims that I am not concerned about the victims. You are so wrong. Let me tell you why I do what I do. Its because of these false claims of an increase of false accusations and other defensive claims TMR, Bill Donahue and any other person who are on the same bandwagon as yourself claiming foul against the catholic church.
In this particular blog I do not want one victim of clergy abuse who maybe sitting on the fence from picking up the phone and calling 911 because they read the untruths and feel why come forward I'm not going to be believed, and I don't care if the abuse occured 40 or 50 years ago or if the victims abuser is dead or alive, if that person feels it is now time to let go its time.
And why the whooo!!!hooo!!! about Mahoney ? You want media coverage, you got it !!!!!!!!
Jim, I seen the pic TMR left. I actually pictured you alot bigger. But I do see that California sun shiny glow.
anyone else get a creepy feeling from dennis' last sentence? Is that your grooming comment?
The only person creepy around here Mr. Hands (Manos) is some one who thinks anything Dennis said in his last sentence is sexual. Or that a 40 year old talking to a 60 year old about his phyisiognomy has anything to do with child rape.
I have reviewed the very recent LA Times article on Cardinal Mahony (in a link – with no elucidating comment – provided by JR). The material it discusses is material we looked at here in the document-cache releases by that paper quite a while back; there is little if anything new in the revelation line here.
Additionally, the article refers to the then-recent McMartin Pre-School cases (more accurately: the McMartin [and many other] Pre-School Day-care Ritual Satanic Abuse Trials) as if they were valid, without noting – in this Year of Grace Two Thousand and Thirteen – that almost all of those cases have long-since been reversed or otherwise annulled upon higher-court review (MA, I believe, being one of the states whose AG does not want to review its own such cases and does not want to talk about it anymore).
Nor did we discover any material in the document-cache releases we actually had a chance to examine from this paper to support the statement that Mahony sought ways as to “how to stymie police” (although we did look at the material that that paper claimed did support it, and the material didn’t actually do that at all).
Also in this regard, the article quotes an LAPD SVU detective whose quoted material gives the impression that if the police went to look for a suspect priest they could be almost certain that he would be out of town or out of the country: in the computer age there is no way any American police agency – especially one as large as the LAPD – could not track down an individual; even in the case discussed in the article, where the individual was apparently a Mexican native who had gone back there, let alone a priest who simply was in a formally licensed treatment facility in some nearby State (hardly a difficulty for the LAPD who could drive over to interview him or have one of that State’s police agencies either interview him or execute a warrant on him).
Where a suspect-priest was geographically located at the initial-point when the investigation was started … is really not a key point, since the police could certainly catch up with him wherever he was in the U.S. and proceed from there. I have not seen any material indicating that a priest (with the possible exception of that Mexican native) was unreachable by the police and on that basis the investigation was blocked, derailed, or closed for lack of a suspect’s availability.
Rather, investigations might well have been closed for other reasons – the lack of sufficient evidence to bring Charges certainly being one of them – but the police nowadays have to somehow find some other ‘cause’ that gets them out of the Stampede’s way … so cue the Church ‘hiding’ priests from their investigators and investigations.
Overall, even the article admits that Mahony did as much if not more than most Ordinaries to deal with the issue, and winds up primarily focusing on the fact that Mahony didn’t go-public with the problem. The publicity and the publicizing seem to be the main issue with which the article is concerned.
At 1123AM on the 3rd, “Dennis” once again conflates media coverage of the Church generally and of media coverage of the Church specifically in regard to the Catholic Clerical Abuse Matter. If he has not bothered to read the NY Times material by its religion reporter, Laurie Goodstein, in regard to both (i) and (ii) then that might explain his statement here (to the extent that it is conceptually and grammatically coherent).
He then goes for the idea that the reason the media reporting is uniformly negative is that – tah dahhhhh – there is no positive side to the Church’s handling of the Matter. (Although, as I point out in my immediately prior comment here, even the LA Times article from the 1st of December acknowledges that Mahony took some worthwhile steps.) Nor is the media supposed to “believe” things; it is supposed to investigate and assess them competently and completely in order to formulate an accurate overall picture.
The Abuseniks here are in no position to confidently presume being taken for credible in their allegations, stories and claims and for the material in their comments.
But what I think “Dennis” is going for here is that whatever had to be done to “pull teeth” is justified because – waittttt for itttttt – the Church “does not have a good track record of telling the truth” [sic] and the only way to get the truth out of the Church is “through law enforcement, courts and judges”. But as I have said, we have seen more than enough material here that establishes the hardly-small probability that “law enforcement, courts and judges” have committed a number of misfeasances – and surely the Philadelphia trials indicate that.
Nor does this comment of his reach the substantial conceptual points that raise the false-allegations in civil lawsuits to a probability that cannot be ignored. (See my prior comments on this thread.)
We are then apparently expected to believe that “Dennis” has now betaken himself to St. Paul (“as I write this comment in St. Paul”) where, if one wishes to credit this assertion as true and accurate, he will … do what exactly?
“Dennis” then tries to woof-away the probability-issues with false allegations by simply asserting that the allegations of false-allegations are themselves “false allegations”. He offers no substantiation of that – because he has none. Nor does he address either the probability-issue nor contest the conceptual points that render such possibilities of false-claims sufficiently probable as to demand examination (nor that the torties/payees themselves required that their claims be kept “secret” once the checks were safely cashed).
As I read her comment, ‘Julie’ pointed out that “Dennis” was not concerned generally for victims, but rather seemed merely to be completely focused on the claimed ‘victims’ of alleged Catholic clergy abuse. And in that claim she has certainly not – by any material from “Dennis” that we have seen on this site – made “false claims” about “Dennis”. Again, he slyly conflates two different issues: alleged victims of abuse generally and alleged victims of Catholic clergy abuse.
We are given to believe that anybody who is “claiming foul against the catholic church” [sic] are themselves making “false” and “defensive” claims. He is welcome to think what he will, but his assertion here must be weighed against all the material supporting the probability of precisely such a “foul”.
We shall see how many imagined myriads of still undeclared (genuine?) victims of Catholic clergy abuse are ‘out there’ somewhere. But of course, “Dennis” has covered that base as best he can: the old even-if-only-one is somehow still out there somewhere, then he can stay in business (such as it is) and can Keep The Ball Rolling (in his own mind if nowhere else).
And – once again – that queasy little tete-a-tete bit between himself and (for today’s episode) “Jim”, as if they have no other way of communicating personal bits.
We have "wait(ed) for it" from certain lengthy posters for many moons and so far: nothing. That's if "it" has any relationship to morality; responsability and truth.
Waiting for it from Mr. Run-on is like Waiting for Godot; nobody shows up.
Say what's on your mind Mark. Then you can disappear for a couple days like others like you.
I WARN YOU BE CAREFUL with your freedom of speech.
It's called a career. You wouldn't know what that is with all the freebies you are receiving.
Be carefule of what? Should i be worried about you? What are you going to do proclaim that you will sue me.
I see no need to capitalize sentences – bad grammer and can be read many different ways when posted online.
You too Dennis
" Nor does he address either the probability-issue nor contest the conceptual points that render such possibilities of false-claims sufficiently probable as to demand "
This statement was brought to my attention that seems to put a monkey wrench into what TMR wants us to believe here.
Why would I bring up the possibilities of false accusations happening ? I said two or three times before it does happen. I DO NOT DENY IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
And why discuss the probability or a chance of this epidemic (my wording) happening when already TMR states it is happening and is fact. But cannot back their accusations with proof.
Then you have the statement from the author of the quote who now does not want me to look at what TMR says as fact. But as a probability. Sure anything is possible. I can tell someone the next time they walk in the rain they will be hit by lighting. Possible not fact.
Nothing too new in the most recent batch of Tales from the Abusenik Side. But a few bits are here.
On the 4th at 1036 JR apparently isn’t familiar with the Brit expression “waitttt for ittttt!” even though, as he once claimed in trying to explain-away an oddly Brit usage he had put up, he had a parent or very close relative from the U.K.
And readers are welcome to make what they will of the subsequent effort to connect “it” with “morality; responsability and truth” [sic].
Other than that, just the usual contentless one-liner that apparently to his own satisfaction demonstrates that he has dealt with material. Perhaps the “many moons” usage indicates that he is also related to Native American personages, possibly a great war chief or some such. But the “Godot” reference is a nice bit of larding; it does give the impression he is up on his world literature and drama, does it not?
But then on to something a bit more interesting: the reactions to the (rather spot-on and humorous, I thought) one-liner by ‘Mark Manos’ (the 3rd, 601PM) about the one Abusenik possibly “grooming” the other. In light of both Abuseniks’ rather queasy affinity for gender/orientation-related snark, I thought it a nice little instance of the snarker(s) snarked and nicely apropos. Nor did it seem to me that the “creepy” bit of MM’s strike a false note.
But instead – “when suddenly, to my surprise” (as the 60’s songster saith) – the Wigs and the gloves come off.
For Abuseniks, quite comfortable in finding sexual-bits in just about anything a priest might do, they do seem quite averse to finding themselves downrange of that dynamic (even though MM hardly came up with the thought out of the blue, given the material put before us). But that’s the old double-standard let out of the bag so helpfully by CEO Clohessy in his Deposition.
Nor did anything MM said contain any justifiable inference that we had suddenly gone from “grooming” to “child rape” (since I think it is generally accepted by readers of this site that neither of these two are ‘children’, certainly not in the chronological sense). But in the coding of the Abusenik schematic, “grooming” is supposed to be a sure-fire sign of impending “child rape” – so perhaps the gentlemen were spooked by their own coded definitions. That’s a problem with creating a midway house of horrors: you could be scared out of your pants by one of the scary little bits you forgot that you had yourself installed among the entertainment machinery.
But “Mark” is then (“Dennis”, the 3rd, 832PM) lectured – and rather sternly and ominously – by “Dennis” that he can say what he thinks but then “disappear for a couple days like others like you” [sic]. I take it I do not qualify for that warning since – surely – I don’t do that (and indeed, instead I constantly irritate certain mentalities by allegedly having-nothing-else-to-do but comment every day, even several times a day, and at some length).
But then but then but then: the shouted (screamed, perhaps?) caps “warn” MM “to be careful with your freedom of speech”. Again, I don’t think we are seeing a Wig here; rather, we are seeing something real. Ja, Herr Manos – beware! It is well and good to make fun of ze approved targets, but if you haff relatiffs in Chermany vee warn you not to apply ze same treatment to ze Party members, ja?
Marvelous, really. We deal so often here not only with the old vaudeville and burlesque stage, but also with a 1940s war movie.
But the dynamic here is real enough indeed. Beneath the Abusenik/Victimist Wiggery, there is a sharp-edged predisposition to impose agendas and to stifle anything (not only analysis and investigation, but even humor) that doesn’t kow-tow to the Party line.
We have all been ‘warned’. And in being ‘warned’ are also informed by what has been revealed here.
Not a bad day’s work at all.
Come to think of it, I am also reminded of the nicely droll comment made by narrator Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1970s Brit documentary history series World At War, covering WW2: noting the Japanese response to the Doolittle bombing of Tokyo in April 1942 Olivier drily observed: “To the Japanese, bombing was something that happened to other people”. Just so.
I suppose you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "just" as well. Pathetic!
Didn't about 200.000 Japenese die in the fire storms caused by bombing a city of wood and paper: Tokyo. It seems the opposition here doesn't mind how many other people get killed as long as it's not him. Well that might explain his general negative outlook to others….. Sociopathy?
Mark,
And that kills you inside that I maybe receiving these so-called "freebies" ?
When you can tell me what they are let me and everyone else here know.
I like to know what I should be receiving and who I should be receiving it from.
cha ching !!!
Now comes “Dennis” to report that something “was brought to my attention”. And that’s interesting because – presuming that the aforementioned bringer wasn’t JR – it suggest rather clearly that there is some sort of network of off-site gremlins, apparently funneling their stuff into “Dennis”. Or … perhaps it merely indicates that “Dennis” was fibbing and actually does read (rather than “scroll through”) my material and now has to come up with some fresh fib to cover the first fib. (But if you’re fibbing in the Abusenik cause, then you aren’t really fibbing anyway, right? Or perhaps: you can’t commit a fib against a ‘non-believer’ because you aren’t under any moral obligation to tell them the truth anyway. The possibilities are tantalizing.)
Anyway, he actually addresses some of my material directly, so let’s give thanks for small favors and see what’s afoot.
He quotes a snippet from a paragraph in my comment of the 3rd at 612PM.
Here is the text of full paragraph: “’Dennis’ then tries to woof-away the probability-issues with false allegations by simply asserting that the allegations of false-allegations are themselves “false allegations”. He offers no substantiation of that – because he has none. Nor does he address either the probability-issue nor contest the conceptual points that render such possibilities of false-claims sufficiently probable as to demand examination (nor that the torties/payees themselves required that their claims be kept “secret” once the checks were safely cashed).”
The “probability problem” is that there is a rather formidable conceptual matrix underlying the probability that false-accusations have happened rather frequently. He has not addressed nor offered any counter-material to any elements in that matrix.
And he ignores the material I put forward indicating that the Anderson Strategies specifically intended – and according to Federal Judge Schiltz have achieved – the suppression of any examination of the allegations to actually determine with some degree of certainty the actuality of false-allegations.
Then – has he lost control of his thought process here or is he slyly attempting to blatantly put one over on us? – he claims that he does “not deny that it does not happen”. Let me presume, to save some time, that he has lost control of his thought process and actually means to say: he does not deny that it does happen.
But he apparently wants to continue asserting that it doesn’t happen and hasn’t happened very often at all. Whereas I have been saying that – given both human nature and the complex construct of the Anderson Strategies affording an almost risk-free opportunity to score some big bucks – the probability of far more extensive false-allegating is much larger and much stronger, thus leading to a much higher frequency of false-allegating.
So thus – and as I have now noted several times in comments on this thread – the fallback to the disingenuous claim that there is “no proof” of false-allegations, given the complex construct of elements designed precisely to prevent the discovery of that proof, shines out like Rudolph’s red-nose.
And thus his concluding bits trying to riff on the no-proof gambit can stay up there where it was put, as well. Nor does “Possible” do justice to what I have been working on here: it is, rather, ‘probable’ and I would go so far as to say ‘highly probable’.
How he has gotten from what I wrote and have written in comments on this thread to the conclusion that I do “not want [“Dennis”] to look at what TMR says as fact” is grist for any cognitive-process clinician’s mill. TMR has been working on the factuality; I have been working on a) placing under that factuality the conceptual matrix that certainly establishes that ‘significant probability’ and b) establishing that the very material necessary to reach an accurate conclusion one way or the other has precisely been locked-away from us in the Abusenik/tortie equivalent of ‘secret vaults’, i.e. those ‘secrecy’ clauses demanded, as Federal Judge Schiltz reveals, by the Abuseniks and torties.
But “Dennis” here slyly tries to work toward the idea that while false-allegations are indeed possible, they are about as possible as getting hit by lightning when going out for a walk in the rain. And according to the National Geographic’s “Flash Facts About Lightning”, the chances of getting hit during any given year in the U.S. are 1 in 700,000, and in a lifetime, 1 in 3,000. And I would say that neither of those possible frequencies is sufficiently high to satisfy the probabilities of false-allegations we have established in comments on this thread. Not hardly.
Although, then again, “Dennis” actually wrote about the possibility of getting “hit by lighting” – and I have found no figures as to the possibilities of a light-pole or street-lamp falling on a person. Where’s Jimmy the Greek when you need him?
Dave, You have the patience of a saint allowing some of the nutty comments on here. The anti-Catholic commenters don't like what you are doing and they're trying to poison it.
Saint David Pierre. I can see that happening. The vatican changing the rules for David to become a saint. They have done it in the past.
They shall call him Saint Davie.
GOOD LUCK.
Without presuming to answer for ‘Mark Manos’ in regard to the “Dennis” comment (the 4th, 1008PM), I make the following observations:
First, nothing MM said would justify the use of the rather excessive phrase “it kills you”, in regard to the benefits that “Dennis” is receiving. This tendency to the exaggerated and the histrionic has been often demonstrated here by “Dennis” – and it is not hard to see how useful it is to the Abusenik approach.
I believe “Dennis” has already told us about some of the things he now has: two houses, a truck, a boat … and I doubt that list is exhaustive.
Are they “freebies”? Since “Dennis” has asked to be informed about that, I would simply offer my thoughts as to the probability: we have a person claiming to have been a successfully-functioning big-city Fire/EMS responder; who yet demonstrates a so low a level of ability to a) assess and b) express information concisely and accurately that one cannot easily or comfortably imagine him making accurate assessments and subsequent verbal and written reports, especially under the pressure of medical emergencies; who has also demonstrated a type and level of cattiness and assorted elements of maturational un-ripeness such that one cannot easily imagine him successfully sustaining a career in the pressured, straightforward, grown-up, rough-and-tumble teamwork environment of big-city emergency response; who then volunteered to go to NYC in the days after 9-11 to assist; who then at some point thereafter claimed some form of permanent disability as a result; and who then was at some later point granted a disability pension (paid for either by Philadelphia or federal tax monies), which have enabled him to amass the above-reported goodies; and who has also at some point claimed to also be a victim of some type of Catholic clerical abuse – or “rape”, depending on whether one accepts his thesis that any and all sexual-abuse is rape. (And a time-saver here: we have already debunked the JR claim that since sexual activity with a minor (variously defined in various State laws) is often characterized as ‘statutory rape’ (variously defined in various State laws) then “Dennis” (and of course JR) is right in that thesis about the definition.)
In a nice little symmetry with the Catholic Abuse Matter, we here have no way of progressing much further with this, since we only have the story as “Dennis” tells it to us and no way of acquiring further information.
Does the above compilation ‘prove’ that “Dennis” is a questionably-valid recipient of publicly-funded bennies? I would say definitely No. Does the above compilation offer a rational assessor grounds for considering the various less-congenial probabilities? I would say definitely Yes. (And this concludes the exercise in regard to the specifics of the Dennis-bennies matter.)
What is the relevance of all this for our larger consideration of the Catholic Abuse Matter?
In the second place, I would say that it gives us yet another snapshot of the type of mentality and character that might be moved to make allegations in the milieu of opportunity created by the Anderson Strategies’ Stampede.
In the first place, I would say that we clearly see here demonstrated the vital role of assessment-of-probability that arises in the extent-of-false-claims matter. But we are stymied in the further examination of the probabilities precisely because the actual original allegation and claim and story material has been made ‘secret’ and thus put off-limits by – as Federal Judge Schiltz has revealed – the very beneficiaries and their attorneys themselves. Which, as I have said before, constitutes as neat a ‘cover-up’, brilliantly and legally hidden in plain view, as one is likely to come across in this world.
Dennis, I must follow your advise and not engage. Thanks.
Why don't you just email him.
On the 5th at 240PM, JR, in regard to my comment of the 4th at 631PM (about Olivier’s comment regarding the Japanese experience of the 1942 Doolittle bombing of Tokyo), offers nothing (see below) and yet – so clearly, as always – demonstrates a standard gambit from the Abusenik Playbook.
He doth “suppose” that I think … such and such about the two atomic bombing of Japan. His suppositions are what they may be and he is welcome to them, but those suppositions have nothing to do with my point in my comment of the 4th at 631PM. Once again, he creates his own pillow to wrestle with, and in wasting some pixels on that straw-man he has created, appears to have made some contribution and yet actually hasn’t at all.
And yet what he actually has done is to avoid the point I actually was making: that Abuseniks resemble the Japanese in April, 1942. Having by that time been bombing Chinese cities for quite a while and Pearl Harbor more recently, the Japanese didn’t like it at all – and considered it somehow ‘wrong’ – when they themselves were subjected to the same bombing experiences that they had for so long been robustly dishing-out to others. Just as Abuseniks (having by this time been dishing-out their bits about the Church and priests for so long) don’t like it at all – and consider it somehow ‘wrong’ – when they themselves are subjected to the same skeptical experiences they have been robustly been dishing-out to others.
But either through incapacity (some cognitive difficulties in reading comprehension) or deliberate distraction (the method in the madness characteristic of so many Playbook gambits), JR creates his own issue – and a different issue from what is on the table – and then rummages through his 3x5s.
Then (the 5th, 714PM) he continues that riff with the psychological or psychiatric diagnostic opinion that my material might constitute “sociopathy”, the Wiggy diagnosis being made on the basis of his own prior misconception (due to cognitive incapacity or deliberate intention).
If you might worry about “Dennis” being responsible for delivering an accurate and coherently organized report of your condition to an ER doctor, you might be even more worried that the doctor in question is JR. (And here we approach something akin to Laurel and Hardy.)
Lastly (the 5th, 246PM) we are given clearance to eavesdrop yet again on a catty personal exchange between these two, to the effect that neither of them will be talking to me any longer. Oh my.
As I have often said, whether these two ‘talk to me’ any longer is neither here nor there (and certainly has its upsides). And they have hardly been ‘engaging’ my material in the first place to begin-with, so no change in the status of things there either.
But thanks, as always, for the revelations. Although I won’t sing – with Bob Hope – my thanks for any ‘memories’, since these two can be counted upon to keep coming back to the stage, as they have demonstrated after their several prior ‘farewell tour’ comments and their Dick Nixon (’62) declarations.
But what we are basically seeing here is these two trying to lay down some sort of smoke-screen to cover their retreat (a long-standing naval tactic in the era before radar): they can’t “engage” successfully, and they want to get away from the challenges facing them, but they need to come up with some face-saving excuse that makes it look like they are doing the right thing. So they will claim – donning their Wigs of Righteous Indignation – that they are simply not going to put up with anything any longer and have been somehow victimized or re-victimized or bethumpt’ by “lies” (unidentified and un-listed) and illogic and – by amazing coincidence – all the bad things so characteristic precisely of their own submissions.
What else, really, could we reasonably expect from them?
Better Laurel and Hardy than Elmer Fudd!
P.S. christianity's primary tenents are: "Love your neighbor as yourself "and "Turn the other cheek". Not, "What goes around; comes around." or "Tit for tat.". FYI.
Another pitch-perfect revelatory performance from JR.
But in the “P.S.” section (again with the teen-y diary bit) we get a lecture in “christianity’s primary tenents” [sic]. Apparently the gambit here is: after being bethumped by the combined submissions of these two, we were supposed to a) love our neighbor as ourselves and b) turn the other cheek. Which, for all practical purposes, works out to: let the Abuseniks say whatever they want and don’t have the bad grace to point out the (numerous and deep) problems with those submissions.
The bit about the chasing of the money-changers out of the Temple might also have some relevance here. Nor would it be any genuine demonstration of “christianity’s primary tenents” [sic] to allow persons to continue to be exposed to such plopulent (yes, I made that word up just now) material as we have seen in those submissions.
Nor is what the Abuseniks are now so unhappily experiencing an intentional effort at “tit for tat”. The Abuseniks have not been bethumped with “tit for tat” because that would have required belaboring them with as much plopulence (yes, I just made up that variant on ‘plopulent’) as they have tossed in our direction. Instead, their material is simply being examined to see if the many dots did and do connect – and they haven’t and they don’t.
That’s not “tit for tat”; that’s – waitttt for ittttt! – “how it works”.
But again, the brilliance of the Anderson Strategies is demonstrated: could you imagine what would happen to a case if such mentalities were actually put on the stand?
P's message to the masses, as judged by his behavior: When in doubt climb higher in an ivory tower, call the peasants names, like "types"." Pronounce" that the opposition's "dots" don't and never have "connected". Call all accurate criticism "plopulent" and pretend your superior and that your own "plopulent" doesn't stink…
The money counters who need to be kicked out of your temple are in fact the high priests and moronic apologists that blindly support them.
I can imagine back in jesus' time the high priests "owned" the money changers business in the temple grounds. Renting them the space in the temple at the very least.
Nobody cares what you pretend to "think". You're an apologist. Not one person who has posted here as a victim, including myself and I've been compensated, have you believed truthful about our claims.( Hell, you don't believe i tell the truth about anything. But then again maybe you really do believe me but don't want any body else to believe me. Hence, you're pronouncing everything I say to be lies. When in doubt smear?) You go out of your way to push that crap message over and over and over and over and over again,ad nauseum. And you still have no proof that any victims here have lied. Absolutely no proof. You have far less evidence of that, none in fact, than we have about the truth of our rapes.
You keep saying how perfect my "performance" is. Thank you. I only wish I could return said compliment in kind; but I can not. Your's is more Gong or the Mickey Mouse Show than Chekhov. Read Stanislaski. Real performance is about telling the truth.
You keep saying how perfect my "performance" is. Thank you. I only wish I could return said compliment in kind; but I can not. Your's is more Gong or the Mickey Mouse Show than Chekhov. Read Stanislavski. Real performance is about telling the truth.
Sometimes I ask myself why am I doing this ? Why am I taking time out of not only my life but the lives of my wife and daughter to see the truth is told ?
I must thank Mr. Manos and others for the reason of this comment. I have given Mr. Manos time to tell all of us of these so-called freebies I have been receiving but at the time of me writing this comment Mr. Manos has disappeared as usual only to be that Monday morning quarterback with his untruths. Why ? Maybe he in his own little mind believes what he says is the truth and if he says it enough he will get others to believe the same thing.
We have read the lies the catholic church has given for clergy abuse. Homosexuality. That is the attraction to someone of the same sex, not an attraction to little boys and force sexual acts upon them. The era between 1960-1980 is to blame. If that is true lets open up the prison doors to every rapist who committed their crime between that time and say it was not your fault. Then I leave the excuse that truly made my blood boil. "The victims seduced their attackers" Only someone with a very sick mind would think of such a thing and then say it to the public.
I am not asking anyone to believe what I have to say. But if you don't I invite you to look it up. Like the comment I made above about the statement "The victims seduced their attacker" I know who said it and invite you to look it up. Like the blog here TMR has made a statement regarding an increase in false accusations with no facts. I was forced to look on my own to prove or disprove their claims.
Now I want to correct one of the biggest lies here. Someone has made a comment that Jim and I are preparing for a retreat. I cannot speak for Jim but I am not going anywhere. If you see a lengthy break in my comments that is because I'm dead.
Still here. Remember it's called a career, don't have time to sit around all day and hit refresh to check tee latest comments.
Freebies you ask – fire department, 911 fund and I would guess there is a third one out there your getting funds from.
hope you don't get upset and threaten me again…
Well, now.
We note first that JR’s assertion that he will follow the advice of “Dennis” (the 5th, 246PM) has gone by the board. Nothing new there. That assertion was made in some Abusenik ‘yesterday’ that is now “inoperative” (to use Ron Ziegler’s timeless phrase).
On, then, to the 7th at 1025AM: Apparently, in JR’s way of processing reality, anything beyond one-liners constitutes nothing more than an effort to “climb higher in an ivory tower”.
He also opines that he is a “peasant” (as in – perhaps – earthy and solid peasant versus effete and prissy aristocrat … that sort of thing) and that he has been called-names by use of the term “types” – although he seems unaware of the clear possibility (to use polite understatement here) that he might qualify as a “type”, especially if that characterization were clearly explained (see my prior relevant comments on this site in that regard).
And that it is also name-calling to observe that various dots do not connect and to characterize (and explain) certain material as “plopulent” (which, but of course, gives him an opening to hit his usual stride with a potty joke).
So, in other words, to find any problems with Abusenik material is to engage in name-calling and so on and so forth.
Nor does he correct – nor has he ever corrected – any material or respond to it with reliable counter-material. (Time-saver: his mere assertions that he is right do not qualify as counter-material.)
Then (the 7th, 1044AM) I am informed by JR that in his capacity as Knower of All Things, “nobody cares what you pretend to ‘think’”. I’ll just file that with the rest of the assertions about what he seems to think he ‘thinks’.
I am, apparently, “an apologist”. I’m not sure how he defines that (and with Abuseniks one must always check the definitions of terms before getting to the actual assertions). If the Abuseniks don’t come off looking so good, and the Church doesn’t come off looking so bad, here, it is due to the fact, I would say, that the Abusenik material – in its assertions about its own credibility and its assertions about the Church’s non-credibility – doesn’t give grounds for confidence in the credibility of that Abusenik material.
He then asserts something to the effect that this is demonstrated by the fact that “not one person who has posted here as a victim, including myself … have you believed truthfully about our claims”. First, I can’t make sense of the phrase “believed truthfully” (is there a way to believe un-truthfully?).
What I have done here is simply what should have been done by the media and – ideally – by opposing counsel on the stand in a trial or at least by examination of the claims and allegations and stories post-facto (if not – alas – at some time prior to payout). Nor – the alert reader may note – am I quite ready to characterize the settlement payouts as “compensation”.
I have simply pointed out where the dots don’t connect in such stories as we have managed to see here on this site. But of course, and according to the Playbook, such observations are nothing but name-calling and constitute a refusal to “believe truthfully”. I am thus classifiable as a non-believer in the Abusenik demonology. Ah well.
And yes: I have reached the point where there isn’t too much JR puts up that I will immediately and without thought or further examination accept as true. The interesting point is that he seems surprised that anybody could adopt such a position, even after experiencing the mass of his material that is now part of the record here on this site.
Then the sly thought that perhaps my motivation is merely to get other readers not to believe him. I can’t get or make other readers believe or dis-believe anything simply by dint of whatever material I may put up here. Other readers are independent individuals and may consider all the material and draw the conclusions they think fit. I don’t see them as cattle to be stampeded on cue simply by the emotional pressure my material might exert upon them (which differs from the Abusenik ‘story’ doctrine, which requires that those confronted by such ‘stories’ must immediately and completely accept them as true and accurate without doubt or hesitation).
Nor (he is welcome to put up accurately-quoted material of mine to the contrary) have I ‘pronounced’ “everything [JR says] as lies” – he has jumped to that conclusion himself. I have simply examined his material and pointed out – again and again – where the dots don’t connect.
But to the Abusenik mind this constitutes nothing less than a “smear”. Ovvvv coursssssse.
If my characterizations seem repetitive, it is because the credibility and quality of the material I am confronted-with remains the same and never changes (or improves). I can only work with the material that is provided.
And – yet again – I have never claimed to have “proof” that “any victims here” (allowing that term here for purposes of the present discussion only) “have lied”. I have simply examined their material and pointed out that the dots don’t connect. And in most cases, they haven’t then countered any of the analysis I have proffered, but instead have either changed the subject or engaged in distractions or put up further material that simply intensifies the original non-credibility. Enough of that dynamic and – yes – I suppose some readers may indeed form the opinion that there’s a lot of non-credibility in some commenters’ material.
And – yet again – we have “absolutely no proof” because, by amazing coincidence, the original allegations and stories and claims were not only not-examined carefully but were also (after the checks were cut) specifically made “secret” at the insistence of the story-tellers and their torties.
But – yet again – we do have enough information to examine the probability of the credibility of the stories and claims we have seen … and readers know where that has led. Beyond that point we cannot legitimately go in the drawing of conclusions since to go further would be to draw conclusions beyond the scope of the available evidence. Which is why I have not claimed all of the persons posting here “as victims” to be “liars”; but if JR seems to think that the increased probability of non-credibility leads to some readers’ personal conclusion that there is some ‘lying’ going on somewhere in the Stampede, well … I can’t do anything about that. That’s where the analysis of the material leads and that’s – as some would say – how it works.
I would also note that the practice of “draw[ing] conclusions beyond the scope of the available evidence” has been a vital mainstay of the Abusenik Stampede from the get-go, and was included in the calculations of the Anderson Strategies. And not only in any individual’s personal assessment, but in the media and juridical and legal forums as well.
And again with the bit about “our rapes” – which is an issue that has been dealt with in prior comments.
Then (the 7th, 1055AM) JR riffs on “performance” and drags in a few more snarky bits (I am more like Mickey Mouse than – ooooh – “Chekhov”). Again with the world-literature reference, as if he had that corpus at his fingertips. Which possibility is then rather nicely undermined by his reference to “Stanislaski” (meaning, as best I can infer, the noted acting teacher Konstantin Stanislavski) – and once again we see that one cannot simply pretend to an education when, alas, one has not actually gone to the trouble of disciplining oneself in order to acquire one.
But – again – this is the whole problem with Wigs and, more deeply, with the Abusenik approach: in which one apparently is presumed to be able to ‘pretend’ to what one does not actually have, whether it be an education or – more cogently here – an actual experience of victimization. There is – I would say – wayyyy too much ‘pretending’ going on in the Abusenik method. But it is a marvelous bit of revelation here: that JR would actually bring ‘acting’ into the assessment of Abusenik presentations. Just so.
Then on to “Dennis” who weighs in minutes later, on the 7th at 1059AM.
The Wig of Exasperated Innocence and Integrity soliloquizes as to Why he “is doing this”. (It has often occurred to me to ask him precisely that question too.)
We are then quickly given a glimpse of his “wife and daughter” and how all this is impacting their lives too. (One thinks of FDR slyly dragging in “my little dog, Fala” to drum-up some sympathy for the travails bethumping him because of the doubters and opposers of the truth.)
I make no effort here to answer for “Mr. Manos” but perhaps “Dennis” has – of course – scrolled-through the significant bits of material that, in response to his question, I had gleaned from “Dennis”’s prior comments. Whether MM has simply decided that that listing was more than enough to give “Dennis” something to work-with … is a possibility that has not apparently occurred to “Dennis”. (Which reveals a problem with his strategy of ‘scrolling-through’ some comments; he won’t actually be fully informed as to where the discussion has been going on the site – to the extent, of course, that being fully informed is necessary for his project here in the first place.)
His bit about MM’s “own little mind” can stay right up there where it was put.
Have we indeed “read the lies the catholic church has given for clergy abuse”?
He proffers only a single ‘lie’ – “Homosexuality”. The second Jay Report – partially funded by the Church – goes into some detail about some of the possibly causative factors of clergy sexual-abuse, and perhaps he might want to read up on that. Nor have I encountered any official Church pronouncements to the effect that it is only and completely caused by “homosexuality”. Although, oddly, that is certainly a cause claimed by more than a few Abusenik commenters on various sites, even the relatively tame National Catholic Reporter site in various comments on relevant articles put up by that organization.
Nor has it ever been definitively and exclusively officially claimed that “the era between 1960-1980” is the sole cause for Catholic clergy abuse. In fact, there has been no official claim that I know of that identifies any cause as the single and definitive cause. I think a case can certainly be made for the possibility that that era, its dynamics and the pressures it generated, might have been one of many contributing causative factors. But that it hardly the same thing as claiming that this or that element was the cause.
But for the Abusenik mind this is wayyyy too much thinking. It complicates any convenient and simple (or simplistic) take on the Matter. And for Stampedes you want – and you need – simple or, better, simplistic causes. That makes it all the better to stampede you with, if I might paraphrase a certain big bad wolf intent on masquerading as some poor dear nice old granny.
Whether any specific incidents that occasioned allegations involved a person attempting to seduce a priest is something that – thanks in no small part to the workings of the Anderson Strategies – we do not, and may not ever, know. But I do think that any priest should have enough maturity to resist any such seduction by adult or teen (and I am presuming here that prepubescent children are not capable of seducing).
But we are still left with the possibility of a priest being drawn into a one-on-one, no-witness situation where – regardless of whether anything happened, or even if the priest, realizing that he had been put in an unacceptable situation, simply terminated the occasion and left … how later defend against a suddenly self-proclaimed ‘victim’s claim that something happened? We have seen something that might well have recapitulated that dynamic in comments and stories told even on this site.
Nonetheless, I am pleased that in Evangelii Gaudium the Pope has placed the quality of pastoral ministry at the top of the Church’s to-do list.
And I most certainly agree with “Dennis” that there are some “very sick mind[s]” out there. Oh yes indeed.
We are then ruefully urged to “look it up” if we don’t believe what “Dennis” has to say. Just what that “it” is that we can and should look up, he characteristically doesn’t say.
I have no idea what sense can be made of “I was forced to look on my own to prove or disprove their claims”. Certainly nothing he was “forced to look on” has filtered through to his comments here.
Then he wishes to “correct one of the biggest lies here” (and again with “lies” – let’s see what this one is): apparently somebody on this site has made the comment that “Dennis” and (today) “Jim” are “preparing for a retreat”.
I cannot find any comment on this thread making a statement to that effect (although I may have missed it – if somebody could put up the date-time stamp of the comment).
But as far as I can tell then, “one of the biggest lies here” doesn’t actually exist “here”. But it does nicely serve to somehow place “Dennis” and “Jim” on the putative high-ground of victimization. And in the Playbook, that’s really the primary objective.
“Dennis” reports, anyhoo, that he is “not going anywhere” (does that include his recently-claimed trip to St. Paul?).
And then the characteristically histrionic and oddly violent concluding bit about “Dennis” not taking “a lengthy break” in comments unless he is “dead”. Charming. Let me put the best possible interpretation on this bit and presume that he means that he is so dedicated to his purposes that only death will keep him from his self-appointed rounds.
That’s a stab at heroism. Not a lot of heroism in the general run of things, but you have to go for what you can.
~~"But what we are basically seeing here is these two trying to lay down some sort of smoke-screen to cover their retreat."
I guess someone forgot he wrote those words !
Mr. Manos, Career? Not a job, a career?
What bright and shiny career do you have in this best of all possible worlds?
You don't think injured firemen should be compensated? Is not compensating injured people part of your very busy career?
Onward and downward to P
When I am inaccurately quoted by you to make me appear stupid as in "believed truthfully" when I wrote "believed truthful", I must reply.
When in my second post re Stanislavski. I corrected my accidental mispelling of his name; that's ignored.
What else is "plopulent", your own self created word, but a euphemism for shit?
You don't like a response in kind? Then don't throw dung.
Apparently all this lying has been done by P for the sole purpose of mocking my knowledge and intelligence by the run on Jaberwock, himself.
Creating quotations I've never made and highlighting spelling mistakes, that were self corrected (immediately) by me, serves what purpose other than degradation?
Maybe if pope Francis , the world's new mother Teresa( another p.r. produced saint), put the people the church has RAPED at the top of his "to do" list. He would really be seen as decent and honest person rather than just the latest example of hypocrisy in a spectacularly long line of church hypocrites.
It's like the capitalistic world, Including scum like G.W. Bush, lining up to pay tribute to Mandela and failing to mention the man was a Marxist.
To clarify my last analogy above:
Leaving out abused victims as top priority for the church; over looks the primary reason the church needed a more "politically correct" pope in the first place.
Overlooking Mandelas's Marxism is overlooking the reason he was jailed for 30 years in the first place..
I see Mr. Manos has responded. My Freebies consist of a Fire Department pension, funds from 9/11 and he guesses a third. But why would he guess any of that since one of the writers here suggest I was not in the department because of my grammer ? Maybe because nobody cares what that writer has to say ?
If Mr. Manos is right and these are the freebies I am receiving, I wonder if Mr Manos then considers a pension from his career he speaks of that keeps him so busy a freebie, or if the social security he may receive also a freebie ?
Most likely Mr. Manos will come back and inform us all that he earned that pension and he does not consider that a freebie. Well, I too earned what I receive.
Because Mr. Manos has that very wide green streak down his back is something he will have to deal with.
Lacrosse Mark ?
Lacrosse? where do you come up this? Please enlighten me as to what you are trying to accomplish here except proclaim that you were allegedly abused. There are other sites out there that can help you with that. If you need a list let me know.
As for the wide green streak green streak down my back – is this something you just made up?
Dennis, what's a green streak? I hope you have a good holiday with your family. I hope everyone at this blog has happy holidays.
If anyone can make sense of the Ecker comment of the 8th at 928PM, they are welcome to share their thoughts. Although perhaps what he means to say is that they are not retreating at all, since we are then treated to the smorgasbord that follows. Perhaps a retreat would have been the wiser course, since every time they come back to try and fix what they had previously done, they only make things worse for themselves and for the reputation of Abuseniks generally.
Still, let us try to work with what we have been given.
On the 9th at 1045AM we get a curious comment under JR’s name, although it seems to contain stylistic bits more indicative of “Dennis”. One of the webverse’s smaller mysteries, perhaps, and certainly nothing to detain us.
The attempt is made to myah-myah ‘Mark Manos’ with a bit about what career he has. Of what conceivable relevance is it to anything here?
But as to “injured firemen”: we face here with the Ecker case precisely the same problem we face with the Stampede’s “victim” cases, i.e. it is a) impossible to know if we are dealing with a genuine case here and b) as we have seen in prior comments on this thread, there are more than enough bits we do know to ground the probability that we are dealing with that category of claim I call ‘otherwise classifiable’.
And once again: how very much of the Stampede relies precisely upon making people presume the genuineness of the claimed victimization (which, as we have seen, is otherwise impossible to establish). If you simply remember to ask yourself that question when you read Abusenik material, the focus clears and the fog generated by and for the Stampede starts to dissolve.
Then I am lectured by the author of this comment (whoever it may be) about misquoting. As it turns out, I did misquote: the comment was “believed truthful” – which, however makes as much not-sense as the phrase I wrote (which misquote represents the fact that not even I can keep up with JR’s endless capacity for making grammatical and conceptual mistakes. My conclusions about his original point remain – and remain unanswered.
The Stanislavski correction – odd in itself – doesn’t subtract from the original mistake. And my conclusions about his original point remain – and remain unanswered.
Having come to his conclusion about the more primitive reality behind “plopulent”, perhaps JR would care to do something about reducing that element in his submissions.
A “response in kind” to my observations and ideas would certainly be a pleasant surprise. If JR has the ability to make such a response, beyond the adolescent scatological interests, that would be nice .
The sum and extent of JR’s “knowledge and intelligence” now constitutes a substantial part of the record here. Had he not noticed?
We shall leave the possibility of his self-degradation for the readership’s consideration.
Then (the 9th, 1058AM) we are treated once again to nothing more than the repetition (with exaggerated formatting – and we all know by now what that means) about “raped”, although – yet again – the list of allegations indicates clearly that there were few claims of “rape”. In fact, I am now wondering if even the John Jay compilation of allegations is deficient in that it does not distinguish in its classification of allegations between actual rape and statutory rape.
The snark about the Pope and Mother Teresa can stay up there just where it was put. Whether readers wish to credit JR’s assertive assessment of how the Pope is actually “seen” by people generally (rather than merely by JR) is up to the readers themselves.
But “spectacularly” is a bit beyond him. Where this remarkably well-spelled and grammatically correct phrase comes from is anybody’s guess.
In regard to JR on the 9th at 1106AM: we precisely don’t know a) how many genuine “abused victims” there actually are and b) there are numerous problems with just what to do for them such that they should be a “top priority” on that to-do list. All of which has been dealt with before and at length in comments on this site. But – of course – that was in some Abusenik ‘yesterday’ and so to some types of mentality they don’t exist.
If – to repeat myself yet again – JR has a solution as to how we can solve (a) so as to get to the equally complex problems with (b), he is – again – welcome to put up his ideas. (Time-saver: if his ideas extend no further than the insistence that all allegants be presumed genuine, then we are back at square one of the original Stampede strategy and the problems it created.)
Having dealt with so much of his plopulence in regard to the Catholic Abuse Matter, I see no value in opening that field to include current-events generally and the late Mr. Mandela specifically.
And then “Dennis” weighs in simultaneously with his of the 9th at 1119AM.
“Dennis” mistakes my position – in such a way that is convenient to his own story. So let me make the appropriate correction here, occasioned by his mistake: it would be my position that – presuming he was indeed hired by the Department – it would have become clear in relatively short order that a) his ability to make and express coherent reports, verbally and in writing, was significantly deficient.
And that b) the characterological indications we have seen expressed often here would work against the prospect of his sustaining a successful career in a working Fire Service environment and milieu.
Consequently, the 9-11 event created an opportunity for him to extricate himself from a career where he was – as I said before a while ago – destined for almost-permanent non-promotability; perhaps, even, that there were already termination clouds hovering on the horizon. Thus, the various monies provided for compensation to 9-11 responders would have become, nicely, a passing wave upon which an enterprising and needy surfer might toss his board and declare Kowabunga. Nor would the Department have been necessarily averse to this face-saving and convenient way of disposing of a problematic member without also having to explain how he was hired in the first place. It was – in the short-term – a win/win for all of the major parties immediately involved. (As always, taxpayers are not often considered a relevant ‘party’ in this type of situation or in the arrangement that resolves it.)
The take-away: the employee thus awarded gets both ‘hero’ status and a hefty chunk of swag, and the Department is relieved of a personnel problem. And everybody can walk away with a straight-face.
But – there is no subtlety in him – “Dennis” then characteristically over-reaches by somehow trying to take a swipe at me as well, in his concluding sentence in that paragraph. Wheeeeee.
Then the stab at I’m Not/You Are, which is a childish bit usually seen deployed by JR. Although “social security” is an automatic benefit provided to all qualified and eligible citizens; the disability-pension is no such thing, requiring a great deal of claiming (and allegating, if you wish), over which hovers, if I am rightly informed, the possibility of criminal misrepresentation and the making of false official statements and claims. That sort of thing.
“Social security” is not a “freebie”, inasmuch as the eligible citizen has put in the requisite quarters of working experience. But the disability-pension can be acquired only on the basis of a claim of a genuine work-related disability. It is a “freebie” only if the claim is not genuine. And we are back to square one. (Time-saver here: I haven’t seen anyone on this site generally disapprove of compensation for genuine disability pensions; the issue pertains to “Dennis” specifically, but trying to hide behind the entire category of persons who receive disability pensions for genuine injuries is not surprising. One thinks of the old submarine tactic of sneaking into a net-protected anchorage or harbor by hiding beneath a legitimate and genuine surface vessel authorized to pass through the net-gate.)
Whether “Dennis”s assertion as to the genuineness of his allegation or claim is credible or at least probably-credible is for the readership to decide.
But we are then given – so characteristic with this commenter – a concluding bit that manages to reveal precisely some of the queasy elements of un-ripeness that militate against credibility: MM is claimed to have “that very wide green-streak down his back” – the meaning of which snark is anybody’s guess. As is the “Lacrosse” bit.
But I think it’s clear that the age-old reality of non-genuine claims is one that is – unhappily – well-established in many venues where money can be had if the story is properly managed.
And no one has ever seen the leadership of the catholic church lie, ever.
It's never lied to protect it's power; it's reputation (when it had a good one. those days are through) and it's wealth. Everything done by and with this website is a lie. Manufactured or spun to pretend the truely harmed, us victims, and the media, all the media evidently, are the "real" liars. Not the rapists and their protectors.
"Oh" to quote Kathrine Hepburn," We're going to talk about me, are we? Goody!"
For heavens sake, don't talk about what caused me to post here in the first place: my rape.