Kudos to the Indy Star: Marisa Kwiatkowski, Tim Evans, and Mark Alesia
The incidents uncovered in a series of reports in the Indianapolis Star are truly stomach-turning.
USA Gymnastics officials repeatedly failed to report numerous instances of child sex abuse committed by coaches to law enforcement, and these predator-coaches continued to molest, assault, and sexually exploit young female gymnasts, some even as young as 6 years old.
"Top executives at one of America’s most prominent Olympic organizations failed to alert authorities to many allegations of sexual abuse by coaches – relying on a policy that enabled predators to abuse gymnasts long after USA Gymnastics had received warnings …
"USA Gymnastics would not disclose the total number of sexual misconduct allegations it receives each year. But records show the organization compiled complaint dossiers on more than 50 coaches and filed them in a drawer in its executive office in Indianapolis. The contents of those files remain secret, hidden under seal …"
And while some old media outlets have briefly reported on the Star's blockbuster investigation, the response in the media has been largely muted. One would think with the Olympics now in full swing, this shocking series of child sex abuse and cover-ups in gymnastics would be worth quite a bit of attention.
Yet the Boston Globe, who has never failed to trumpet even the meekest of abuse accusations against Catholic priests, no matter how long ago, did not even print a single syllable about the Star's report.
And, the New York Times, who obsessively reminds its readers of abuse in the Catholic Church from decades past, relegated – actually, more like buried – a story about the Star to page D4.
Anyone surprised?
The US Gymnastics team, though an institution like the church, doesn't have the history; the cachet or the wealth and influence on people's lives that a religion has. Nor has it he number of victims.
TMR's pointing out other child molesting organizations excuses Catholic priest molesters and enablers how?
We know ALL institutions have child abusers and many (most, probably) have covered them up.
The US. Gymnastic team hasn't had you number of victims. It hasn't created religious orders and hiding places for it's perpetrators like you have. Nor has it posed as the ultimate arbitrator of morality here on earth. Your church has done all those things.
You could have resolved all this years ago by doing the right thing. You didn't. You haven't and you won't and that is why you will continue to have this problem. Fix the mess you've made. Quit trying to point the finger and worm your way out of what you've done.
It's absolutely amazing to me how quickly you are willing to throw others under the bus. You don't feel that the catholic church and other religious should be held to a much higher standard, based on the fact that they claim to be the Godly, pure and true church. Are you sure that some of these molesters might turn out to be members of your church. Seems by what I read in the NYT, several were prosecuted with sentences of 30, 36, 6 and 8 years. Seems to me that at least some organization is sending them to the proper authorities, unlike your cult, who hid the perpetrators, secretly sent them to the protection of Rome, or slyly paid off the victims to keep the silence of their horrible crimes of perversion under wraps. I also love how you describe their acts as "truly stomach-turning". So you think that old men sodomizing, abusing and jacking of little boys doesn't qualify as acts so disgusting, from men who claim to be holy. The hypocrisy is palbable. Please make some effort to remove "the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye". Maybe it's time we practice what we preach.
I threw that misspelling of "palpable" in there so publyin' can demonstrate his great intellegence. Sorry, I guess I corrected for you. I be sure to throw the troll another bone.
There you go. You can correct "I'll".
So I take it some people here take offense that TMR is calling out the hypocrisy of certain publications for rightfully exposing the sex abuse in the Catholic Church but never touching abuse elsewhere… So basically if the Church abuses children it's wrong and should be trumpted loudly, but if US Gymnastics does it, then we need to be nicer to them because… the numbers aren't so big? Ehh??? I think it's just your basic anti-Catholicism at work in some commentors. Or just your typical emotional liberal atheistic vitriol.
Even odder as I suspect these very same commentors would be found championing immoral sexuality, and exposing their children at Pride parades, which now even is trendy amongst liberals to see sex & children in a new progressive light. At least the Church as a moral authority isn't promoting sexual vices as a good 'human rights' thing. Particularly given that the very ones doing the abuse and covering it up were the same ones known to be liberal-friendly, and including many who were in fact homosexuals. But we can't say anything bad about that protected class! Oh no!
Sorry boys, but given every report we hear from covers ups of gymnastics to the BBC and police outright ignoring allegations because of a PC-climate who are often the very liberal-cause champions pushing explicit sex education in elementary schools and arguing for the new civil rights of pedophiles and children to develop 'healthy sexual lifestyles', the Catholic Church still remains the only moral barrier against all-out sexual deviency in the face of Americanist Secularism which currently tells strange grown men identifying as litttle girls to use any washroom they like because absolutely nothing can go wrong. At the end of the day your kids are still statistically safer with a Catholic Priest than a public school teacher, an Islamic refugee, or even, dare I say, sometimes their own parents/relatives! Unless of course that priest happens to be the preferred liberal sort who is always 'welcoming' of sexual deviants and doesn't 'judge them' and all that… Then you might want to steer clear of that one…
I do agree though that the Church should be held to a much higher standard! So keep the pressure on those dopes who think letting homosexuals or liberal-leaning men into the priesthood is a good idea, and don't 'judge' anyone because they want to be nice. They're the ones who started and then covered up the mess. Oh and Catholic parents! If you're concerned, it's time to start educating your children about the faith yourselves, which means it's high time you started learning about it. Good Priests have better things to do than babysit your kids and do your job for you. It's the ones who want to that you should watch out for!
Ehh?? Johnno, I'm Dan who posted on August 15, 2016 @ 4:22pm. Did you even read my post? I'm not anti-Catholicism. I'm anti-pervert, anti-pedophile, anti-idolators, anti-mary worship and anti-hypocrites. Just so happens that your church apparently is all of the above. I'm far from typical, sometimes emotional, not liberal, nor conservative, or atheistic. I don't "champion immoral sexuality" or believe in "exposing children at Pride parades" or think it's "trendy amongst liberals to see sex & children in a new progressive light" , like your infamous Fr. Shanley of NAMBLA fame. We already have one catholic apologist in this forum, who blindly makes excuses for all the disgusting deeds of your cult.
To claim that your "Church as a moral authority isn't promoting sexual vices as a good 'human rights' thing", is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe it's because they're too busy performing sex acts with little boys and "doing the abuse and covering it up", to have time to "promot[e] sexual vices". And then to make the more ridiculous claim that "the Catholic Church still remains the only moral barrier against all-out sexual deviency" is so disingenuous that it's laughable. For your personal information, many heterosexual men are child molesters and pedophiles. And to make a preposterous claim that "your kids are still statistically safer with a Catholic Priest than a public school teacher, an islamic refugee, or even, dare I say, sometimes their own parents/relatives!" We still don't know the truth or the numbers of priests, because many cases were settled, handled in secrecy and the church fights to relinquish their files.
I'm glad you 'claim' to "agree though that the Church should be held to a much higher standard!", but your excuses don't sound like you agree with that statement. You sound more like a Trumpster, a racist, excuser, enabler, and "dare I say", bigot, and I don't know if there is room for another of you on this forum. Nice to meet you.
Johnno you wrongo!
Hating decent Gay Catholic priests who've done no harm and holding them responsible for what molesting priests chose to do is immoral, hateful and unforgivable.
Let the criminals pay for their crimes.
You hate Gays? That's your problem. Your hatred vented on innocent priests is really disgusting. It's unjust.
On the 15th at 4PM JR makes some interesting statements. (although, as so often, in a style that doesn’t seem his own at all).
He admits that “we know” that “all institutions have child abusers and many (most, probably) have covered them up”.
But he yields that point only to fall back on the main line of defense for Abuseniks: that the Church is a religion (with “history” and “cachet” and “wealth” and “influence on people’s lives” – although only the last point seems relevant here, unless one is looking at the “wealth” bit for other purposes) and therefore has “more victims”.
I would say that the Church is like all human organizations in that it is comprised of humans, and thus has to deal with “the crooked timber of humanity” just like any human organization. There is no getting around that.
But P, the church and you don't want to pay for its crimes. Isn't that adding a new crook to the timber? I've always said the church isn't exceptional in its abuse of children or even in its coverup of those abuses.
Where it is exceptional is in its creating an entire order to "deal" with the perpetrators. While ignoring the victims, Catholic children.
The Catholic church is exceptional by creating " false flagged "committees" like SNAP that pretend to represent the best interests of those victims, While all the time working for the best interests of the corporate church.
These things are unforgivable. Also pretending to be under an unjust attack, when in reality you are only being called to take responsibility for your actions. Criminal and otherwise.
Showing hatred and discount to your fellow human beings unprovokedly. These are sins in the church I grew up in. I don't suppose that's changed. To bear false witness against another is also a sin and a crime. I haven't done it.
Again I search for the peaceful path here. The rest bores me. Hostility is a dead end. I refuse to do it anymore.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 4PM:
That being said, the question remains – as I have said many times before – just how many actual and genuine victims the Church “has”. And trying to discover that is not proving easy, especially after the Stampede made it so easy and so attractive for persons so inclined to have a run at the piñata, assisted by torties and a sensation-hungry media in a society that is torn between religion and secularism, and a religious milieu that is torn between fundamentalists and liberals and radicals and conservatives and so on.
For this task neither JR’s mere assertions nor ‘Dan’s addled eructations are of any use.
Is the Church afflicted with more than the ‘acceptable’ number of humans with sinful predilections? Or is the Church somehow supposed to be comprised of pure spirits instead of the actual crooked timber of humanity?
JR is of little use here, since he merely presumes that all ‘victims’ – or most of them – are genuine (nor does he exclude himself, despite his own veracity problems). Nor is ‘Dan’ whose religion-of-one, with himself (or Himself) as a member of the divine triad that governs the Dan-verse of any use, since he (or He) has defined himself (or Himself) as being effectively beyond judgment (surely a deranged stance for any human).
The vast supply of "crooked timber of humanity", residing under the guise of the one true church, should make an awful nice bonfire for the Lord. Bring your "popcorn".
You know most victims aren't? How exactly?
Where are your stats?
Personal messages from the Lord perhaps?
Prove it. (The 2 words religionists hate the most).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 4PM:
And JR once again will slyly try this gambit: “You could have resolved all this years ago by doing the right thing”.
And again I say: What would “the right thing” have been? Write a check for anyone who came to the door with a story? (We need only look at how that scenario would have worked-out in regard to JR’s own story.)
Rather, I would say that once the various elements of the Stampede had coalesced, then no targeted institution could have successfully averted what subsequently happened in the course of the Stampede. Which is precisely why we have seen state legislatures doing their best to prevent their own state institutions from becoming targets.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 4PM:
And then JR pulls out a 3×5 from his pile that might – though probably not – have worked 30 years ago but certainly isn’t relevant at this point now: “Fix the mess you’ve made”. Whatever the Church did wrong to contribute to “the mess” has been corrected to a greater extent than in any other large (or small) organization.
And it does bring a smile to read JR denouncing the Church for “trying … [to] worm your way out of what you’ve done”, in light of his own efforts here to blame everyone possible – including his own attorney – for the exposure of his own ‘story’.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 4PM:
And JR also proffers more of his ‘historical’ chops by going for this bit: the Church “created religious orders” in order to hide its “perpetrators”. This is a variant on the Stampede’s ‘historical’ claim that the Church’s entire history has been simply one long effort at hiding sex-abusers because – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – the Church is and always has been simply a highly developed sex-abuse racket from the get-go (and therefore – tah dahhhhh! – the Church has no business holding herself forth as “the ultimate arbiter of morality here on earth”).
Readers familiar with the record here might wish to imagine just what “morality” JR espouses as being “ultimate” – especially in the sense that he has to abide by it.
But surely, he is on to something with the implication that contemporary morality doesn’t enjoy having a rival moral authority around (which is one of the driving elements of the Stampede, as I have often said).
On the 15th at 422PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate his chops.
He seems to recall reading some stuff in the New York Times, but – as so very often – he cawn’t recall or won’t bother to reference just what he’s read. But we can take his word for it.
‘Dan’ – being as he (or He) is a Member of the little trinity that he (or He) has created in his bathroom mirror – then doth lecture on practicing what one preaches. A fine idea and all humans and all human organizations should always hold that ideal firmly in view; but it is an old Stampede gambit: if the Church has held forth a moral system, and the Church herself has not perfectly fulfilled it, then away with the Church and instead let’s all make whoopee as contemporary mores and excitments demand.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 422PM:
And then – secure in the fixed delusion that he (or He) is a member of that little trinity of divinities resident in his bathroom mirror – ‘Dan’ doth pronounce, declaim and direct that one and all “remove ‘the plank out of your own eye’”. The possibility that he has the plank of a fixed delusional system somewhat obscuring his own “eye” does not occur to him (or Him) – nor can he (or He) allow it to do so.
On the 22nd at 1202AM ‘Dan’ will presume that commenter ‘Johnno’ could not have read ‘Dan’s post of the 15th at 422PM … because – doncha surely see? – if ‘Johnno’ had done so, then ‘Johnno’ would most certainly have realized that ‘Dan’ is “not anti-Catholicism” at all. Readers unfamiliar with ‘Dan’s stuff can go back even one thread on this site and get a larger sample of ‘Dan’s material in that regard.
But then but then but then: in a marvelous display of how his mind works, ‘Dan’ lets the cat out of the bag: while he’s surely not anti-Catholic, he is “anti-pervert, anti-pedophile, anti-idolaters, anti-Mary worship and anti-hypocrites” and – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – it just so happens to be the case, ‘Dan’ doth conveniently realize, that the Church “is apparently all of the above” (and I’d call that “apparently” a weasel-word ‘Dan’ has merely tossed in to lessen the whackery of his claim and provide a pretense of informed objectivity).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1202AM:
‘Dan’ then falls back (as it were) on Fr. Shanley, who holds particular interest for ‘Dan’. As I have said, I don’t think Shanley, given his proclivities, should ever have been a priest – despite his many abilities and gifts. The article to which I linked on the prior thread here, however, reveals the key relevant point of the Shanley matter: while he was many things, Shanley was not clearly guilty of the charge on which he was convicted and his case thus stands as another example of the derangement of Victimist/Stampede ‘justice’.
And ‘Dan’ tries to bring that song home with an epithetical reference to me, whom ‘Dan’ characterizes as “a catholic apologist in this forum, who blindly makes excuses for all the disgusting deeds of your cult”. No examples proffered, of course.
I question; I don’t excuse. If ‘Dan’ has evidence from my material that indicates or establishes otherwise then he can put it up, accurately quoted.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1202AM:
‘Dan’ then buckles down to his usual style: he disposes of arguments by merely wishing-them away with his own epithetical characterizations (such as “absolutely ridiculous” with no other supportive explication and such as “because they’re too busy performing sex acts with little boys”).
And he riffs on similarly with “so disingenuous that it’s laughable” and “preposterous” (he does like to hear himself (or Himself) denounce and declaim).
‘Dan’ is right that we “still don’t know the truth or numbers” of genuine Catholic clerical sexual abuse incidents (a point I have made many times before here) – because the various elements of the Stampede have so deranged reporting and assessing that it is impossible to get through the murk that has enveloped the whole issue. We do have a decade-old first John Jay Report tally of somewhere around eleven thousand claims formally filed, but beyond that we merely have assorted Abusenik claims that there must be untold myriads more (although the number of claims formally filed since then, especially of current claims – rather than decades-old claims – has fallen off precipitously).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1202AM:
And ‘Dan’ will then try to bring the whole performance home with more epithet as to ‘Johnno’ being a “Trumpster” and so on. And – with now-characteristic pearl-clutching – ‘Dan’ then huffs ominously that he just doesn’t “know if there is room for another of you on this forum”.
We can simply add that bit to the list of things ‘Dan’ doesn’t “know” (but is quite sure that he does).
So sorry that what I do here; what I say here; upsets you so.
I'm sorry you see everything I say as an attack. When I'm just telling you what I know to be true.
Maybe the problem isn't in what I'm saying. Maybe the problem is in how you are seeing what I'm saying. So no matter what I say or do I always will be wrong to you.
I can't help you there. That's an inside job.
On the 23rd at 719PM JR will try further sly manipulation: he bleats that “the church and [I] don’t want to pay for its crimes”. As I have said so often, the problem is that we don’t know just how many actual and genuine “crimes” were committed. Nor has JR’s years-long performance of his own ‘story’ – recently derailed – been of any help at all, except to demonstrate so vividly just how question-worthy Abusenik claims, assertions, allegations and stories can be.
Then – and not for the first time – he tries the damned-if you-do and damned-if-you-don’t gambit: the Church put together treatment facilities and personnel to handle troubled priests (alcoholism, drug addiction, mental issues, abusiveness).
Had the Church not done so, then priests in need of such treatment would most likely have received short shrift at public facilities that have their hands full with far more violent and florid patients. But that’s no problem for the Abuseniks and the Stampede, where the Playbook calls for claiming that the Church only did so to ‘hide’ those thus afflicted.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 719PM:
Then – for lack of anything else and still in possession of that tottering old pile of 3x5s – JR will drag out the SNAP “false flagged” stuff yet again. The problems with his cartoon conception here have been enumerated and explicated quite a few times on this site and they remain in the record and un-rebutted. SNAP – in a nutshell – wound up accepting an invitation from Jeff Anderson to be a front and funnel for torties who couldn’t trawl for allegant-plaintiffs on their own.
That being said, then JR’s eager pronunciamento – “these things are unforgivable” – fails utterly since “these things” aren’t at all what JR says they are.
To the extent – surely – that JR’s long-bruited claim of rape was … not veracious, then the Church was surely under an “unjust attack”. Just how many more such instances exist in the Stampede-verse is precisely – as I have been saying – what is in question and has been from the get-go. I would say that the probability is high that there are many more such instances.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 719PM:
And – not surprisingly – JR engages in some pearl-clutching as he works up to a slyly manipulative concluding pronunciamento: I am “showing hatred and discount to your fellow human beings unprovokedly” (as I have often said, when JR’s grammar starts to get wobbly, he’s up to something).
I question – which is neither “showing hatred” nor ‘discounting’. I kept questioning JR’s assorted variations on his story and finally that story was revealed for what it had been all along. But JR does like to make himself out to be the victim; it’s what he does.
But – marvelously – something in him just can’t refrain from overdoing an already dubious bit: he doth declaim that “To bear false witness against another is also a sin and a crime” (surely a sin; not necessarily a crime). But then but then, he doth further declaim and pronounce that “I haven’t done it”. I refer him to his now-deflated rape claim.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 719PM:
But wait! There’s more!
On top of all of the foregoing, JR doth further burble that he doth only “seek the peaceful path here”. “Peaceful” in JR-speak meaning: let’s all just agree with JR and then things can proceed ‘peacefully’ from there.
Nor will I accept the further slyly manipulative bit to the effect that questioning equates to “hostility”.
I can’t see how we can conduct the work of this site on those terms.
On then to JR’s of the 23rd at 730PM:
He once again tries to run an old gambit that has been dealt with on this site before: I don’t profess to “know” that “most victims aren’t” (genuine, or something like it, is what I imagine he’s going for here).
I have pointed out and explicated at length the many elements that indicate a high probability of lack-of-genuineness and veracity. And the most recent element would be his own now-exposed claim of rape.
Thus, since his initial premise (i.e. that I have claimed to “know” and so forth) is groundless, then his further questions and bits seeking to build on that flawed premise also fail.
And on the 23rd at 739PM JR will then try another Wig:
He poses himself as being so very “sorry” that what he does and says here “upsets [me] so”.
If he had demonstrated with accurate quotations just where I have given demonstration of being “upset” then that might have helped his bit here. But he can’t because there isn’t any such material for him to quote.
Comments in scream-caps? Threats of one sort or another? Epithets with (sometimes multiple) exclamation points? Those are all in the record here – as being from JR, not from me.
Ditto as to the bit about my seeing myself as ‘attacked’. No more than a surgeon considers himself attacked by something that needs to be exposed and dealt-with. It simply is what it is and I do what I have to do.
And on the 23rd at 739PM JR will then top off this grab-bag of gambits with this bit: Maybe “the problem” isn’t with what he is “saying” but rather in “how [I am] seeing what [he is] saying”.
No, the problem is definitely in what he is saying. He’s said some very untrue things – as we have recently discovered with some finality – and readers may consult the record here to refresh themselves as to some of his howlers and form their own conclusions.
But there’s a method to his madness here: he was using that bit simply to – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – paint himself as the victim: “So no matter what [he says] will always be wrong to [me]”. Well, it will seem wrong if it is wrong to begin with.
And if that is so, then I can’t help him there; “that’s an inside job”.
One thing is perfectly clear at this site and that is: P and his handlers believe that the more words published by P, the more likely that uneducated Catholics will buy the nonsense he and they make up. Why else would there be such a "stampede" of verbiage every time P sets down to type? (that's the only stampede on the Great Plains at the moment. Not victims and media but P running his word cows to a market that just ain't buying what he has to sell.
Where are the educated Catholic readers here? They aren't. This nonsense of P's is to fool the little old ladies and gentlemen who were Saturday Catechism Catholics. Good people, smart people in their own right but uneducated believing people who need to be kept believing in and donating to mama church.
I wish them and all of you a lovely summer evening and peace.
I used to get upset when I was called a liar. When the horror of what I experienced as a 16yr. old child and a very devout Catholic is denied and denied so callously. Now I realize P's just doing the hatchet job he's being paid to do.
I'm not engaging him or anybody else here in anger anymore. I don't care about anything they have to say. What they say is not meant to be true but, like religion itself is meant to be believed and obeyed. I wish them and all of us happiness.
And now to JR’s of the 25th at 906PM wherein – wearing the Wig of Declamation – JR doth pronounce and declare that “one thing is perfectly clear at this site” (sic): I – and my “handlers”, if you please – are going for the idea that the more words I write then “the more likely that uneducated Catholics” will buy my “nonsense”.
Where to begin?
Would “uneducated” folk even bother to read so many words (in so many complex and compound-complex sentences)? Yes, JR has claimed several times here that he doesn’t read my material, and surely his uneducated-ness is beyond cavil, but are the majority of readers here “uneducated”?
What “nonsense” have I “made up”? No examples, of course, are given.
Then a riff on Stampede and “cows” and readers can take it or leave it as they may.
And it ends with JR – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr itttttttt? – complimenting himself on not being “uneducated”. Readers may consider it all as they will.
On then to JR’s of the 25th at 914PM:
Here the oh-so-educated one ‘shares’ a bit, the Wig of Sharing teetering and jiggling a bit queasily on his head as he leans over toward you for some intimate heart-to-heart-ing.
Ya’ see, he “used to get upset” when he “was called a liar” (is he demonstrably … not?), but now he has refreshed his sense of integrity by consulting his old notes and feels a whole lot better.
Because – doncha see? – he was a ‘victim’; there he was – a “16 year old child” who was (popcorn required, in significant quantity) “a very devout Catholic” (with a capital ‘C’, mind you) and yet (and this is a Freudian slip for the books) he was “denied and denied” … and everybody knows what happens when JR is “denied and denied” and doesn’t get what he wants.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 914PM:
So – working it all around to his preferred and scheduled epithet – JR isn’t “upset” anymore because now he (also) just doth “realize” that I “am just doing the hatchet job” that I’m “paid to do”.
In other words: it isn’t so much that JR is a liar, as it is that I am a paid hatchet-jobber for establishing that fact.
And that makes him feel a whole lot better.
What clinician could be surprised?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 914PM:
But wait! There’s more!
On the basis of that ‘realization’ – and here is the method to the madness – JR doth hereby and forthwith declare and proclaim that he is therefore under no obligation to “care about anything” that “anybody else have to say” about his … ummmm … Thing.
Neato.
And he lards on the obligatory epithetal whack: this time, that whatever people say here is, “like religion itself”, “meant only to be believed and obeyed”.
The séance completed, the Madame Blavatsky of the Victimry doth truly and honestly “wish” one and all “happiness”. {Cue spotlight as main curtain falls gracefully}
Whether that tingling sensation readers may feel welling up in their tummy is “happiness” or mirth … each reader must decide. But surely some applause is in order.
"For the dream comes with much effort and the voice of a fool through many words." Ecc. 5:3
"The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things." Proverbs 15:28
"In the multitude of words the evil one is not saved and he who restrains his lips is intellegent."