Disgrace: SNAP Now Publishes Phone Numbers and Email Addresses of Accused Clerics to Incite Harassment of Priests

From JR (addressing ‘Ken W’, the 16th, 104AM; in a very uncharacteristically-styled comment for JR) we get yet again the now-discredited bit about “the institutional church who enabled the real Nazis” [sic]; this is apparently off KW’s characterization of one of “Dennis”s rhetorical ploys (about “children”) as being Goebbelsian. I point out yet again that it is the rhetorical ploy – and not the deployer of that ploy – that trails clouds of Nazi praxis. And there is utterly no basis upon which it can be denied that such rhetorical ploys were a major element in Goebbels’s propaganda praxis. And as I have said here before, the similarity in propagandistic praxis between the late Reich and the Stampede is clear – regardless of how uncongenial the connection may be to some.

So let me say outright that “Dennis” and JR are not Nazis. That they deploy various Stampede gambits and ploys that the Nazis used – is another point altogether, but an undeniable one.

But rather than address the serious point about that similarity in tactics, JR will – in best Playbook style – simply draw an inaccurate conclusion and then claim he’s victimized by the (inaccurate) conclusion that he himself has drawn. You might think that this is just a confusion, but it is a confusion-with-a-purpose: the discussion has now effectively been derailed from the actual point to a more congenial (because it is self-serving in that it can ‘justify’ the whole victimization bit) point. Classic Playbook – except that we don’t fall for those bits so easily on this site.

And (once again and again), here’s the problem: we don’t actually know if JR and “Dennis” indeed “were harmed” and – even more amazingly – that “afterward our entire lives changed radically never to be the same”.

And as for the ‘radically-changed’ proposition: this is classic tortie and Playbook stuff: maximize however possible the visions of ‘damage’ and ‘tort’ in order to ramp-up the damages claim. But it is also classic Goebbels: whomp-up the damage to whomp-up the outrage towards which you want to manipulate people. (Thus those grainy propaganda newsreels of German mothers holding babies who were allegedly raped and wracked by the barbarous and brutal (fill in the blank: Poles, Czechs, etc). But the cameras were only allowed to roll after Goebby’s make-up artists had spent time working on the ‘victims’ physical appearance, just as we don’t see allegations until the tortie staffs have gotten through cosmeticizing them for max effect.

And we are also back to the Causality problems and the probability that even a brief and non-penetrative experience of (alleged) sex-abuse can so utterly ‘change’ (meaning ‘derange’) a life. If this were true then the species would never have survived to this point. And is there something specifically special about ‘sex abuse’ (even on the lower end of that definitional spectrum) that can allow it to wreak such damage while other of life’s challenges and incidents cannot have such a globally and fundamentally deranging an effect?

Thus the stentorian direction to KW (“don’t dare to compare us to Nazis” [corrections supplied]) can be left hanging in the air where it was put – in what is, again, a curiously formatted comment for JR.

Speaking for myself, I don’t think “emotions are bad things” – but they, like any other human capability, have to be handled well or else they will run away with the wagon (the ancient image of the charioteer, trying to control the multiple horses – usually construed as Reason and Emotion – that pull the chariot, comes into view here). Thus to manipulate human emotions and allow them to run riot, un-balanced by any rational energies, is a key element in modern mass-society propaganda. (Edward Bernays, the founder of modern PR (although he considered himself above ‘advertisers’ and ‘marketers’), was reportedly very upset and even surprised when it was discovered after the war that Goebby had copies of the Bernays books in his personal library. But given the techniques and attitude Bernays embraced (manipulating public emotions is a harmless fact of life in modern mass-society and people need to be guided in their opinions and government should do it) Bernays’s surprise says more about his own self-delusion than about the range of Goebby’s professional reading.)

But in regard to the Abuseniks here: since we don’t really know if their asserted allegations are true (and the material they have put up certainly doesn’t help their position in this regard) then it can’t generally be accepted that they are merely “showing [their] feelings about being raped by a priest”. And that is a repetition for the umpteenth time.

Ditto then the various further bits in that paragraph trying to dragoon the Constitution and the Decalogue into supporting their claims. The key problem – not to be emotionally overridden by tossing-around documents of such stature – is that we don’t really know if the allegations those documents are rhetorically intended to support are accurate and true.

Although that paragraph’s final bit about the Decalogue’s requiring one to “be honest” is something the Abuseniks might want to take to prayer – or to whatever mental operation they might substitute for it.

The “Dennis” comment of the 16th at 1219AM is time-stamped after mine time-stamped 1236AM so I presume he did not get a chance to read it before putting up his own. Which is too bad since it pretty much undermines his own comment that further tries to make his case for against the AOP in these most recent events.

But this 1219AM comment again gives us no reference as to where these ‘facts’ are that he purports to report here. (I also note that – again – the we again see here in the text of this comment what seems clearly to consist of a great deal of material taken without attribution from some other source.)

But are we not back to the same Fr. Paul whose matter had been previously discussed here? And is this a fresh development or simply a re-hash (and without attribution) of material from back then?

I would also point out that if the allegations are under police investigation or are already in some stage of legal action of a lawsuit type, then they may already be restricted by operation of law. And they remain, at this point, “allegations”.

And once again we reach the matter of whether allegations and accusations can or must or should be publicized if they are as yet unsubstantiated or otherwise restricted by official process. Which is a point that has been discussed here recently in comments.

When one knows of accusations, just what more does one ‘know’? Until investigation is conducted, one actually knows little. And imagine the Abusenik alternative: anybody can come up and make an allegation or accusation – even informally or without police or tortie involvement – and … the Church is supposed to immediately publish that allegation or accusation or story as if it demonstrably had evidentiary merit?

The following paragraph (beginning “I would tell someone”) clearly is the work of “Dennis” and in a characteristic give-away it makes no sense as written.

And yet I think we can detect in it the deployment – yet again – of the classic Abusenik Stampede demand that we not allow such ‘technicalities’ as due process of law to interfere in giving the Abuseniks what they want. And the equally queasy and emotionally manipulative justification that to observe due – or even rational – process would involve another “sacrificial lamb”.

Ditto the further bit about “a possible lions’ den” [corrections supplied].

Ditto the further bit about “How many …” and so forth.

Then the concluding bit which – I hope it isn’t too presumptuous – is aimed at myself as well as, perhaps, others. (This convoluted reference to “some” here is, of course, the result of the histrionic claim “Dennis” made that he doesn’t and won’t read some commenters’ material – wheeeeee.)

So – speaking for myself – I don’t and won’t attempt to “defend the latest news out of Philly” since a) I am not sure what the true and accurate “latest news out of Philly actually is” (and my immediately prior comment expands upon the quality of the-news-according-to-“Dennis”).

And b) I don’t “defend” – I ask questions about dots that don’t seem to connect, in the face of manipulations and assertions that seek to move us beyond those un-connecting dots.

That’s “how it works” in the real world of serious assessment. Although it is not the way it was supposed to work according to the Playbook’s manipulative and truth-twisty objectives; objectives that seem as familiar as pie to more than a few Abuseniks.

So, that should all be “interesting” enough to any rational reader.

On the 16th at 112PM we get something to read that actually should be in a personal email communication (but instead is cattily and histrionically put into this stage-whispered scenario in front of us here).

 

“Dennis” – the Wig of Innocent Exhaustion – is “tired of proving myself to these people”. What, pray, has “Dennis” ever proven here about anything – and certainly that’s true about any of his allegations, claims, and assertions about himself. And actually, the key point is that there is never a “video” in these abuse claims; if there were, then we wouldn’t be needing to have all these conversations.

 

But why would “Dennis” try to prove anything to us anyway? Because “some sick-minded individuals” will simply point out the dots that don’t connect. And if they – the Wig of The Imagined Jesus, here – won’t believe me when I simply tell them, then they don’t deserve proof or evidence. Charming; and so mature.

 

What “Dennis” proved (which, actually he hasn’t since we really don’t know for sure that the screen name ‘dennis ecker’ is the same entity in the photos) about the firefighter bit is irrelevant to the main point: whether his disability pension is or is not a variant of the Abusenik ‘compensation’ scam. But for all the self-pity here, we get no further info. And, in fact, we simply get “Dennis” cattily telling us – as if (wink, wink) he were telling JR confidentially – that since we don’t believe him then we don’t deserve to see any evidence. That’s a neat trick, but at this point rather obvious.

 

So “Dennis” and JR have proved utterly nothing in regard to the primary points at issue. Instead what we get is this scam: since we don’t believe them, we don’t deserve the evidence. This is truly another Note for Notebook on the Playbook.

 

Then the usual and as-always give-away bit about “Wrong!!!!!” [scream-y caps omitted].

 

Because – “Dennis” would have us think – we are “seeing the true faces of evil” in Philadelphia. But we have only managed to establish that his ‘reports’ about Philly are grossly in error, and – it would seem – systematically so.

 

Then the bit about “the faces of these animals” being “more scary than any horror movie”. Although we haven’t seen the evidence that the accused are guilty, or of what they are guilty. Note the use of presumption-of-guilt coupled here with repellently manipulative and exaggerated characterization (“these animals”) – which serves to reveal far more about “Dennis” than about any persons about whom he claims to accurately report.

 

Then the bit about how he couldn’t care when the abuse occurred, and that the SOLs are merely “out-dated laws” (which, by the by, are blocking any effort he might wish to make to try in his State what JR managed to pull off so lucratively during the CA window). All of which has been addressed before – and we note that Abuseniks don’t engage conceptual material that differs from them; rather, they simply scream and repeat their own stuff.

 

Then, in one of his few credible assertions, he confides in “Jim” that he is “going nowhere” – which I imagine was a realization he had on the ride up to NYC a dozen years ago.

 

Then – using the “Jim” doll as a voodoo stand-in for readers whom he doesn’t care to engage (but whose material he has clearly read, contrary to his assertions) – he goes on again about Fr. Paul, but merely repeating his own material without addressing the issues that have been raised in connection with it.

 

But then we get something of a bit more interest: commenter ‘Jimmy Carr’ (we recall the flight-student who actually wasn’t … or whatever) returns.

 

But – setting the tone for what we might expect from him – he addresses none of the numerous problems with his prior comment on this thread.

 

 He makes vague reference to “a bit of a tough last note” in some bit of my material (he doesn’t bother or hasn’t thought to identify the material).

 

He then decides – again, his prior comment is now dissolved into some Abusenik ‘yesterday’ and we are expected to imagine here that he arrives fresh as a daisy with credibility intact – to go for a grammar assessment of my material (rather than a conceptual defense of his own material).

 

Let’s just leave him to it on that score.

 

He appears unaware that in the “high” quote I was quoting a quotation within my quotation, necessitating the complex use of both single and double quotation marks. Perhaps he should have taken an online courses more useful to him, perhaps, than the (alleged) online flight-school course.

 

But then, amazingly, he doesn’t think that making mistakes is a big deal. No doubt he would – and perhaps in terms of accuracy as well as grammar. But that’s the problem: if the grammar and spelling are largely deranged, then one has to wonder if the deeper cognitive processes are also in some disrepair. Things are connected inside the head-bone – which in a way makes the human ‘craft’ like an aircraft in that there are interlocking and interactive systems. But perhaps he didn’t get that far in flight-school or grammar school.

 

Then he will assert that the reason there isn’t enough information in the article about the AOP (just which one – there being several – he does not say; lack of attention to detail doesn’t make for a competent pilot; perhaps even the online flight-school (if it existed) realized that) is that “the church ‘rolls’ like this” (adding – for creds, so very much like “Dennis” and the working-man’s working-man, JR – the histrionic bit about his knowing what “they say on the streets” … why is all of this so familiar?).

 

He clearly hasn’t read – or has chosen not to deal with – the information from Federal Judge Schiltz about just who it has been who wanted agreements made secret; nor about the legal requirements of what can and can’t be divulged without the permission of a court; all of which are topics discussed even on this thread – but he seems not to have read any of it, or chooses not to address any of the issues thereby raised.

 

And apparently what he is going for here is that it isn’t the Abusenik commenters’ fault for their contentless posts; it’s the Church’s fault for not giving out enough information that the Abuseniks want. (And yet: the Abuseniks, even with all that lack of information, still go on making their allegations, assertions, claims, and so on.)

 

Then – another owner of a Wig of Knowing – he asserts that “the AOP has on interest in helping people understand what happened or how matters were decided”. And he does know such things? And he has the information to contradict Judge Schiltz about who has really been pushing ‘secrecy’ in these matters?

 

And then – non-sensically – he asks what right I claim for access to “decision-making information”. Well, to be sensical about it: if we are confronted with assertions about the state of affairs (including the characterization of the dynamics behind decision-making), then we need to know from independent sources about the decision-making informational bits in order to get a clear sense of what’s going on. Was that not clear to him? It’s what the site is about.

 

Then we have his ideas on how I “sound”. Good luck with that. If your ears are as deficient as your eyes appear to be, then this is a swamp I’ll choose not to wade around in, thank you all the same.

 

Then some nasty epithetical bits (“dumb”) and other of his takes on this and that.

 

This is a comment from a very similar mind as some we have seen here before, both in (in-)competence and in style and tone. Perhaps that sun-porch serves an entire wing of the facility.

The important thing to be said here in part is that SNAP is a false flag effort.

I was in-between things when I composed my immediately prior comment (at 358PM) and didn’t have a chance to cover the ‘Jimmy Carr’ comment of 209PM as much as I wanted to. So I’ll complete my thoughts here.

In regard to the “lack of essential information” bit: without sufficient information we can neither a) understand accurately what the nature of the situation is and b) we cannot draw conclusions because you really can’t draw conclusions (and then make subsequent assertions, claims, accusations and so forth) unless you have sufficient information.  The less accurate information you have, the more limited your conclusions must be (presuming you are conducting a rational assessment, of course). But you can see how inconvenient this maxim is for fomenting and sustaining a Stampede.

Then the rather odd bit about my sounding “slow and bureaucratic and unionized” when I “write about the ‘new standard’ for professional comportment and its application”. While the three adjectives he uses here certainly seem intended to be epithetical, they don’t quite seem to follow from what I said.

There is – contrary to ‘Jimmy Carr’s Wig of Knowing – a great deal that is new in the AOP approach as I limned it in prior my comment on this thread. Professionals such as doctors and lawyers have always had to conduct their work under the possibilities i) that they could be sued for malpractice in their respective professional endeavors and ii) that they might suffer withdrawal of accreditation by their respective professional oversight Boards. This – had ‘Jimmy Carr’ not been aware? – has not been true of priests.

Thus the AOP approach that appears to be developing recently is working precisely toward a greater sense among priests that a) they are and must be professional (in the best senses of that term) and b) that they can rely on some degree of oversight and they are under some responsibility to maintain “Church standards” (the equivalent, here, of ‘best practices’ as the term is used in other professions).

In all previous eras, the status of priesthood was such that it was under no such institutionally-structured sense of immediate professionalism. What the AOP – with, I presume, the approval of the National Council and the papal panel or commission and the Pope himself – is initiating here is indeed something very new to the conduct of priesthood in the Church. (And, personally, I see it as a good thing: boundaries Shape and Define as well as Restrict; they channel energies and thereby increase the intensity and acuity of service-provision. All of which are positive goods for the Church to instill in her ministry.)

Thus the question “How can there be a new standard on this” reveals either ‘Jimmy Carr’s ignorance of Church matters or his failure to think through his position or both.

I am confident that I explained sufficiently the dangers that need to be considered (in the Church as in any organization). If ‘Jimmy Carr’ doesn’t see the dangers then he is clearly not familiar with organizational dynamics in a time of change, especially a broad change.

Just how that standard concern that flows from standard organizational dynamics leads to the characterization of my “infantilizing” priests is anybody’s guess. My own surmise is that ‘Jimmy Carr’ is simply stitching together whatever stuff can be found between the burgers, the fries, and the ketchup packets in order to whomp-up a composition to submit for next period, perhaps distracted as well by assorted ketchup-fingered associates. That’s what happens when you try to do your homework in the cafeteria.

And as I said, there was not the sense of “rules” in the same vivid and real sense as it exists and has existed among other professionals. And while for quite some time the nation’s culture and the Church’s strict exo-skeletal structure themselves provided boundaries, those circumstances have – in this country in the past half century – changed and the individual priest now must be robustly reinforced in the development of an endo-skeletal structure. Frankly, I thought this was necessary at least forty years ago, but better late than never.

I would point out that wrestling “with young teens in the rectory” is hardly an apt example since it is not a crime. However, it does demonstrate behavior that – regardless of its intent – apparently will no longer be acceptable in Church standards. And – surely – “doing it in front of everyone at a pool party” precisely demonstrates that a) there was much more latitude in public opinion in an earlier era and b) doing something – the “it” here grammatically can only refer to the aforementioned ‘wrestling’ – i) publicly acceptable and ii) not in itself criminal does not constitute criminal activity.

The danger here is – again, as in all organizationally-applied changes – that the restrictions may go even further; will the playing of basketball with students (teens, not children) be excluded? Things like that. As I said in a prior comment, I don’t have the information to draw any conclusions and I do not draw conclusions here.

“Inappropriate” is a very context-dependent and era-determined term and has to be handled carefully in intelligent analysis. It’s not well-handled by zingy one-liners (which, it surely seems, are the basic operating mode for ‘Jimmy Carr’). But beyond that, “inappropriate” – however it is now being changed or is now evolving – does not rise to criminal behavior. And yet the Church now has instituted various organizationally-imposed categories such as we have seen on this thread: boundary-violations, inappropriate behavior, behavior contrary to Church standards, and some similar other categories.

Overall, I am pleased with these developments.

The bit about whether ‘Jimmy Carr’ thinks “one does not need canon law” clearly reflects an ignorance of how the Church works (and may also reflect a subterranean ignorance of the value of the type of norms that the Western system of justice (toward which the Abusenik/Victimist mind is so hostile) derived from the canon law centuries ago). So I will say that it was indeed worth pointing out and ‘Jimmy Carr’s assertion (unexplained) has done nothing to change that.

And while some conversations are not necessary, others are necessary – this is a judgment call for the competent professional in the situation, and no zingy blanket one-liner maxims jiggling in the mind of ‘Jimmy Carr’ are going to substitute for that.

The examples about “these questionable priests” jumping right into talks about sex-education describe scenarios that I have not seen in any material on the Catholic Abuse Matter and may simply reflect ‘Jimmy Carr’s imagination off on a ziggy roll. Thus the remainder of the “But wait!” paragraph wobbles queasily.

And then the seriously odd sequence of remarks about “the ‘KenW’ character” – as if he were not an individual. And the further ruminations about ‘Ken W’s being “modeled after the powerful political character, the conservative racial minority” starts to veer precipitously into rant-land or – at the very least – some sort of racing imagination process that needs some slowing-down. The images don’t connect to the thoughts, which themselves don’t connect with the conclusion. We are apparently meant to take-away from his performance here that the Church is not “super-safe and abuse-proof” just because somebody says it is (even – oh my – “a victim of clergy sex abuse”). But by the same token, the Church is not super-dangerous and abuse-riddled simply because an Abusenik or a gaggle of them say it is.

The concluding ziggy zinger – tossing in some accurate Latin, nicely – is yet oddly familiar in a stylistic way.

And in all of this, but of course, ‘Jimmy Carr’ has nothing to say about his flight-school comment’s problems, nor does he seem to possess the self-awareness that might caution him that on the basis of that highly-dubious initial performance, any subsequent material was going to have to labor under a number of self-inflicted burdens in the credibility area.

OK, well that’s that for the added material.

I’d like to say this as well: Readers might well be wondering: where are the serious Abusenik commenters? Where are the ones who can sustain an idea and an argument (in the formal philosophical sense of the term) and put forward their position in a mature and credible way? That thought has occurred to me more than once (although I do appreciate any opportunity to examine the Playbook in action). But then, you don’t encounter them on other sites either; there are myriads of comments with the type of material we have so often seen here (and even worse by far), but there is very little serious and sustained explication and defense of the Abusenik position.

The thought has to be considered: there is no serious and honest explication of the Abusenik position to be made and thus nobody who even might have those skills wants to get his/her hands dirty; nor can s/he respond credibly to the many dots that don’t connect, nor address  the difficulties with credibility and demonstration of evidence . The Stampede vision of the Church – rife with “rape” and cover-up, extending for vast distances in space and backward in time (and apparently forward into the future), oppressing innumerable myrmidons of victimization  – has no foundation in reality under it. In the end and beneath it all, there are actually only the myriad stories, claims, allegations and accusations which – when examined – don’t seem to hold up well at all (and which their own creators and counsel don’t want examined at all).

And that if it weren’t for all of those myriads, and the media amplification of them in ‘reports’ and reports on reports, and the few persistent Abusenik commenters trying to keep the Playbook in play, and the occasional opportunistic pronouncements from the front-organization SNAP … if it weren’t for that, there is no there there.

There’s something oddly familiar about this whole ‘Carr’ opus here – although I can’t yet place it. Somewhere back there a very similar mentality indeed did “roll” just the way the ‘Carr’ material is rolling.

 

Anyhoo – for the moment I’ll go with the thought that this is material that is from a commenter new to this site.

 

We notice (the 16th, 626PM) that he begins by not-addressing any of the issues previously raised in any of my comments about his prior comments (and there are more than a few issues, had he actually wished to engage them). Instead he’s going for yet another tack, and will try addressing me in the 2nd person rather than – we are informed by yet another Wig of Knowing – the “falsely polite 3rd person that you pretend with in these posts”. (Note the unfamiliarity with grammar in this “pretend with”.)

 

I use the grammar and 3rd-person a) to give good example and b) to avoid inflaming various whacky sensitivities and c) so as to avoid getting into the mindless and witless snarky and nasty exchanges with assorted challenged-minds with which much of the internet overflows. And I will continue that practice here, for obvious reasons.

 

He then tries to whiff away his own neglect as to specifics and claims that I made a “good move” by – the Wig of Knowing knows this! – putting on an “act like you do not know which post of yours I am referring to”. Alas, Wiggy one, I did not know and the polite thing for a competent interlocutor to do is to identify at the outset the material to which he will refer. But I am already sensing that what we have in the ‘Carr’ material is simply more of the same ketchup-y cafeteria stuff; and “competent interlocutor” is not a concept or even phrase that would naturally occur to the denizens of that demimonde.

 

I own everything I write – I simply didn’t know which of my writings had attracted the attention. And will we be seeing ‘Jimmy Carr’ owning that whackjob first post about the flight-school (or not or whatever)? Or are we soon to be advised – in accents familiar to any regular reader here – that he was only joking and shame on the bunch of us for being so dumb as not to see that … ?

 

For someone who seems to think himself rather informed about ‘professional writers’, ‘Jimmy Carr’ doesn’t demonstrate either the technical or conceptual qualities one would associate with ‘professional writers’. So we are left – as so often with Abuseniks – with dots that don’t connect.

 

And indeed he seems to “loose track” [sic] of stuff; but then wants to blame me because I can’t recall which of my “writings” are which. I can recall that, but what I can’t easily fathom is the mentality behind the ‘Jimmy Carr’ material, nor do I think it worth too much effort to try. If you put up material, own it; if you refer to material, identify it. It’s not rocket-science. (Of course, even model rockets don’t fly well if ketchup from the cafeteria has gotten into the works.)

We can leave ‘Jimmy’ to his guesses about how people “roll” – I doubt that’s a part of the demimonde we need to be exploring here.

 

No organization gives out more information than it must. Does ‘Jimmy’ have in mind one that actually does? And certainly, the Church could not have given out the information the Abuseniks wanted: a) some of it required legal authorization; b) some of it had been shielded by the operation of law (i.e. an investigation or lawsuit was already underway) or by virtue of the legal rights of personnel not to have their file information released prematurely; c) some of it had been shielded at the demand of the torties and storytellers themselves; d) some of it had not been released because of the presumption of innocence of an accused.

 

Once one has factored all of that in, one can then also add e) the standard organizational saw that no organization likes to give out information, especially if that information is likely to be taken negatively (can you say “Pentagon”?).

 

But the scam was that the Abuseniks could scream that the info they wanted was being withheld, while also ensuring that their own highly dubious stories were secured in secrecy from any scrutiny.

 

And – the Wig of Catholic Knowing now – ‘Jimmy’ will lecture us on what we can and can’t expect to see from the Bishopa (because ‘Jimmy’ knows these things the same way “Dennis” does). Ovvvv coursssssse he does.

 

He is “Sorry that you will get your questions about the bishops’ decisions answered in full” – which doesn’t actually make any sense, unless he has suddenly changed course 180 here.

 

I have no idea how he gets to my “suffering for the faith” as evidenced by my “last post” (which post would that be, given the time-lags in submitting, posting, and being read … ?).

 

He seems happy that I am ‘frustrated’ with him: this is the mentality of a ketchup-fly from the cafeteria whose main adolescent project is to confound anybody else’s intelligence. But I am not ‘frustrated’ with him; that is a histrionic and self-serving exaggeration that simply enables him to think he is somehow carrying his weight here. Rather, his presentation has simply sparked long-standing thoughts I have had about the quality of Abusenik commenting in general.

 

And then, marvelously, this Wig of Knowing who thinks he knows a lot about a lot of various things, is then irritated that “I guess you think you know something about me”. The classic line from any patient who had convinced himself that since he can’t see any problems when he looks in the mirror, then nobody else can either. The dysfunctional version of Harry Potter’s “cloak of invisibility” or the kiddie’s idea of covering his/her eyes and then exclaiming “you can’t see me!” – and, here, ‘Jimmy’s annoyance that he actually can still be seen.

 

As I have said before: commenters cannot but reveal themselves through their material. The Abuseniks like to think that the double anonymity of the internet and the various Wigs will function to fool everybody and manipulate other readers into thinking that Abuseniks are mature and competent and honest and serious persons who are trying to come to grips with serious and complicated issues. But the record here demonstrates something far different. And ‘Jimmy’ can read up on that record.

 

But he’s not going to be able to sashay in and expect to pass-for what he’s not; especially after a) that initial presentation and b) his subsequent avoidance of it, now in the record.

 

And – lastly  and again – where are the mature, honest, competent Abusenik commenters?

JR’s (the 17th, 136AM) demonstrates yet again the problem with the conflation of the personal and the public and the legal forums: whatever JR may ‘know’ through personal knowledge (and his material on this site about that story offers little to inspire confidence on that score), it is utterly insufficient as a basis of demanding belief from other persons (the public forum) nor – surely – demanding that on the basis of his personal material then the Sovereign Coercive Authority can and must be forthwith deployed to the satisfaction of his demands (the legal forum).

And that leads us to see again demonstrated the shrewd dynamics of the Stampede, which precisely did achieve that multiple-conflation through the stratagems and harnessing of dynamics – all of which has been discussed at length on recent threads.

Yes, Mark, but Dennis and Jim think different standards should be applied when the accused is a Catholic cleric. They don't believe in fairness, just their own agendas. Sorry guys, the scandal isn't going to destroy the Catholic Church, no matter how many ridiculous comments you post on here.

In regard to JR’s of the 19th at 208AM: I have never used the term “lying” or any of its variants (e.g. ‘liar’) in describing JR’s material or JR; I have pointed out where the dots don’t connect but that’s not something he would care to explain and instead goes the ‘being-victimized’ route.

Let the record show that I also did not call him a “thief” but rather that he put that up himself.

But there is a valuable bit here for persons keeping a Notebook on the Abuseniks and their Playbook: persons who have done clinical work with various types of addictive or troubled personalities will recognize that such an individual may well have a smallish store of factual information and knowledge but yet has an almost innate shrewdness in how to try and manipulate conversation such that topics s/he doesn’t want to discuss are somehow always derailed. And I would say that the record demonstrates exactly that type of dynamic here.

Is the second paragraph’s question an honestly-put question or simply a rhetorical ploy meant to move readers to a negative answer? Hard to say. But self-awareness would, I think, move one toward giving the question some hard and serious consideration.

Then we get the bit about “normal people trust other people when they tell the truth”. But a) the internet modality is not a ‘normal’ mode of communication compared to face-to-face interpersonal encounters where – in addition to the factual content of the conversation – an interlocutor can rely on numerous other unspoken cues in order to determine for him/herself if the material s/he is being told seems true and accurate. None of that works in the internet modality.

And b) a review of the record here – and the many issues and problems of un-connecting-dots left unaddressed by any coherent response – also supports the possibility (or probability, some might think) that what we have been getting is certainly not ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’, as the classic phrase puts it.

Thus the further bit reaching toward some sort of rhetorical manipulation (about what “honorable people” do and do not do) also fails here.

Thus then also the invitation to “investigate away” – which is what, I would say, I have been doing, and with results which I have often explained at length (thus, in many instances, my long posts which JR would like to see suppressed).

And while the irritated exhortation to “respect people at least” may have worked after the first or second of fifth of JR’s comments here (which would go back quite a ways in time now), the whole bit is at the very least disingenuous at this point, with so much material on the record. But it’s a shrewd ploy to try to keep the ‘victimized’ high-ground, rhetorically at least.

I’m not sure what constitutes the “conspiracy” and I say again – as I have before in comments on this site – that while the Anderson Strategies were a strategy and assembled what certainly amounts to an effective synergy of numerous interests and elements and players, I have never called the Stampede a “conspiracy” (because we don’t have the evidence to justify such a conclusion).

Thus – yet again – the allegants participated in the synergy but were not necessarily involved in a conspiracy. However, if – speaking purely conceptually here – allegants working with the tortie staffs knowingly participated in the filing of a lawsuit allegation that they knew to be in some way wide of the truth and the whole truth, then – yes, in such a case such allegants would indeed have been involved in a criminal conspiracy. And if on the basis of such an allegation an allegant banked monies derived specifically on the basis of such an allegation, then that would indeed constitute a further criminal offense. Speaking purely conceptually here, of course, since there is no evidence nor even material to examine, at this point.

I am not sure who the “crooks” are here but I will presume that I am not included. Other than that, I can certainly join in JR’s plaint: “Why do the crooks always paint themselves as being close to virtue?” [italics mine]

I could even suggest that we could perform a substitution of one term in the next sentences:  ‘All they have to do is pose as victims. Victimization becomes a part of their fraud. And it seems so easy the way they do it. Claim virtue by allegating victimization … and then attack the questioners …’

And that, I would say, is what may very well have been happening with some substantial frequency in the Stampede.

And continuing.

JR (the 19th, 1237PM) submits his own take on things as if it were my take on things, and then snarkily disagrees with that take on things (that he himself constructed).

He might have started addressing some of the many many dots that don’t connect, but he chooses not to, and instead simply creates something more congenial to his preferred and established approach: bleating that nobody is “valid, as a poster here” except me.

Beyond that the comment dissolves into something best left to the contemplation of the readership.

Then comes “Dennis  (the 19th, 319PM).

Characteristically – both for himself and for the Abusenik Playbook – he too addresses none of the points raised about the material he has posted (or copied) here recently. And instead, puts up a fresh pile that he has come up with. (And without any link to the original news report or article or whatever source it may be from which he has – apparently here – copied some text.)

Presuming – for the purposes of the discussion here only – the accuracy of the material in the text of his comment, I would say this:

Why the papal nuncio to Australia has claimed ‘diplomatic immunity’ would have a great deal to do with the request actually made by the New South Wales commission. Did that request involve material that involves not local intra-diocesan matters but rather communications between the nuncio (a formal diplomatic officer) and his ‘government’ in the Vatican (a sovereign state)?

This of course is wayyy too much thinking about the matter for the Abusenik Playbook: the game is to demand all the information they can possibly get – perhaps to see if they can (and inevitably they will) find something that they can spin so as to wave it around like a proverbial bloody-shirt. And it is even conceivable that the New South Wales commission knew that it was making a diplomatically-impossible request but figured that they would then have a chance to claim that the nuncio rebuffed them. In fact, presuming that the New South Wales commissioners are not complete amateurs, it is very probable that they knew what they were doing when they made the request in the first place.

We have seen similar official tactics run in the current Minnesota situation, where local government officials deploy their authority in ways that are almost guaranteed to create a congenial sense of crisis and outrage and so on.

There are American-influenced governments that are now trying the Stampede-pinata  tactic. And why not? First, it offers to the public a handy distraction from national issues that the governments would prefer not to face up to in public discussions. Second, it offers the equally distracting attractions of both a soap-opera and a lottery (where you too might be eligible to grab a chunk of limitless Church wealth). Third, it offers a secularist-liberal government the chance – as it did in the American version – to reduce the public credibility of an organization that i) opposes many favorite secularist-liberal agendas and projects and ii) represents an alternative source of meaning for citizens who – in the secularist-liberal worldview – should be totally depending on their government for not only material but spiritual substance and meaning.

That’s quite a bunch of bennies for a certain type of government.

Thus the rest of this “Dennis” comment and his (apparently) ideas about Why the Church would have to hide anything (the ever-preferred innuendo) if there were not things to hide … fails here since there are formal-process possibilities that must be considered even before considering whatever the material in the NSW commission’s request might be.

And – looming unspoken in the background here – is the deliberate non-transparency demanded by the torties and the allegants, such that their claims and allegations (for which they have collected quite a bit of cash) are now hidden from any subsequent assessment. But that was part of the torties’ plan all along and now it constitutes part of the Game.

And, lastly, we see here the attempt to reduce the whole thing to the Church refusing to provide information “that may assist the investigator regarding sexual abuse claims”. Which is not at all necessarily so. Nor, again, can we any longer simply presume that a government agency is acting in good-faith; as we have seen in Philadelphia and surely Minneapolis-St. Paul, it is now obvious that government agencies at local as well as national levels can join in the Abusenik Game under the color of public authority.

Why would such agencies do that? Because the government interests desire and require the continued efforts to Keep The Ball Rolling, because The Ball and The Game have served government interests all along.

And for that same reason, government agencies at local levels can play the Game with little if any fear that higher-government authority will investigate or examine or review their actions. We have seen this demonstrated in the Santa Cruz/Santa Clara case, in Philadelphia, and so far in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

And then – in scream-y caps – “Dennis” reminds us of the obvious: the papal nuncio represents … “the Vatican”. Why yes, yes he does.

And then (the 19th, 428PM) we are treated yet again to an intimate just-entre-nous exchange cattily and histrionically conducted in full view for our benefit: “Dennis” confides unto “Jim” that “we know Publion is annoying”. Sigh. But it’s very true, I imagine: Abuseniks find questions irritating and they really don’t much like questions and they aren’t really prepared to deal with questions. In the eternal press-conference that is the Abusenik performance, the sign “no questions allowed” endlessly scrolls across the bottom of the screen.

Would they not find it all less “annoying” if they were simply to address the dots that don’t connect? I don’t think so; from what we’ve seen of their material, there really isn’t any way that they could escape a great deal of questions.

Then the discussion – as if they had some sort of authority and power in the matter – whether it would be “fair” to me if they “could get [me] removed”. As if. (The bottom line being, curiously, that “Dennis” isn’t going to sign-on to “Jim”’s petition.) But could anyone ask for a more vivid and forthright example of how Abuseniks deal with questions? Or even the observation that their dots do not connect? They will try to get the inconvenient and “annoying” questioner or observer “removed”. Pitch-perfect.

So pitch-perfect that one has to wonder if they don’t actually know what they are doing when they put this sort of stuff up. Can anyone really be so utterly un-self-aware as to expect that such a sentiment or thought could be expressed without it opening them to bemused dismissal? But again, I think that we see in this sort of thing the operation of mentalities that are not so much engaged with others and with the real world as they are playing out – within themselves and among themselves – some personal soap-opera. Commenting as therapy – or at least some fancied version of self-therapy that is actually merely self-display of the existing difficulties and ‘issues’, as they say in the trade.

And once again, what “truth” do the Abuseniks “tell” here? What sort of “truth” cannot be discussed or questioned, but merely accepted, on pain of being “removed”? (And for those in the home audience, the answer is … Abusenik “truth”.)

Then “Dennis” lets it be known (as if JR didn’t already ‘know’ it) that he scrolls-by my material; thereby, as I have previously noted, relieving himself of the necessity of having to make any response or looking like he hasn’t made any response; because – doncha see? – “Dennis” … hasn’t actually read the material so how can he rightly be victimized by being expected to make any response to the material? Thus, thank you very much, he’ll just keep tossing up onto the screen the piles he likes to toss-up onto the screen and that’s that. Except that he can also then continue to claim that nobody pays proper obeisance to his “truth”. Neato. Mucho neato.

Whether I am or am-not “articulate” is – had he not thought this through? – not actually a matter of belief, since my material is up here for everyone to consider and assess as they will. And once again, the Abusenik modus operandi is revealed accidentally: it’s all only a matter of what one wants readers to believe. As if readers can be manipulated by commenters as if they were cattle. But – of course – that is precisely a presumption of the Anderson Strategies and the Abusenik Playbook.

And also again: my ‘points’ are buried in so much “fluff”. Yes, to Abuseniks and fry-flies ‘words’ and ‘ideas’ (let alone ‘questions’) are all just so much window-dressing and “fluff”. They don’t pay much attention and shouldn’t have to – doncha know? – because it would simply re-victimize them all over again and again. Every word, idea, thought, or question is an abusive act, perhaps.

And then – the cattiness now taking on that queasy teen-y diary aura – there is a “p.s.”: as if he hadn’t already discussed it above and mentioned it in prior comments, “Dennis” confides and counsels “Jim” that “we can scroll past his comments”. Which point has already been dealt with above.

And then – the cattiness and queasy teeny-y diary aura now becoming positively giddy – there is also a “pss.” (perhaps meaning ‘p.p.s’): “showing [me] attention only makes it worse”. Possibly true – except, as I have mentioned before, I am not seeking their “attention”; I am simply wondering if we might get some answers about all the problems with their stories, claims, allegations and assertions.

I would be very happy if the Abuseniks favored me with no-attention but did make some coherent and rational response to the problems observed in their material. That would be very nice. In fact, I think it would make me positively giddy. And if such a nice thing were to happen and they were to make such coherent and rational response, then I might even exclaim Oh Goody!

But I don’t think it’s in the cards. That’s not the way Abuseniks “roll”.

Josie,

It is clearly evident that you don't like me. However, I will not say that about you. I have never met you. So before me saying I don't like you I would have to get to know you first. You may have some underlying condition that would make those who you attack look the other way and say " That's Josie"

I maybe the only one who thinks this but your comments have no merit or"guts" If you wish to disagree with somones comment that's fine. But don't you think you should counter with information to debate the original comment. That is what it is here a debate.

Your name calling and your repeated statement "Another reason people do not believe you" not only about my rape but that of others who post here is now old. We get it. Your catholic clergy and the archbishops, bishops and cardinals are angels, This is all a big ploy by victims/survivors to accuse your priests of one of the worst crimes known to man to bring down your catholic church.

In conclusion, if you know information about me I want you to post it. Make sure it is true. There is no reason why you should have failed to mention the other site I comment on. I have nothing to hide. I welcome anyone to read my comments or comments of others on CATHOLICS4CHANGE. I hope they read my one comment when I speak of the CATHOLICS on that site and end my comment saying YOU GUYS ARE GREAT. That is from a guy who is self-excommunicated who would not enter a catholic church if my life depended on it.

I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas (I do mean it)

 

On the 21st at 739AM “Dennis” responds to ‘Josie’ (the 19th, 1145PM).

Since ‘Josie’ had told him to “try to finally grow up”, “Dennis” neatly concludes about ‘Josie’ that “it is clearly evident you don’t like me”. In the first place, we see here a clear demonstration of this Abusenik predilection to conflate what people think about one’s material with a personal-rejection of the Abusenik himself. This stems, I would say, from there not being much of sense of the conceptual, such that one might be able to separate one’s self from one’s expressed conceptual material. For the Abusenik, there may be no other option besides ‘love me, love my material’ – especially since, really, in most allegations one has no evidence and must simply rely on a personal decision to buy the story. Or not.

But there’s also a method to the madness: since ‘Josie’ doesn’t “like” poor “Dennis”, then in his construction of things “Dennis” is under no pressure to make response to ‘Josie’; he only talks to people he likes (doncha see?), and if people like him then they agree with his material. Neato.

And in the second place, the conclusion that one is not liked also casts one as a ‘victim’ (of personal rejection) and thus one can now declaim whatever lines one has composed for the occasion from the throne of victimization, wearing the appropriate wig. Neato again.

And he has indeed composed some lines for this occasion.

First, he runs the old you-don’t-know-me bit, hardly unfamiliar to clinicians working with the variously troubled, addled, and challenged. Had he not scrolled-through so much material, he might have seen on this very thread some discussion of this very same gambit. And might realize that after people submit enough material, they are knowable in a real if not total way (as if anybody could know anyone else completely). And that has happened in the case of “Dennis” here, after all the material that’s gone into the record.

But then, the Wig of Diagnosis now concludes (from his already flawed conflation and presumption noted above) that ‘Josie’ “may have some underlying condition that would make those who attack you look the other way and say ‘That’s Josie’”. It’s a bit of a job to follow the coherence of the thought process in this quoted bit, but apparently “Dennis” is going for the idea that it’s not he but ‘Josie’ who has “some underlying condition”. In other words, another Playbook (and infantile) come-back: I’m Not/You Are (often to be followed in direct interpersonal exchange with sticking one’s tongue at one’s fancied oppressor and then intoning a sing-songy Myah Myah).

But what I think really has him going here is that with very few exceptions, nobody here will simply shake their head with a rueful smile and say ‘That’s Dennis’.

He continues his prepared lines: ‘Josie’ submits comments that “have no merit or ‘guts’”. If he had explained just where and how specifically-identified material from ‘Josie’ justifies the judgment that her material has “no merit”, then a rational reader might at least grant that he had put some serious thought into his claim. But characteristically he simply delivers – as is his predilection – his negative bits without even an attempt to explain or justify them.

Thus also the no “guts” bit: this bit of manly-man lingo from somebody who puts no ideas or justifications forward for consideration, and then claims that he gets no respect for the “truth” that he doth “tell”, and won’t even read uncongenial ideas that he can’t otherwise ‘make go away’. A true paragon of the manly-man, not only courageous but rational, coherent, competent, and mature.

And then feels himself justified in lecturing ‘Josie’ about her not countering “with information to debate the original comment … [T]hat is what it is here a debate” [sic]. Has anyone ever been-to or participated-in a “debate” where one interlocutor never submits justifications or explanations for his assertions and claims and where that same interlocutor refuses to consider the questions of interlocutors to whose material he cannot – or doesn’t want to – make response?

Then the next typically sly bit: he slides his “rape” in as if it were established and demonstrated fact or even – at least – a highly probable possibility. Isn’t this “debate” guy aware that in debating a mere unsupported assertion doesn’t qualify as a fact?

I am pleased to see that he is sensitive to “name calling”; perhaps he might lecture his fellow ‘victims’ here on that topic.

Then he asserts that such non-belief “is now old”, meaning it’s no longer of interest. I disagree: the continued skepticism about various claimed instances of “rape” here never gets old because the various claims, assertions, and stories just keep on coming.

He then constructs a position that I have seen no commenter on this site claim – that clergy and hierarchy are “angels” – and proceeds to register his dissatisfaction and disagreement with this claim (that he himself has created). Now that gambit really is “old”, and at this point is already in the Notebook on the Playbook of every commenter who’s keeping such a listing.

He then segues immediately into a thought which – given the grammatical presentation – indicates that he is stating it as a fact: “This is all a big ploy by victims/survivors to accuse your priests of one of the worst crimes …” and so on. To which I might only add ‘alleged’ to “victims/survivors”; but then, on second thought, and to avoid the queasy Holocaust filching, I would actually substitute “allegants” for “victims/survivors”, just for the sake of factual accuracy.

We are then treated – rather formally – to his “In conclusion” (the Wig of Seriousness, here): ‘Josie’ is told that she can post any “information” she might “know” about “Dennis”. Again, as if the thoughtful examination of so much of anybody’s material doesn’t give a reader sufficient grounds for coming to some working-conclusions. But as I have said before in comments, this gambit is old-hat to clinicians working with the variously addicted, addled, troubled, and otherwise characterologically unripe.

He then – marvelously – declaims that “I have nothing to hide”. He perhaps doesn’t recall (since it exists now only in some “inoperative” Abusenik ‘yesterday’) his comment about not sharing his own “rape” story with others here (while yet continuing to refer to it as if it were a demonstrated fact). And generally, if allegants had nothing to hide, why did their counsel insist precisely upon hiding their claims through ‘secrecy’ requirements once the checks were cashed?

We are then ‘welcomed’ to go to some other Abusenik website and read his comments there. But a) if  he puts up such allegedly worthwhile material on some other site, why then does he not put up similarly qualitative material here? Perhaps he might put up here whatever single comment he wishes us to read – or is there some reason why that option won’t work for him? (My thought: since that other venue is an Abusenik site, his material is simply going to be taken for great-stuff, unlike the ‘debate-y’ reception it gets here.)

And b) we have seen many many times that when “Dennis” offers a compliment it usually has a touch of nastiness in it – and perhaps therefore his merely writing (or screaming in caps) that “you guys are great” means little as a compliment and functions more like the rattle of a rattler.

And once again, he needs to be reminded that there is no such status as “self-excommunicated” in the Church. He is a lapsed Catholic, more accurately. But that latter term doesn’t really hit the right self-dramatizing and histrionic note for him, so he has invented the status and term of “self-excommunication”. Neato again. Because – doncha know? – it takes a true ‘hero’ to ‘self-excommunicate’.

Ditto: he wouldn’t walk into a Catholic church “if my life depended on it”. And in what conceivable universe would that scenario even be possible? But it hits the right self-dramatizing and histrionic notes.

And then and then and then: we are all wished a Merry Christmas. And – marvelously, as if he knew that bit would need some lard to lubricate it – he adds “(I do mean it)”. Such niceness; I feel better already.

But then – suddenly – we are back to some other “Dennis” on the 21st at 213PM with screaming about “a murdering priest”. Perhaps the mere changing of Wigs changes “Dennis”.

Readers may or may not be familiar with the story (for which he uncharacteristically provides a link). Oddly, this Philly media source dates this article as being posted on Sunday, December 22, at 3:01 AM, which, nicely, puts the article officially out of space and time. There’s something nicely apropos in that.

A Franciscan friar is being paroled soon after having served time for the embezzlement of $900,000 from the Catholic high-school where he served as president. He was sentenced to 3 to 6 years in prison in 2009. It was alleged (but never tried in court or even Charged) that a former student of that school (in the mid-1990s), who developed a drug habit and died in 2006 at the age of 28, was initially hooked-on drugs at the age of 16 by this friar (and, allegedly, a second friar), and that this abuse “continued for years after he graduated” and further that the friar had apparently continued to give this ex-student a great deal of “hush-money” (hence, in this telling, the embezzlement from the School).

It is also claimed that the friar could not be Charged with sex-abuse “because of the statute of limitations” and – for that same or for some other reason – the other friar was not Charged with anything. Which itself seems odd: a) we have seen in the recent Philly cases how little and how fungible DA interpretations of the applicability of the SOL can be; b) if this were ongoing abuse, then would it not have extended far closer to whatever SOL parameters applied? But perhaps the prosecutor really didn’t want to get mixed-up in what might have been a Billy-Doe type trial situation a decade ago; or perhaps the fact that upon the age of 18 it no longer was an issue of alleged sex-abuse of a minor but instead raised some far less congenial legal possibilities also stayed the prosecutor’s hand from bringing Charges in the sex-abuse matters.

Meaning that as it stands today, this friar is an ex-con with an embezzlement record. And nothing else because nothing else was Charged, let alone proven.

However the father of the deceased continues to “hold both men responsible for the death of his son”. He holds a monthly session outside the Archdiocesan offices, with photographs of the two friars and a sign that says “Partners in Sexual Abuse”.  Readers might wonder if there isn’t something not quite legal in publicly claiming – with no evidence – that somebody is guilty-of such a claimed crime. But this is one of the nice side-effects of the Anderson Strategies: if the Church brings libel charges then it is persecuting the allegant (now deceased, and thus also now the bereaved parent of the allegant); if the Church doesn’t bring charges and allows this father’s activity to continue, then the Church has convicted itself by its silence; if the Church denies the charges, then it is lying.

Any one of the three options can – in this time of Stampede – be made grist for the Abusenik mill. Neato.

The father of the deceased also claims that he is doing this because he fears this friar might continue to minister, although – especially in such a high-profile case – there seems little possibility of that. The Franciscan Order has not dismissed (expelled) him from the Order at this point. Nor could he exercise ministry without the approval of the AOP or whatever Diocese he may reside-in for the up-coming year and a half of his probation. And nowadays the Vatican also gets a direct say in his ministerial future status.

The PA Board of Probation and Parole nicely avoided an abyss for itself by requiring, as a condition of granting probation, that the friar “submit to an evaluation to determine [his] need for sex-offender treatment/service”. The DA’s Office (that did not prosecute him for any sex charges) says through its Chief Deputy DA that in his opinion “I believe he could still be a danger to children” – although that is a) a statement with obvious give-away qualifiers and b) there is no demonstrated evidence of sex-offenses. Nothing but the allegations.

This creates an interesting legal scenario: although he was never Charged with sex-criminal activity (and thus also is not eligible under federal laws that now allow prison authorities to hold sex-offender convictees beyond their legal sentence if those authorities feel the inmate is still a threat), he had to – as a condition of parole – accept an assessment by … whatever State agency or contractor conducts such assessments. The question of the ‘science’ of sex-offender assessments remains at issue here, although there are more definite parameters for the clinical “pedophilia” diagnosis, which – however – doesn’t seem applicable here, given the age of the student at the time of the alleged incidents and subsequently as the deceased entered his legal majority.

What happens if the friar is not judged in need of the sex-offender treatment/services? What are the chances that a PA assessment agency is going to find him not-in-need of such services? These are questions for which there is insufficient reliable information to draw a conclusion.

But there is most certainly sufficient information to judge that the “Dennis” characterization of this friar as a “murderer” [scream-y formatting omitted] is not justifiably accurate, to say the least.

Some one seems obsessed with you and I, Dennis. But, unlike believers, I have no faith in any critic who refuses to show himself as himself. If you and I can do it so can sniper boy. Come out of the closet dear.

In regard to JR’s of the 22nd at 1127AM: We see again the method in the Abusenik madness. We get JR’s psychological (“obsessed”) assessment, attempting to simultaneously a) reduce the whole matter to one of personal and psychological dysfunction (which, all things considered, is not so surprising coming from him); b) making it seem as if JR and “Dennis” are personally valid objects of attention (who have ‘succeeded’ insofar as so many pixels are being deployed in regard to their material); and then c) the stab at self-justification by claiming that JR has “no faith in any critic who refuses to show himself as himself”.

In regard to (a): I am not interested in JR or “Dennis” as persons. Rather I am very interested in the material that they put up here, since that material gives us an unusually clear glimpse into the Abusenik mentality that had been drawn up from the depths to help sustain the impetus of the Stampede. And the record here demonstrates how useful that material has been in that regard; we now have the makings of quite a Notebook on the Playbook, as well as quite a store of ideas and thoughts as to the core workings of the Stampede and everything that has gone into Keeping The Ball Rolling.

In regard to (b): If I spend a great deal of time with their material, it reflects no high personal estimation of them, but rather it reflects a necessary attention to offering analysis and counter-point to their material – material which so vividly and clearly demonstrates just how the Stampede came to be what it became.

Naturally – the internet being what it is – I have also faced the challenge of ensuring that in wading into their material, assessing it, and reflecting upon it I not be drawn into the usual internet dreck-exchanges of content-less one-liners and nasty back-and-forth that are the normal default mode for so many mentalities to be found in various precincts of the webverse. This site, after all, occupies a unique niche in the webverse, being one of the very few sites to sustain a serious analytical focus on the Catholic Abuse Matter.

And while I have always realized the remarkable opportunity for gleaning insight presented by the material of various Abusenik commenters here, I have also always been aware that in garnering the advantages, it would be necessary not to import their notable (and oft-seen) derangements and deficiencies of content and approach, which would certainly contaminate the quality of what this site offers if many other readers were to let themselves become enmeshed in it.

In regard to (c): Thus, I consistently present my material as the sole focus of attention, which thereby actively presents an example of how to – and how not-to – conduct assessment, especially in the internet modality. I do this because i) it is precisely the fact that attention was diverted from the vital core material that enabled the Stampede in the first place. And because ii) there is utterly no value to ‘screen-names’ as being either useful information (e.g. is ‘tomdoyle’ actually the still-Father himself?); guarantors of the quality of the material (as we have seen so vividly demonstrated in Abusenik comments on this site for so long); or even accurate identifiers (if I were to post as ‘mike jones’ would that do anything whatsoever to contribute to the quality of my material?).

So that is my purpose in retaining the screen-name “Publion”: it serves as a reminder that it is the material – and nothing else – that is of vital and fundamental concern here.

This, of course, is gall and wormwood to Abusenik mentalities since the Playbook requires that a) substantive assessment of material (stories, claims, assertions, allegations) be absolutely avoided and b) that the void thus created be filled with whatever distracting bits can be mustered and injected into the “debate” or “dialogue” so as to derail and derange it and prevent such assessment.

Which then greatly confounds and irritates the Abuseniks because i) their success in achieving the Playbook’s (and their own) objectives has been almost entirely dependent upon distraction, derangement, and the derailment of any actual assessment. And because ii) they are not and never have been any good at operating at the level of conceptual analysis and assessment anyway, whether as analyzers or analysands. And therefore that they must – absolutely must – drag any discussion down to their distracting, derailing, and deranging level or else face the prospect of being made clear examples of the reality that in the matter of the Stampede (and their own claims, stories, allegations, and assertions) there is no there there.

Thus to remove any large chunk of possible opportunity for distraction, derailment, and derangement pretty much leaves them with nothing to work-with …  unless (as we have so often seen here) they actually create distracting and derailing and deranging (if not also deranged) straw-positions and then declaim as they can against those straw-positions that they themselves have had to create.

Lastly, from a military point of view, I would greatly disagree with the accuracy of JR’s characterization of my activity as ‘sniping’; I am delivering rather sustained and concentrated barrages. The relevant military imagery here would come more properly from the artillery rather than the infantry milieu.

Although, in the contentless one-liners and snark, they do, indeed, return merely ‘sniping’ fire. But what else can they do and what else have they got? A review of Stampede-related material on relevant sites will reveal to the reader, I think, as it has to me, that there are no serious presenters out there to make a sustained, comprehensive, rational, coherent, and convincing case for the Stampede.

That being said, we can sit back and see what further scattered rifle fire we get in return.