Asleep at the keyboard: the Philadelphia Daily News' Bill Bender
Is the Catholic Church now responsible for hunting down and shadowing every past employee accused of abuse, and then constantly publicizing their whereabouts, no matter how long ago the alleged abuse occurred? A recent front page article for the Philadelphia Daily News by William Bender certainly appears to suggest so.
There can be no doubt that the alleged crimes committed by former Philadelphia priest James Brzyski years ago were abominable. But in an especially bad piece of journalism filled with hype and sensationalism (see the image of the front page of the Daily News that day), Bender quite incredibly faults the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for not issuing perpetual public updates on the exact whereabouts of Brzyski, even though he last functioned as a priest some 30 years ago.
Consider the following facts which Bender either ignored or only summarily mentioned:
- Records show that when the Archdiocese of Philadelphia first learned of allegations of abuse concerning Brzyski in 1984, it immediately removed him from his assignment;
- Bryzyski never again functioned publicly as a priest once the Archdiocese removed him; and
- the Archdiocese has publicly posted Brzyski's assignment record on its web site for several years for anyone with an internet connection to review.
A special standard for the Catholic Church
Yet these facts appear to mean little to the Daily News' Bender. Despite the fact that Byzyski was last employed by the Catholic Church nearly three decades ago, Bender darkly warns:
"Brzyski is able to move from one community to another in relative anonymity – at least until his behavior gives him away – because the Archdiocese won't disclose his whereabouts."
"Won't disclose his whereabouts"? Really? Exactly what other organization tracks down and then publicizes the current addresses and phone numbers of former employees merely accused of abuse over a quarter of a century ago? Philadelphia Public Schools? The Boy Scouts? Some Hollywood studio? The Philly Daily News? Bender doesn't say.
Always available for a crazy quote:
David Clohessy from SNAP
Instead, in his article Bender turns to the predictable National Director of the anti-Catholic group SNAP, David Clohessy, who naturally agrees with Bender's implication that the Catholic Church should risk criminal and civil liability and track the exact whereabouts of its former employees and then hold regular press conferences to announce the results of its monitoring of former employees.
Ironically, the hysterical Clohessy never reported to police back in the 1990s that his own brother Kevin, a Catholic priest, was sexually molesting innocent young boys.
And to this day, neither Clohessy nor SNAP has ever once publicly reported the current whereabouts of Kevin. Yet that never stopped David from boldly claiming to Bender that Catholic bishops somehow have the "the moral and civic duty" to monitor and publicize the current whereabouts of its former abusive priests.
The hypocrisy is staggering, yet Bender appears so blinded by the dominant media narrative about sex abuse and the Catholic Church that he is unable to make sense of the simple facts in front of him.
Lol! Have you ever read the bible? Really, have you? It's so full of contradictions it's a joke.
Poor st Jerome after compiling (emphasis on "pile") the ishka-bib-le retired to Jerusalem with his concubines. How saintly! Revelations alone must have sent him over the edge.
Your church used to accomodate Jesus's teaching "on love your nieghbor" by allowing the burning of heretics. Do you think they were obeying jesus? . Think they got the drift of christian doctrine?
"Thou shalt not kill," says god. God then say's to Abraham " kill me a son".
God says, "Thou shall not kill" then god tells Joshua to slay every man, woman, child and (wait for it) and every unborn child in Jericho. Contradiction on the big guy's part? I'd say a rather large one. Wouldn't you?
English German and Swiss catholics were burned for daring to translate the bible into their lanquages; that anyone might read the bible.
"Several months of your comments" has led us to " Unauthoritive interpretations of the bible"
Stuck in the middle ages? A sociopath fixes the world to his liking or more accurately to his church's liking. Ah religion! No one who disagrees can live with it and you can't live without it.
Let me make this clear. When we tell what happened to us. We are questioned again and again by ALL sides.
If there are holes; gaps or changes in our story, our timelines or in any of what we have said about our rapes. They are pulled apart by our lawyers; the church's lawyers and the insurors lawyers. We take tests that check our veracity, given by our own lawyers.
Nobody is saying, "Give me money even if I have no proof". it doesn't work like that nor should it. The wreckage of our lives after the rapes leaves years of proof to the fact we were raped. The consequences of our rapes became our lives and the damage, sadly, is too easily seen.
Ever hear of "Fear of God"? How does that connect to "Be not afraid"? Be unafraid of everything but god? Not exactly consistant or heart warming is it?
When will your church compensate all it's victims?
Where should I begin ? Delphin is trying to do his very best in explaining away a comment that he has made. Let me refresh for those who do not wish to search. He can be quoted as saying "Children were not raped in the church" Son, the comment is under your name and if you did not say it who did ? I will give him credit and say not ALL rapes occured in the church, some occured in a high school bookstore, some occured in a Chevy Impala, and another happened in a high school rectory as in my case. But more then only a few occured in a brick and mortar building he calls a church.
Lets move on to other comments he may be quoted as saying. I will not harp on the statement he believes the clerical abuse by clergy "is a minor problem" because he did pick that up from somewhere else and he is interpreting the context, but lets move onto a statement that I made regarding " I believe in one God the Father Almighty" The first rule any good catholic must live by. Without hesitation Mr/Miss Delphin can be repeated as saying " I do not believe you"
Everybody still with me ? We now move onto a statement he made most likely in an attempt to puff out his skinny chest by saying " faithful catholics fear nothing of this world" Now I'm not a rosary rattler, and I won't come pounding on your door but I do remember a specific passage from my old St. Jeromes days and Sister Mary regarding FEAR. Now once again he is caught saying that it is only an interpretation of my faith, but can't we say what he is led to believe is only an interpretation of his faith ?
In conclusion he wishes for me to click on some links to explain his position. Well, I already know his position. When it involves clergy sexual abuse he believes that all should be forgotten, not only with the rapes that occured decades ago but present also. He believes that if you wear a black shirt, black pants and black shoes with a white collar you are exempt from being sent to prison, He also believes the victims of his clergy are not owed a dime. He feels it is nothing but a get quick rich scheme.
However, I will take a very famous saying and direct it at Delphin
FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS ITS GOING TO BE A BUMPY NIGHT.
Bette Davis
Pretty sure your delusional and dishonest attempts at interpretation of any of my comments isn't required here.
I am equally sure that you did little to support your position on the Church abuse matter or on your own special version of Catholic theology (funny how you all deteriorate into your antiCatholic diatribes so quickly).
Absolutely certain that, once again, your antiCatholic bigotry is on full display for all observers.
You never know where you'll wind up when you chase that bunny down the rabbit hole- do you?
Lol! thanks for the laugh Dennis. Buckle Up.
This must be Wonderland. Nothing makes sense here from the resident Mad Hatters to the Anti-Red Queen shouting, "Bigot" and "Off with their heads" as she paints everything anti red.
I must be the Caterpillar because I continue to ask: "Who R You?"
Well said, Delphin. Thanks for being a voice of sanity and clarity among all of the ridiculous blather in the comments here.
On the 8th at 533PM we are informed by JR that I am “hiding”. This is due to the fact – it must be presumed – that since I raise concepts and issues and express myself in chains of ideas, and since all the afore-mentioned are for whatever reason(s) functionally invisible to JR, then I am invisible to JR.
Nor am I thereby implying conclusively any failures on his part; it may very well be part of a deliberate plan.
This possibility is further supported by the questions he – yet and yet and yet again – puts to me: “who you are” and “what you do for a living”. Of what conceivable relevance are they to anything we are doing here? Short-answer: Nothing, but they would be of great relevance to the type of gutter plop-tossing that isn’t interested in ideas and concepts and rational assessment in the first place anyway but instead is primarily ‘all about’ – not to put too fine a point on it – distracting from all of the above by plop-tossing from the gutter. By which, yet again, we see the shrewdness of the Anderson Strategies, harnessing the downsides of the internet age to rich advantage.
Why the need to distract? Because Abuseniks are not in the business of assessing and discovering truth; that’s now how Stampedes succeed. They are in the business of manipulating you to go along with what they claim is truth, and distracting from any potential independent check on their ‘truth’.
If people read my material, they know who I am because I put myself into the material I write. (Warning to the Abuseniks: ditto. It’s not your name, it’s what you reveal about yourself in your material (and not just the ‘story’ you intended people to take-away from your post) that reveals the most about you.) This ‘real-name’ plop is nothing more than a distraction.
Who might be the “truth-teller” commenter who constantly assaults readers with claims that he is telling the truth and must be believed? It is certainly not me.
We can only presume that – perhaps like other criminal charges and claims they have made – “libel” and “slander” are used here for jazzing-up purposes (like, for instance, ‘rape’): Abuseniks don’t use language to accurately describe and communicate; they use it strategically (one might even say assaultive-ly) to manipulate attention and emotions. They aren’t interested in their hearers/readers’ getting a clear truthful picture; they are only interested in their hearers/readers’ having the desired emotional response. Facts don’t matter; truth even less.
But all of that moves quite nicely into JR’s of the 10th at 1041AM.
We are sternly informed: “Let me make this clear”. Immediately we recall that on this very thread he has used the same opening trope, about making-this-straight (and actually didn’t).
He then proffers to us the vision that “we” (the Abuseniks, apparently) “are questioned again and again by all sides” [odd screamy-y formatting omitted]. Really? Are we then to pretend that when JR is questioned about his ever-increasingly elastic ‘story’ he straightens it all out with a sustained and actually credible explanation? And what to make of “Dennis” who simply – imagine filming this as a director – puts his hands over his ears, waves his head back and forth while mincing to the nearest exit while emitting a sing-songy ‘I’m not listening, I’m not listening’, until – just after the door closes behind this putative up-front manly adult – a final taunting ‘Bazinga!’ comes through the door.
Nothing was pulled apart by any lawyers in JR’s case because it never went to trial because it was part of a 550-plus Plaintiff ‘bundled lawsuit’ that was precisely put-together so that no opposition counsel would ever be able to question that story and pull it apart like a pile of oatmeal mush and would never be able to pin the Plaintiff between oath and fact until the story was either gotten ‘straight’ or exposed as a stitched-up Frankenstein-like simulacrum of the truth or a printed-at-home lottery ticket. And all we have to do is go back in the record and see how JR has performed under far less probing assessment here on this site.
And then and then and then: “We take tests that check our veracity, given by our own lawyers”. Seriously? We are to believe that the torties who stand to make the bundle as long as their Plaintiffs make the bundle are going to be administering objectively reliable “tests” (and what on earth might those tests be?) that might determine “veracity” and might thus undermine the case? In what universe could this fantasy be even mildly tangential to reality?
And I would say: Yes, that’s exactly what the Anderson Strategies were meant to do: create a situation where many many persons could be harnessed who indeed expected that even a minimally credible ‘story’ would bring a payday because if all went well the defense counsel would never even get a chance to question them under oath in open court. And so it played out and thus the Stampede.
And whether the damage that some of these story-tellers most surely display is the result of the story or the cause of the story – well, there’s yet another fascinating avenue for analysis and assessment.
You ARE hiding; in plain sight, but hidden all the same. WHY? Why is it everyone else save you and the absurd Delphinium says who they are? WHAT IS THE NEED FOR ANONIMITY ON YOUR PART?
You act like paying people compensation for our real damages done by your church is beyond reason. Why? Just because you say we are liars and thieves? Oh o.k..
You are not invisable to me. How could I miss you? you take up the majority of space here. You are like the proverbial t*&d in the punchbowl.
Why do you presume your side's lawyers are virtueous; moral; upstanding citizens and our lawyers are not. Believe me the vast majority of cases against your church are too real. our lawyers didn't take fake cases they had no need to. there are more than enough real claims.
I came across two different editorials or op-eds yesterday, and I think they are informative for what they say and for the differences between them.
The first is an op-ed by former-priest James Carroll that appeared, among other places, in the Boston Globe (the role of which in the 2002 phase of the Stampede we have already seen), where he is employed as a columnist. The piece is entitled “No excuses for priestly child abuse” and appeared on page A9 of the print edition of that paper for Monday, February 10th.
If you have read the actual text of the U.N. panel’s Report then his continued use of descriptors such as “scathing” and “blistering” will perhaps strike you as being not only over-the-top but inaccurate to the point of deception. As we saw, the smallish chunk of the Report that actually dealt with sex-abuse is – despite its many other deficiencies (noted in my prior comments here) – reserved and restrained in tone.
Carroll takes the Vatican to task for claiming – as he says – that in light of the plenitude of power and authority granted to the Papacy by Canon 330 (he also quotes Canon 333), then the Vatican is being hugely duplicitous in claiming – as he says – that the Vatican actually has governance power over the 109 acres of the Vatican City State itself. Actually, to make sure he uses all his bells and whistles here, he says “the claim that – when it comes to protecting children from abuse, the Roman Catholic Church is legally responsible only to safeguard those living in the confines of Vatican City”. This, he claims, represents nothing but a “washing [of] the Vatican’s hands of broader responsibility for the staggering trans-national accumulation of rapes by priests and systematic enabling of those rapes by bishops”.
I would make several observations.
First, among the many remarkable balancing-acts which Roman Catholicism has built into itself, the Papacy – through the evolutions of a long and complex and highly-fraught history extending over two millennia – achieved the remarkable governmental balance whereby the Papacy officially has the highest and most central power, yet the daily governance of that world-wide institution is not rigidly run ‘from above’ or ‘from the center’; rather there is a flexibility built into the system whereby the Bishops and those who hold ‘Ordinary’ power over their jurisdictions have authority. Thus the Vatican as a governance-model is not accurately compared to either, say, Stalin’s Soviet Union or a modern large military.
And yet it is also a testimony to the combined centrifugal and centripetal forces kept in dynamic balance, that the Vatican has (and neither Carroll nor the U.N. panel cared to notice it) taken special steps to impose and assert the Vatican’s authority more directly into the handling of many aspects of the sex-abuse Matter.
Second, I note that Carroll has accidentally given away a key Stampede and Abusenik strategy here: he treats any occasion in which the Church’s or the Vatican’s role is publicized in regard to the Abuse Matter as merely an opportunity to toss out the usual and general and timeworn Abusenik talking-points (and you notice that the media points and the SNAP or Abusenik talking-points are very much the same).
Thus there is no consideration given to the circumstances that prompt the Church or Vatican comments. In this case the operative element that has been ignored – which was discussed here on this thread in my comments about the complexities of the U.N. Convention’s jurisdiction and the eligibility (or not) of the Vatican City State as a reporting entity.
For the purposes of the reporting requirement as set forth in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Vatican very rightly pointed-out to the U.N. panel in regard to demands being made upon the Vatican by that panel putatively according to the terms of that Convention that it (the Vatican) has a government-type sovereign and direct and immediate and all-encompassing authority only over the 109 acres of the Vatican City State.
Carroll ignores all of this context and its legitimate complexities and instead simply treats the Vatican’s position as presented to the panel as if this were just another instance of the Vatican trying to “dodge responsibility” or somehow avoid its responsibility for the Abuse Matter. But in terms of the situation in which the Vatican made the remarks – i.e. the panel claiming authority to demand reports from the Vatican as a “State Party” or “State Signatory” to the Convention– what the Vatican said was both accurate and appropriate.
And Carroll accidentally gives that away further on when he calls upon the Vatican to stop “hiding behind reporting law loopholes that exist in many nations”. Notice that any attempt to hew to the legal actualities is considered to be merely “hiding behind loopholes”, a trope which we have seen so very very often deployed by Abuseniks when they are making their demands (and to hell with the law).
And a trope which he also reinforces by referring to “the pope’s men, including squads of lawyers”. If he is referring to whatever legal experts were brought in by the Vatican for what was surely not going to be a ‘friendly’ interview session with the panel, then we see once again the Abusenik gambit of claiming that if you are trying to defend yourself (in a very legal situation which the Abuseniks themselves brought on) then you are simply “hiding” behind lawyers and the law (or – slyly – “loopholes in the law”).
Or is Carroll simply conflating Church (and Insurer) defense counsel in various civil or criminal cases with whatever legal personnel were (or were not) present for this U.N. panel interview session? Which would indicate – as I have said recently here – that for Abuseniks and for the Stampede Playbook it’s not really about factual accuracy and truth, but rather it’s all only about painting as lurid and dark a picture of the Church as can be creatively stitched-together.
Third, he conflates or uses as if they were interchangeable terms “the Vatican”, “the Vatican City state”, and the “Roman Catholic Church” – which are very much not interchangeable because they denote different entities. (And the only signatory to the Convention is that “Vatican City State”.)
Thus the U.N. panel interview was held for the purposes (to the extent that they apply here) of the U.N. Convention and the Vatican responded to that actual situation. The U.N. panel was not grounded upon a general ‘review’ of the entire Catholic Abuse Matter (although, when you think about it, that may actually have been the panel’s real objective, and the suddenly-discovered reporting requirement may merely have been a pretext for staging yet another episode of the Stampede).
Fourth, he deploys the familiar trope here, and with all the fixin’s: “the staggering trans-national accumulation of rapes by priests” – although both Jay Reports, drawing upon the only actual tally of allegations made, demonstrate clearly that “rapes” constitute the smallest and a very small proportion of the actual allegated assaults (unless, of course, you have quietly presumed that the English word “rape” means anything sexual at all and are thus using the word “rapes” as a code-word).
Ditto, fifth, when he then lards on that “systematic enabling of those rapes by bishops” – which builds one undemonstrated assertion on top of a prior undemonstrated assertion.
He also deploys that Anderson Strategies gambit again, of ignoring the fact that once a legal action is started, then while the allegants have access to all their legal options, the Church must behave (pretend, perhaps) that this is all happening only in the moral forum and thus the Church should simply let itself become a piñata while the Abuseniks – having entered the legal forum – continue to claim that they only seek “moral” redress (for the many allegations, claims, and stories that to this point not only remain un-examined but which – through the demands of the torties – are now sealed-away through secrecy provisions to the settlements).
Lastly, I glean from my reading of articles that when the Vatican signed-on to the Convention in 1990, it not only did so as a mere “Permanent Observer” to the U.N. (and thus not as a government or “State Party”) but it also it apparently entered “Reservations” that it formally declared at that time and which Reservations were accepted by the U.N. And I would imagine – although I cannot find an accessible text of those Reservations – that the Vatican was somehow formally recognizing its unusual status as a non-governmental Party to the Convention (for which, according to the text of the Convention, the reporting-requirements are hazy, at best).
All of which to the Abuseniks (and those elements of the media enmeshed with the Abuseniks) is, but of course, mere verbiage, since it stands in the way of Keeping The Ball Rolling. (The panel’s own thoughts, quite possibly rendered moot by the fact that the panel indeed may be wrong in its (sudden?) declaration that the Vatican is indeed eligible for reporting-requirements, are – but of course – considered words of utter truthiness and acute perception.)
And from that same day, Monday the 10th of February, the Wall Street Journal has an op-ed that ran on page A13 of that edition. It is entitled “The U.N. Assault on the Catholic Church”, written by Claudia Rossett.
Rossett points out that the U.N. has taken to “preaching to the Vatican” while she runs through a long list of sex abuse cases (including rapes of children) which have been committed by U.N. peacekeepers in various countries and which have been hidden from public view.
Further that the panel “assails the Vatican for not subordinating itself wholesale to a much broader U.N. agenda”. She specifically notes that “the report calls on the Vatican to drop its opposition to adolescent abortion and contraception, condone underage homosexuality, and use its ‘authority’ and ‘influence’ to disseminate world-wide a roster of U.N. views and policies that run counter to those of the Catholic Church”.
She then confirms that “when the Holy See became one of the early parties to this treaty, it did so with explicit reservations meant to safeguard its own authority and religious character”. But “now the committee, in its report on Wednesday, is pressing the Vatican to ‘withdraw all its reservations and to ensure the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations’”.
So the Vatican did enter this Convention as a Signatory with Reservations, and those Reservations were accepted by the U.N., and the panel now is in effect trying to get the Vatican to back-off all of those Reservations (which are still in force and which Carroll among many others presumes to be merely “loopholes” and various types of foot-dragging).
And Rossett too sees that the agenda the panel is trying to impose upon the Vatican and the Catholic Church – under color of its presumed (and somewhat iffy) authority here – is in large part the agenda of both the secular elites and the ‘liberal’ (as the word has mutated in the past 50 years) wing within the Church.
So it would not be much of a stretch to consider the probability that the panel is here trying to accomplish by this bureaucratic bullying all of the changes which the Church has stood-against in the West’s culture-war and in the Church’s internal post-Vatican 2 theological differences.
Rossett, having then delivered numerous examples of actual torture and killing and rape in various U.N. member countries (some of which have their representatives sitting on this panel) that in regard to those cases “there was none of the fervor with which the committee has denounced the Vatican for failing to explicitly forbid corporal punishment”.
And she caps it by pointing out that it is precisely for fear of a “U.N. satrapy” trying to dictate its internal policies and laws that the U.S. … “has signed but never ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
And she concludes that “this treaty has less to do with children than with political power plays” – which dovetails nicely with the thought that the Stampede has also been profoundly shaped and influenced in precisely the same way.
http://www.petition2congress.com/2259/death-penalty-child-molesters/view/1
I don't want it to seem that I am on a personal attack against Delphin, but since his return his comments make it so easy for me and anyone else to do so.
On 2/9 he makes the comment "no faithful catholic ever proposed a death penalty upon fornicators".
I respect everyone personal thoughts about the issue. Fact is Jim and I have different feelings about the issue but I direct Delphin to the link above.
I am sure if possible I would be able to find some very faithful Catholics who have placed their name on this petition.
In regard to JR’s of the 11th at 304PM and 311PM:
Perhaps JR has forgotten ‘Boston Survivor’ who then changed to ‘Learned Counsel’, and ‘Rondre’, and ‘LDB’, and ‘Jimmy Carr’ – all of whom use either screen-names or simply first names (that may or may not be accurate but for all practical purposes function for the same purpose). All of these persons can be classified as Abuseniks and none of these persons received complaints from JR that they were “hiding”; indeed the record shows his assorted comments in eager support of their material.
Thus the question has to follow: why does JR so very much need to know the names of myself or ‘Delphin’ when he doesn’t seem to mind about screen-names of the Abusenik commenters at all? Clearly there is some other dynamic at work behind his stated concerns here. I have no interest in forming a personal relationship with him, so what possible need would there be for anything beyond the material I put up?
So his scream-y formatted questions merely capitalize the fact that he is very selective in his curiosity here and maybe has some ‘splainin’ to do.
Paying compensation for un-demonstrated claims is indeed “beyond reason” – which is precisely why the Anderson Strategies relied so heavily on the ‘bundled lawsuit’ and other ploys.
As for the “liars and thieves” bit, I’d simply ask the nurse to page Doctor Freud and his projection-kit.
Since ideas and logic and the entire concept of clear and rational assessment are either beyond him or of no interest to him, then I am indeed “invisable” to him and that’s not my problem.
The job of a tort-attorney or tortie is to take a case – usually on a contingency fee – and make its claims look as vivid and catchy as s/he can. And then there’s everything revealed to us in D’Antonio’s book about the Anderson Strategies and the various legal stratagems and schemes to take the abuse cases into the bigtime (thus the Stampede). And then there are those ‘secrecy’ agreements they demanded that effectively removed the claims and allegations from examination once the checks were cashed. Perhaps JR slept through all that boring material in my comments; that’s his business. But that’s why I would say there is a very very high probability that those claims and allegations were burnished to the point where some serious questions need to be asked.
But in any case, JR will have to explain how and why we should credit his assertion that “the vast majority of cases against your church are too real”. Simply insisting that we believe him is hardly a substitute for providing demonstrable reasoning or evidence that his assertion is anything more than an undemonstrated and un-grounded assertion by an interested party. Nor will merely repeating the assertion (“there are more than enough real claims”) substitute for actual demonstration, either.
Why would I need to know those people's names? They weren't lying the way you and delphinius do. I think liars and obfuscators and poo stirrers sould be held responsibile for their lies. If you feel Dennis and I have behaved as liars, obfuscaters and poo stirrers then at least you know where to find us.
I disagree completely with the death penalty period. I always will. I'm talking compensation and have no interest in killing human beings even f%$#ed up ones..
Death is inevitable for us all. No need to hasten anyone. IMO
On the 12th at 457PM we approach the sublimity of what is called in some professional circles a ‘fixed and closed system’: JR doesn’t need to know the names of all the Abusenik non-named commenters because - waitttttttttttt forrrrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttttttttt – “they weren’t lying the way you and delphinius do”. But of course. And we are “lying” because – waittttttttttttttttt forrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttttt – JR says so.
Marvelous.
But why would anybody need to know where to “find” anybody else if the party of the first part thought that the party of the second part was “lying”? And on the Web, isn’t it clear as a bell where to find me – at the TMR site? So – again – since this 457PM comment is functionally ‘non-responsive’ – I ask again: since anybody knows where to ‘find’ ‘Publion’ on the Web, why the need for actual names on the Web?
And once that question might be answered, then the original question remains: in what way (accurate quotations please) am I “lying”?
Authorities Having Jurisdiction, track each convicted Roman Catholic Church sex offender via satellite and implanted device.
It is an incalculable probability that this would cover a significantly lower percentage of all Roman Catholic Church sex offenders, the one’s for whom silence has been ally _merely my studied bias.
Joey Driven
February 25, 2014