Hollywood unleashes superstars Mark Ruffalo (l) and Michael Keaton (r) on the Catholic Church
While Hollywood and the Boston Globe would want you to believe that the new movie Spotlight is an impartial dramatization of the paper's 2002 reporting on sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Boston, the truth is something else entirely.
As Spotlight slowly makes its way to theaters across the country, mainstream media movie reviewers are grossly distorting the truth about the Catholic Church sex abuse story.
For example:
"The Spotlight team found that those in power knew about the abuse. That included the head of the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law, who continued the pattern of moving Father John Geoghan from parish to parish despite his history of serially molesting boys." (WBUR, 9/4/15)
Not even close. The mainstream media won't tell you this, but the Boston Globe's reporting routinely minimized the critical role that secular psychologists played in the entire Catholic Church abuse scandal. Time after time, trained "expert" psychologists around the country repeatedly insisted to Church leaders that abusive priests were fit to return to ministry after receiving "treatment" under their care.
Indeed, one of the leading experts in the country recommended to the Archdiocese of Boston in both 1989 and 1990 that – despite Geoghan's two-decade record of abuse – it was both "reasonable and therapeutic" to return Geoghan to active pastoral ministry including work "with children."
The Globe's rank hypocrisy
And it is not as if the Globe could plead ignorance to the fact that the Church had for years been sending abusive priests to therapy and then returning them to ministry on the advice of prominent and credentialed doctors. As we reported earlier this year, back in 1992 – a full decade before the Globe unleashed its reporters against the Church – the Globe itself was enthusiastically promoting in its pages the psychological treatment of sex offenders ‐ including priests – as "highly effective" and "dramatic."
The Globe knew that the Church's practice of sending abusive priests off to treatment was not just some diabolical attempt to deflect responsibility and cover-up wrongdoing, but a genuine attempt to treat aberrant priests that was based on the best secular scientific advice of the day.
Yet a mere ten years later, in 2002, the Globe acted in mock horror that the Church had employed such treatments. It bludgeoned the Church for doing in 1992 exactly what the Globe itself said it should be doing. The hypocrisy is off the charts.
The Church's secrecy that wasn't
Another example:
"'As soon as we discovered that the church had made secret payments to victims of other priests – which one of the attorneys referred to as hush money – we began to realize that of course the church did know, that it had to know, and that its sole interest wasn't in the children,' [ex-Boston Globe editor] Walter Robinson said, 'it was in keeping the story quiet'." (WBUR, 9/4/15)
While Hollywood and the Globe would want you to believe that the Catholic Church demanded secrecy from victims when doling out settlements, the truth is that it was the other way around: It was the victims who had demanded secrecy from the Church.
How do we know this? For starters, even the Globe itself has finally admitted this.
In an article on Monday June 3, 2002, the Boston Globe buried this crucial admission from Boston contingency lawyer Mitchell Garabedian: "Garabedian said he harbors no regrets about the settlements he negotiated in secrecy, often at his clients' insistence. 'They were embarrassed, and many victims thought they were the only ones,' he said."
In other words, Robinson's claim is simply bogus.
Just the tip of the iceberg
As a movie, Spotlight appears to resemble The Wizard of Oz more than anything factual.
Suffice it to say that the Boston Globe' dishonest and biased reporting could fill a book, and that book is Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church.
Thoroughly detailed and footnoted, the fast-paced Sins of the Press will change your mind about the Boston Globe and its lauded reporting on the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
What a bunch of religious bigots in here! So much hate. Just go slander an entire major world religion with wild acusations that have no truth behind them. The priesthood is NOT largely gay (you hater). Seminarians are closely examined and screened for such tendencies. The sex-abusers comprised less than one percent of all priests. There is an equal or greater percentage of abusers among others faiths and about ten times that rate in our public schools. Did I mention the many physicians and dentists who have been charged with sex abuse against their patients? The church has a rigorous training program in place for all employees and volunteers. All must pass backgound checks and pass the course on child protection. There are also guidelines to follow where at least two adults must co-supervise minors at all times. Our church has many volunteers of both sexes who work our buns off to see that things get cleaned, mowed, shoveled, and stocked, so you can put your vile comments about the weaker sex away. All volunteers and religious are there because they want to be. No one is being taken advantage of. Your comments are cruel and bigoted.
They ARE gay ( you gay-dar less "lover") but dream on.
And so what if they're gay anyway? DaVinci (a convicted child molestor) and Michelangelo and Raphael were gay too.
Ann, Also the very same people who felt it was more important to protect priests' career over catholic children are still at the helm; steerring the good ship Jesus.
"Weaker sex" You mean women? Women, who do all the hard work in the church? You mean that "weaker sex"? The same "weak" sex who bear the very children molested by your priests?
If we victims hadn't sued your church (Those of us who could) you'd have no NEW controls to trot out to show how your church is protecting catholic children, NOW. If the Boston Globe hadn't reported on Law's crimes none of your much flaunted safe gaurds would be in place TODAY.
You know who's cruel Ann? You. Check your self.
P-"Read my material, lodge your objections, explain them and I'll be happy to respond." But that's not how Abuseniks roll, and surely not 'Dan'." I'm beginning to see a pattern. Reluctantly at times, I do read your material, lodge my objections, explain them and many times the important comments you conveniently disregard because you have no logical answers or deceptions to dream up, so you pass them off as Dan's "spiritual excursions". For example, my post Nov. 21@ 1:45pm. Dan stated 3 items, and numbered them and you purposely pass over them. You claim "I'll be happy to respond", but don't and when you do it's with your nauseatingly repetitive, sarcastic, childish names for everyone. It gets real old, but I'm willing to bet that you think your clever "snarky". While mentioning it, number one was in regards to your mocking God and myself, and yet you continue to do it "(some, the, a, any) god, cause you think your so smart. Friday the Creator left a "message" for you and yours.
Anyone who molests or hurts one of My little children, will be convicted by Me on Judgement Day. You can bet on it, and be prosecuted and held accountable for the evilness of their acts, for what they did to Me. Anybody who lays a finger on one of My children, without reason, will be condemned and punished, for what they did to Me. These are all My precious, innocent little ones, whom I will never ever stop protecting, from the people who keep harming them, for what they did to Me. I know and see how they say they all claim to follow and love Me, then go and do the most horrible acts of crime a human can do, to one of My children. If you think I can forgive you for what you have done, you had better think twice, for what you did to Me. Thus saith the Lord God
Dan's explanation- 1- Whenever the wicked harm an innocent child, they are actually, directly harming The Creator who made the child. You may hurt their body, heart or mind, but you will not touch their soul. 2- Likewise, when you mock His servants or chosen ones, you are indirectly mocking the One who made you, and that ain't cool, even if you think your so cute or clever. Mock God and I pity your soul come Judgement Day. Blasphemer.
Previously, you asked me to show one credible case of clergy child abuse, as if that would stump me. How ridiculous a request! By your own admission you claimed the church paid out upwards of 3 billion dollars for the clergy sex scandle. Is that figure something you can be proud about? They have some of the best lawyers, because of several decades of experience with these matters. Settled several cases out of court, others denied because of the statute of limitations, denied culpability, lied and deceived victims or died to get of the hook. In Boston alone, I went through the data base of 256 accused priests. So add to that the ones that were never caught or accused yet and multiply it times every church, in every city, country around the world and we'll come up with a terrible number. Since many were multiple child rapists, the number of children far out numbers that of priests and bishops. So to ask me for one credible case is preposterous. The only thing I can agree upon is that they should jail and condemn every guilty snake from every religious establishment, school, Scout club, home or business, cave or catacomb anywhere in the world. I don't agree that your catholic church has any legitimate right to point the finger at anybody else. Despicable!
P.S. God is spelled with a capital G. Show some respect, if that's possible.
‘Miranda’ is having one positive effect here: ‘Dan’ (the 22nd at 1129PM) actually quotes some of my material before beginning his thoughts on that material.
He doth begin to “see a pattern” here. And the manner of it is on this wise:
First, he sighs that “reluctantly” (a Wig here, accompanied by the old silent-movie backhand-to-forehead gesture) he doth indeed read my material.
He then, however, finds that when he doth “lodge [his] objections, explain them and many times” yet “the important comments [I] conveniently disregard”. No, that’s not the pattern. I would say that ‘Dan’ has a far too generous conception of the cogency of his “important comments” – for reasons which need not detain us here.
Thus I am not dodging his purportedly “important” and relevant material because I “have no logical answers or deceptions to dream up”. As consoling an explanation as this might be for ‘Dan’ – and I can see why that might be so – it is rather because they are irrelevant to the matter at hand or simply – indeed – “spiritual excursions”.
He then begins referring to himself in the third person and at this point I think perhaps the sun porch would be in order.
I am here to respond to relevant and cogent points; I am not here to get into ‘Dan’s personal Scriptural sandbox as he seeks to unload it, shovelful by shovelful, here. He might want to find himself a site that deals with personal exegeses of Scripture, with a Catholic or anti-Catholic or non-Catholic bent or a more universal approach, and share his material there.
We, of course, can pass over the molten epitheticals in silence, although they are rather indicative of that tectonic instability beneath the peaceful pasture that is presented to us.
While he then goes on in his second paragraph with his favorite pastime of pronouncing Woes, yet the entire problem being considered on this site is precisely as to the probability that there were not so many instances of ‘molesting’ (however that grossly elastic term might be defined) as the Stampede-fueled vision would have us believe. So the focus is not properly on the Woes, but rather on whether the Woes are rightly applicable in Catholic Abuse Matter cases. This is the vital point that ‘Dan’ has apparently merely presumed, in order to quickly move on to the histrionic delivery of the Woes, dolled-up, of course, in the authority of (some, a, any, the) god - in case a reader might not be impressed merely by ‘Dan’s chops in the matter.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1129PM:
This bit continues on into the following paragraph, accompanied by more Woes (and epitheticals), now directed specifically at me as a “Blasphemer” … because – doncha see? – if you don’t take ‘Dan’s stuff seriously then you “mock God” and … well, that’s not nice at all and so you can’t mock ‘Dan’ or in any way not buy his stuff.
These bits are certainly useful and illustrative for readers interested in the variations within the human ‘psychic economy’, but that’s about all.
‘Dan’ will then, in his final paragraph, demonstrate his logical chops: he can indeed “show one credible case of clergy child abuse”. And how might he do that? He does that by pointing out that the Church has paid out “upwards of 3 billion dollars”. But – it has apparently escaped his notice – that is precisely one of the major issues under consideration on this site: what is the probability that those pay-outs were rather the poisonous fruit of a Stampede? And – had he not already been inclined to follow ‘Miranda’s path – a reading of prior comment threads archived on this site would have informed him, at least to an extent beyond his present state of information, as to the many elements strongly supporting that probability.
He further seeks to burnish his ‘research’ by telling us that “in Boston alone” he has gone “through the date base of 256 accused priests”. That is likely the material archived on the Bishop-Accountability site, which was quite some time ago required to post on its famous listings the disclaimer that the accusations in many of those cases it has listed were not proven and remain – not to put too fine a point on it – accusations.
And I would further point out that it is hardly improbable at all that many of those “accusations” stem more from the dynamics of the Stampede (as I have often explicated it) than from any demonstrable historical veracity and accuracy.
So we can leave ‘Dan’ with his Bible and his junior-detective kit and his Wigs and his histrionics.
As to his now-predictable “P.S”-type epithetical instructing me that “God is spelled with a capital G” and telling me that I should “show some respect”: I am doing God a favor, but also drawing attention to the fact that whatever entity it might be from which/whom ‘Dan’ imagines himself to be receiving his spiritual telegrams or emails is not necessarily God. And such missives surely haven’t done much to spackle up his mentation and information-processing and assessment. Perhaps he might want to put these items on his list for when that god will soon be coming down the chimney.
Dan, I'm the one who usually spells god uncapitalized.
And with all due respect to you personally; I'll continue to do as I wish. Regarding my thoughts; my beliefs; my choices.
I must say that with all the verbage here, do none of you others I agree with (mostly): Dan; Miranda; Another Mark; Dennis get that zippo's being done for the already raped? And that much is being done by the church to make sure the majority, 80%, of the victims will die with no help? Where are you "Goddy" folks with that disaster.
Frankly P's an idiot or worse and we all know that. So why not focus on the victims of the train wreck and not on the fact that there was a train wreck. That we already know. Since both the state and the church choose to do nothing; what are you going to do?
Someone had asked if I was equally upset about falsely accused priests. Absolutely, but not sure about equally upset, because child molesting is a horrendous crime. But yes, being falsely accused is terribly unfair and brings unfair doubt to valid accusers(victims) cases. I'm speaking from experience because Catholic clergy and laity have laid upon me terrible accusations that were completely false. They lied and claimed I wanted to kill them. Said I trespassed when I didn't. Threatened me and then put that charge on me. Four thug cowards, of the church of my youth, jumped me from behind because I had a beautiful, prophetic message to the school children. Two weeks later reported this to the vacationing principle, and she said the thugs were accusing me of saying dirty things to the children. Lies, on top of lies, backed by more lies. Been called by church clergy and members, Satan, devil, crazy, pervert, child molester, threatened and cursed several times and called every other rotten, vulgar name in the book. On false accusations, been thrown in jail 6 times and in mental institutions 6 more times times. Paid restitution for accusations that were absolute lies and forced to plead guilty if I didn't want to spend more jail time. My only crime was speaking to lost souls about the bible and speaking out about the crimes of the church and exposing them. No Publion, I don't need proof to prove it. I lived it and do have plenty of proof. When confronted they admitted to the police that they were lying but I received the information from the courts 6 months later, after being forced to plea guilty and pay the fine. Corrupt, corrupt, did I happen to mention CORRUPT.
Dan, servant of the One true God
P.S. Coincidence that 6+6+6 = 666 Love that math. And by the way, Christian churches have been just as guilty with the lies and some of the same crimes against children. Claiming more crimes than your church? I'd have to question that proof.
On the 22nd at 634PM ‘Dan’ now huffs that he never assigned himself the title of God’s “True Servant”; OK, then, ‘Dan’ is not a true Servant of God. How’s that?
But he capitalized “Servant” (on the 12th at 615PM) although – slyly – he uses the lower-case “servant” in this post. It would appear that on some level, even if only inchoately, he knows enough to hide his more obvious outré aspects.
And while “servant” in its stand-alone sense indicates – perhaps – humility, yet assigning oneself the title of “Servant” – and of God or the True God, no less – is something else again, is it not?
I shall give ‘Dan’s advice that I need to go back to “grammer school” every bit of the consideration it deserves.
He then uses the pretext of a “dictionary lesson” to go on about his “smwarmy” term, which is actually just a chance to vent his epithetical side (or base).
And the self-designated “Servant” of whatever god then – marvelously – seeks to characterize me as “Mr. Legend in your own mind” (hysterical scream caps omitted). Thus “The Servant” and so on.
On the 22nd at 410PM ‘Miranda’ continues in her usual vein. This time she wants to know if I am seeking to imply that “adults are making things up”. As I have often discussed at length on this site, the probability of that type of activity, especially under the conditions of the Stampede, are rather high, and certainly too significant to ignore or wish-away for purposes of dogmatic convenience.
Definition required.
On the 22nd at 316PM we are back to whatever gambit ‘Miranda’ has been trying to run here: all she has asked for is a “lengthy (550 word) definition for you made-up glossary term, and [I] genuinely won’t give one”. Such research chops. She has to have something cut-up and served to her on her dinner-plate or … what? She won’t eat dinner?
However, you can see how she’s constructed her gambit here: from the fact that she hasn’t gotten her demands met, then she can proceed with the rest of her little construction of her blocks here. To wit: she has made a demand/request and I refuse to accede to it (are we getting into territory recently and current observable on US college campuses?).
And why would she want just a “500 word definition”. Wouldn’t a competent researcher want as much relevant material as possible in order to gain the most accurate and comprehensive view possible? (Short “elevator pitch” answer: she isn’t trying to gain the most accurate and comprehensive view possible because she already ‘knows’ and she is simply trying to run her little game here, based on her own sure and certain presumptions.)
Again, you're falling short in the analogy department: what you've done is set a stew in front of me and said "It's Stampede" and when I ask what the ingredients are, I'm told that if I merely went back into the kitchen and looked at every single thing in the pantry, fridge, spice cabinet and wine cellar, then by default I would technically know all the ingredients that make up the stew. I would also know a lot more completely useless information totally unrelated to my meal, and still wouldn't have any of my ingredient guesses confirmed, but it seems the chef isn't concerned about that.
On the other hand, any diner faced with a chef who refuses to tell you what he's put in Stew a la Stampede will quickly lose faith in the chef because that is incredibly shifty. You cooked it. You know what's in there. Just say what's in food.
Because that's a pretty generous allotment for any dictionary entry.
The subject doesn't define relevancy, the researcher defines relevancy. I start off with a basic inquiry, then probe into specific areas that aren't clear. I conduct interviews that are guided. No researcher just sits down with someone and just lets them talk the whole time - we start off that way to get an idea of how the interviewee frames the subject, but once the interviewee starts retreading old information or hyperfocusing on obsessive areas, it's our job to break them out of that loop.
An interviewee refusing to define a term is a huge red flag.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 22nd at 316PM:
And she can then add another block onto her pile: “It’s obvious” – to her, anyway, although she always seems to leave that vital qualifier out of her assertions – that I “don’t want to supply one”.
And why would that be? Another block: “it could be used as a reference point to keep you accountable during a debate”. But I have written extensively and explicated at length. And surely one doesn’t enter into a “debate” (she has used that image of a school or university/academic debate setting) without first having read all the relevant material. Or is that news to her?
And another block to the pile: she will then spin her little web further by relying on her personal tea-leaves to suss out my purpose in refusing to accede to her demand. To wit: I “cherish the blurry edges of argument where you can loftily insist you’ve made yourself clear”. And if she hasn’t read back in the record here as to my arguments and the presentations of my material, then how would she know that? (Short “elevator pitch” answer: she just ‘knows’ it because … well, she just ‘knows’ these things.)
Readers may consider as they will.
Heck if I know. You're being evasive and won't provide a definition for something you claim to have defined so clearly that you've coined a term for it.
Again, you're not a source for reference, you're just a discussion participant. You're not a third-party source, you're footnoting your own thoughts. I'm asking for a definition and you won't give one (though curiously you were just fine defining "Abusenik" as "someone who is all about abuse").
Because you won't define your made-up terminology. Right here in this thread, you're refusing to commit to something concrete. I'm not asking you to do anything you haven't already claimed to have done, which is why it's so weird that you're refusing. You say you've defined it – great, give me the definition.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 22nd at 316PM:
She then proceeds further down this road: I am “refusing to clarify” my material. How would she know I haven’t already done so in my presentations, if she hasn’t read the material?
She then proceeds further down this road, adding yet another block to her little pile here, and you can see how her game is being played. To wit: since I won’t do what she claims I won’t do and for the purposes she claims I won’t do it, then – doncha see? – I am “going to have a hard time presenting yourself as a reasonable interlocutor”. I’ve been on this site for several years, and my material is here for anyone to read, going back for all those years.
And another block: I say “I have it, but I won’t show it to you”. I have said no such thing nor is this an accurate characterization of my position. Rather, I am saying ‘I have it’ and since it’s in the record then you have it too – if you just want to go back and bring yourself up to speed on it. But – of course, and for whatever purposes – that is just what this ostensibly college-trained individual does not at all want to do.
And then a topping-off block for the little pile here: this all thus demonstrated that I am “coming across as a windbag”. Once again, she fails to add the vital qualifier: I am “coming across” … to her as a “windbag”. And with that qualifier, readers may judge her epithet, and the whole little pile of blocks here, as they will.
Bolded for emphasis.
So despite the fact that you have the definition in your head, you want me to waste time and effort trawling through the archives to winnow out the disparate pieces you've scattered about, some of which may be outdated or underdeveloped because again, the definition is wholly created by you. At which point there's still room for error, because maybe I misinterpret something, or maybe I miss a second-page post that you think is invaluable. This exercise is one that affords you infinite dodges and qualifications that would be sheer madness to entertain. It is a colossal waste of time since I don't care about anything except the current definition I've requested, which you claim to have but out of pique won't share.
You claim to know your own definition, so state it. This should not be hard if you truly want to be clear and straightforward, or if you have a genuine definition at all (as you claim to with "I have it").
On the 22nd at 320PM she will try to cover her tracks by kewtly trying to spin her order (that imperative “Go” – Abuseniks do like to give their orders) as just “a starting gun”. Which, of course, would have to be fired by a ‘starter’, hence an official and so she casts herself as some sort of authoritative official (which, in the little game she has set up for herself here, she might legitimately be taken to be … as far as her little game goes).
And she then tries to burnish the status of her gambit here by claiming to find something “so suspicious” in my refusal to play her little game here. I am “hiding” my material – doncha see? That is to say (accurately): I am “hiding” my material, and it is rather extensive, in an open record that exists on this same site, accessible to anyone who wants to exert a few clicks. This, to her mind (and necessarily so, for the game she is playing here) is … “hiding” material. As I said, if you want to hide something from ‘Miranda’, put it in a record where she’ll have to do some reading.
Clearly she is capable of reading. So what drives this refusal to do the reading? What’s driving this little game of hers here?
More accurate to say you're hiding behind a pile of obstructive, irrelevant and outdated material.
It's amazing watching you try to dance away from this. Just define the term you habitually use on this site – this is hardly an unreasonable request. Define "the Stampede". I am not the one who introduced it into discussion, I am not the one who kept using it as a touchstone, and now that I'm pressing you to define it you're saying no.
Upshot is, you don't have a definition. You have a loose collection of points that have just enough room between them that you can slightly alter your argument to strengthen your position. You're aware the committing to a concrete definition will require you to provide answers for certain assertions, and you do NOT like putting yourself in the position of respondent or being responsible for proof. It's a style of debate that is tiresome and unconvincing.
On the 22nd at 324PM ‘Miranda’ she will now try to justify her conflation of her own opinions with the opinions of everybody (or, at least, everybody who reads this site) by claiming that she sees “no one taking [me] seriously on this thread”.
First, this thread is one of dozens and probably hundreds of threads archived on this site.
Second, she apparently presumes that all readers also comment.
Third, she apparently relies upon the usual gaggle of Abuseniks who do put their stuff up, even on this thread. Is she such a competent judge of the quality of material, then? (Short “elevator pitch” answer: she’s an acute judge of stuff that will support the presumptions she’s already made, on the basis of which presumptions she’s running her little game here.)
Nor need I “link [to her] evidence of support for [my] position” on this site since it is not I who have asserted great and overtly stated support for my material; rather it is she who has just made the assertion and now wants me to prove it for her. And thus her game goes on.
And she tries to bolster the foregoing bits by then claiming that she’s “happy to read” my material if I would only “provide” it. The record indicates – and a rather significant length – that I have done so.
I am then instructed to imagine that I am writing a “dictionary” entry. I would counter-propose to her: imagine you are entering an online discussion site where much discussion has already taken place and you want to get involved in the ongoing discussion … how would you go about that?
“See? Easy!”
But that isn’t how she rolls, for whatever reason(s).
I'd start participating and then ask for definitions for any unfamiliar terms. Usually someone pitches in with a definition or link. I have never, ever experienced a common poster saying "just read a few years' worth of the site comment archives" rather than just defining a term. I have run across a few variations of the "get out of here, newbie" response, which is the one you're trying now, but anyone who posts that is generally ignored for the simple fact that if internet comments actually operated that way, sites would die. There would be no new participants, traffic would drop, conversation would stagnate, and the site limps on for a while and then rots.
Define "the Stampede". Wiki takes 224 words to define "cattle stampede", if you'd like a reference. Merriam-Webster uses far fewer words. I suggested 500 for you.
On the 22nd at 332PM, ‘Miranda’ continues the game by now claiming that I don’t understand “the dynamics of a discussion”. Really?
This is so – according to her little pile of blocks – because she is not making demands or “petitioning” me all on her own; rather, it is necessary that if I want to “prove [my] point” then I “actually have to bring proof to the table”.
First, given the online forum it’s – as I have always said – far more a matter of establishing probabilities than of proffering “proof” (especially in a Matter where secrecy has been demanded as to the settlement documents, often (as Judge Schiltz said) at the behest of the allegants).
Second, I have explicated at very great length in comments in the record here the elements that significantly indicate the high or very-high probability of the dubious nature of allegations and settlements. So all that material is certainly on “the table” here because I have brought it “to the table” here.
We then get the analogy of a formal debate event. But of course, one doesn’t come to such a debate without having read all the relevant material and combed it for useful points for or against one’s position. Is this news to her?
But – doncha see? – she isn’t going for the principles and procedures of her own analogy here: she’s not going to allow herself to accept my imposed “onus” requiring her “to paw through your vast archives to winnow out what I apparently already know”; this – to her mind – is “unreasonable”. She clearly won’t have won many debates with a whine like this.
Your extra-thread musings are not "revelant material". They are unedited, unfinalized, unorganized internet comments.
The amount of writing you're willing to do to avoid giving a simple definition of "the Stampede" is pretty amazing.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 22nd at 322PM:
And she then tries to burnish that bit with a further bit of tea-leaf reading: to her, it all “comes across as [me] trying to buy time”.
To which I respond: I am not at all “trying to buy time”. Rather, I have been holding to a valid point of praxis; and in the process, seeing how much of her own method and praxis and presumption-base I can draw out. That’s solid “debate” strategy and readers can consider from the record of my extended exchanges with ‘Miranda’ here on this thread whether my strategy has borne useful fruit.
Thus, then, as to her further bit on the “Einstein” analogy: he would first have had to decide to indulge her demand, then second give her a synopsis. He might have said “Relativity is a very important conceptual framing and you should familiarize yourself with it”.
That, anyway, is what I will say: The Stampede bears very high probability of having been a highly doubtful, complex, synergistic enterprise, fraught with question-worthy and questionable elements, and you are welcome to familiarize yourself with my position in the material I have gone to great length, at great expense of time and energy, to develop. Do feel free to do so.
And if she feels she is competent in Relativity theory simply by having munched a quickie online synopsis or two, then she is operating at a level better suited to other types of sites on the Web. And if she is, or if she were, a university-level faculty member or possesses a university-level degree, and this is news to her … then readers may also consider that as they will. And if is not news to here, then what is she on about on this site with all this gaming?
So: arrogance. Your fallback here is arrogance.
To view a request for a synopsis (on a topic that you yourself have presented) as something to be "indulged" is not the behavior of someone who values debate, it's the tantrum of an egoist.
On the 22nd at 339PM, she then tries this gambit: I am merely “referring to [my] own collected works as necessary reading for any further discussion”. Ummmmm – Yes, especially if that “discussion” is going to include my conceptualizations underlying “Stampede” and my other terms.
And do we not see here her presumption that she already comes to this site with all the stuff she needs to ‘know’ and whatever’s been said prior to her arrival is … doo-doo? Such conceptual and academic chops.
Thus, she is not here to join the TMR discussion or “discuss” anything at all. She is here with the real (i.e. her own) stuff and we will all benefit from paying attention and forgetting anything else that has gone before. But Annie Oakley here will need some convenient targets specifically set up for her, please, if she is going to demonstrate her competence with a six-shooter; she is – it would appear, and marvelously so – looking to be “the new gunslinger in town” (but she’s going to need some easy targets, provided for her with no shilly-shallying around).
There are no “gunslingers” here (although some are pretty quick with their cap-pistols, admittedly). She can join the locals on Main Street or she can start shooting on her own, although so far her gunslinger-y has been aimed mostly up in the air. And she has put quite a bit of ‘lead’ up there; that much is certain.
My archived comments (and she does seem to want to engage me specifically) do not contain “all” that she would need and I have never claimed that they do. But for the topics she chooses to engage, they are clearly relevant and she can deal with that or continue with her tantrums and distractions.
And the rest of her comment is a repetition of some of her material that has already been dealt with at length on this thread.
But it is oddly curious that for someone who does so much want to make a splash with her positions on the Catholic Abuse Matter, she’s not really at all interested in researching what’s here already, readily available for her perusal and consideration.
Yes, I came knowing the common terms used in the English language used to describe religion, sexual abuse, and I even came equipped with some knowledge of Catholicism.
No, just made-up terms that currently have no provided definition but are introduced into the discussion.
Oh, I'm very interested in getting a definition for "the Stampede". Sadly it doesn't seem to have a concrete definition, just years' worth of disparate comments that may or may not be part of the current description. And the librarian with access to the dictionary is inexplicably keeping it behind the counter and refusing access, saying that instead I need to go back to the Stacks and follow the entire etymological journey.
On the 22nd at 344PM ‘Miranda’ then continues:
She tries to slide-by her very problematic position about looking in the record/archives here by trying to shift the focus to her ‘fascination’ with what – to her mind – constitutes my being “incapable of repeating –my ideas”.
First, I too am “fascinated”: that somebody would come onto the site radiating so no-nonsense and professional an aura, yet refuse to perform the most basic professional tasks necessary to conduct discussion and assessment. (Or has she actually read the archives, yet wants readers to think that she hasn’t and she won’t?)
And I am thus – and again – instructed to “just state your definitions when asked”. I already have.
Second, I have been working on drawing her out – in basic debate strategy praxis – and I think my efforts have been quite useful, for my own information and for readers here. It will now constitute, I would say, a rather interesting aspect of the record/archive on this site. So if it’s any consolation to her, she’s already contributed quite a bit to the history of comment on the Catholic Abuse Matter. That must console her.
Whether she also wishes to inform herself as to the ‘status questionis’ that this site has evolved over the years on this highly-focused and vital Matter … I can only recommend that she exert herself to look through the “recipe collection” here; it may indeed by “un-indexed” and “un-categorized” but it’s all on aspects relevant – and vitally so, I would say – to any comprehensive appreciation of the Catholic Abuse Matter. Presuming, of course, that she’s looking to actually inform herself on that Matter.
Such flattery, Mr P! I'm blushing.
I read final copies. If the final copy is of particular interest, I'll read the drafts and dive into the footnotes. You're withholding the final copy and instead telling me to look through scribbled notes.
How could I have missed this! Link me please to a place where you defined "the Stampede" in this thread.
Everyone needs a hobby, I suppose.
On the 22nd at 349PM ‘Miranda’ will then try to explain away her use of such referenced sources as “People” magazine and assorted online fanzines: the point isn’t at all about my “retrospective refining of [my] criteria”; the point is that I had presumed that, given the chops she apparently would like everyone to assume that she has, it did not even occur to me that she would be proffering “People” and fanzines as reliable for the discussion here. That presumption of mine was clearly too generous and I won’t make that mistake again. I promise.
And she is not amused with my “popcultural touchpoints” references. Alas. Too bad. So what? I think my specific references and analogies work rather aptly and well. If she has any specific ones that she feels are inapt or ineffectual, she is welcome to put her specific objections up here.
The wonderful thing about journalism is that if you quote someone and then publish the quote, it had better be accurate or the attributed speaker can sue the bejeesus out of the publication. The article in question contained a lot of quotes – not the softer, easier-to-libel prose interpretation, but actual quotes from people involved with the Spotlight movie. If you're dismissing hard quotes in publications purely because you dislike the publication's readership, that's pretty short-sighted and elitist of you.
Not so much "not amused", more totally mystified. The references plus your writing style demographically place you in a 30-year range, to my guess, but the way you're surfacing them is unusual. There's nothing to object to in that they're your references and clearly are relevant to you, I just haven't heard either of them for a long time.
On the 22nd at 406PM ‘Miranda’ will continue on about the technical aspects of contemporary TV screen technology. As I said, my analogy is, in my estimation, quite apt – for the reasons I have proffered in a prior comment on this thread – and her further efforts here to go on about the arcana of that technology can stay right up where they were put. Readers may judge as they will.
Well I'd hope they stay up where they're put, since they're accurate descriptions of HDTV and the difficulty of transmitting files packed with pixels. I thought it was a pretty apt rejoinder to your assertion that more pixels make for a clearer picture.
On the 22nd at 419PM ‘Miranda’ will get back to her “slang” bits.
I have – she insists – “created [my] own terminology”. I have created my own short-hand words, and they are hardly inapt or irrelevant. One can call a battleship colloquially a ‘battlewagon’ and one isn’t somehow obfuscating nor seeking to imply that such an imposing vessel is merely a ‘wagon”; one can call an aircraft carrier a ‘flat-top’ without being irrelevant or obfuscating.
And my purpose for creating those short-hand terms in reference to the Abuse Matter was that they represent major and complex elements of the ongoing discussion and it saves a lot of time, since the concepts they represent come up rather often in that discussion. And I have often and at length explained that and it’s in the record and there’s no need here to go down that road yet again.
And once again we see, in her concluding question, the familiar Abusenik gambit of I’m Not/You Are.
I'm so glad you gave us some common ground to work from. For instance:
Your turn!
Then on the 22nd at 1029AM JR will take up both pom-poms and cap-pistol to take one of his customary walks down Main Street, in the asserted company of some of the other Abuseniks, the quality of whose input is in the record here now.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
Dear Ann Smith, I fail to see any religious bigotry or obvious hatred toward your organization. What we would like to see is some sense of truthfulness coming from a religion which claims they are "The True Church of God". Until they come out of the closet and quit hiding in the shadows, many of us will not accept their excuses for the horrible crimes they have committed against humanity and especially innocent children. I totally agree with you that the "priesthood is NOT largely gay". They are predominately child abusers, which makes their sin a hundred times worse. To make wild claims that "sex abusers comprised less than one percent of the priesthood", it might be time you remove your blinders and try to climb out of your darkness. To call anyone in anger, "you hater" for attempting to seek the truth, somewhat makes you the much bigger hater. I think it's past time that the church and it's members stop pointing the finger at others, and start working on truly cleaning up their own backyard. Until then you show yourselves as truly cruel and bigoted, and let me add hypocritical. I suggest, since the church claims to be Godly and good, you might want to start practicing what you preach. You make rules against marriage for your " Holier than thou Hierarchy ", tell others they shouldn't have sex before marriage, while the hierarchy is sexually abusing young boys, minors and babies of both sexes. Utterly disgusting and hypocritical. May Christ's light shine down upon the darkness and expose the wickedness for what it truly is.
Jim, Your anger towards God is palpable. If that anger is towards the catholic god or their many gods or goddesses, then I may be alright with that. I question, from what I have heard, do you still consider yourself a catholic? Are you aware that their Jesus Christ, is either baby Jesus or Him slaughtered, crowned with thorns and crucified on the cross. Mine is the Risen One, alive and willing to help us through our troubles. They think baby Jesus can't judge them(to young), and the ones their ancestors, the Holy Roman Empire killed surely would have a tougher time judging, because they totally annihilated Him. You don't yet realize what they did to Christ, Son of God, came down in the form of man to do nothing but good, healing the sick and disabled and opening the eyes of the blind. Would you have rather suffered His punishment, than being molested by the pervs? Don't you realize that their god is most definitely mother mary, goddess aka. "Queen of Heaven". That's why P continues to mock my God, because he doesn't recognize Him and he's to busy bowing down, praying the rosary and worshipping the false ones, which include all the saints. Most other religions, likewise, don't know my God cause they're to busy worshipping the money god, another of the catholic's special deities. Why do you think pope francis's first line of duty was to straighten out the finances of the vatican curia. Notice that when any crimes took place in the vatican bank, the thieves were quickly fired, all except one. He was probably the only one sharing the booty( excuse the pun) with the pope. You can harm our children and babies and get away with it, but don't dare mess with our money god. Don't you wish they handled the perverts with equally swift justice. Do you still think this issue is not about God, as you once explained to me. Maybe you and P are the only ones who think so. Hopefully you haven't switched teams on us. I also question, "How have you put up with and stuck with this nonsense, back and forth, waste of time, for so long?" Take care, Dan
P.S. Why do you think religions ask for tithes, donations, offerings, gifts, second donations, money for archbishops bling fund, school, roof, remodel the altar and leave those hard wooden pews for the dumb sheep. That not being enough, they sell books, DVD's, CD's, statues, rosary beads, chalices, silky and satiny garments, etc. Must I go on? Ever question why these words are not in the bible. Pope, catholic church, rosary, mediators other than Jesus to get to God, etc. etc. etc. Wrote a long P.S. just for P, the 4th wiseguy. I'll save you repeating yourself again so please get this clear. The catholic church brought the books together, they were already written. I love and read a catholic approved bible. Only difference is I actually follow it and live it, not screw with it's meaning and then make claims to believe in it. Just for Mr. Mocker- Dan, servant of THE ONE TRUE GOD
Colloquially speaking you're an obfuscatingly, ostensibly, superficially, irrelevant, annoying little nerdy dweeb according to the gaggle of every gambit, agitprops of the Abusenik Stampede. Google that in your Thesaurus and see if doesn't refer to the word rePublion.
Laughing Hysterically Dan, servant of the Wonderful, Kind, Loving, Forgiving, Caring + Fun God
P.S. All should try to learn and find out what He truly is about.
116 "comments" , out of 260, by P. Averaging about 10 paragraphs a comment. Paragraphs representing various "ideas" P wants to "share" with lucky us. That's very roughly 1160 "ideas" from the poison pen der P.
Whew!!!!!
So out of 1160 "thoughts" he won't define his basic premise: "Stampede" for Miranda????
But why is she engaging the dope? We all know he's bullshit yet "she's" so smart.???
I don't believe any of this nonsense. This battle with Miranda is a joke. A ploy as it were to bore the readership. Miranda is obviously P's intellectual superior. (It would be hard to find a human or animal who wasn't.) But why are all these people writting here and blowing such large amounts of smoke?? To hide what?
My question is: With all these smart people writing about justice and morality and truth. Nobody says anything about the victims and what we have and are going through?
So, it appears, these posturings of moralty are only that posturings, a show (and not a very good show at that.)
This is a smoke screen all of it.
Some one wants us tot alk about anything and everything but the horrible damage done to the catholic victims. Never are we to discuss what paltry little has been done FOR victims.
Never discuss SNAP or Doyle or VOTF or TMR as being anything other than what they pretend to be. Therby justifying such shitty representation of victims by never mentioning the victims or our shit unelected representatives; and that, most definitly includes "our" lead lawyer Jeff Anderson. A man chosen as such by who?
Who asked any of these people SNAP; VOTF; Jeff Anderson; BA, Doyle TMR to do what they're doing? It seems they really only asked each other. (Nice work if you can get it!) and are really there/here to cross authenticate each other as being what and who they say they are. Obfuscation is the plan being enacted with all these stupid arguments.
Years ago I called this site a Cul D Sac ,a dead end created to stop traffic. I still think that's true.
Yammer away.
So
On the 24th at 1026AM JR will add a calculator to the pom-poms and cap gun, apparently to remind everyone that if nothing else, he can – given enough time – count. And – possibly – even do ‘averages’.
He’s hard put to keep up with it all (that “Whew!!!!!”) – and who can be surprised?
Had he actually been reading, instead of counting, he might have caught that major new element in my comments. But clearly, he can’t read and count at the same time. And doesn’t really like reading at all.
However, JR is never one to let ignorance deter him and he heads further into the valley of the Little Big Horn here by wondering why she is engaging me at all – precisely the question I have been working toward shedding some light on throughout this exchange with her.
Readers may take what JR does or does not believe and consider it as they will.
And, of course, if JR can’t understand something, why then it can only be and it must be “posturing”.
But after all that amusement, he then shows his hand: he was looking for an entrée to dump yet again his pile of 3x5s about compensation and so on and so forth. Thus JR will attempt to take the high ground (which was pretty much where Custer wound up too).
And as if one can “discuss” with JR – who can only be agreed-with or else he is ‘attacked’. Such a krool krool world, is it not?
His effort at French is as successful as his efforts at Latin and readers so inclined can further amuse themselves as he doth “yammer away”.
Jim, I started commenting here because of the attached post about the Globe's breaking of the abuse story and then the translation into film. Victim advocacy is an entirely different area that I'll leave to others more versed in that world.
Jim, Are you kidding me.? Have you read any of my posts and especially the one 11/23 @ 12:19. I've been protesting for your's and all victim's causes for nine years. I'm not a victim of child molestation, but am a victim of the church, for sticking my neck out to seek justice for all those they have harmed. I've protested at dozens of churches in my county in Ca. I even protested at our courthouse several times, but most notably when gov. brown, the jesuit seminarian, vetoed SB 131, which would have opened up the statute of limitations for sexual abuse. I leave it to you to look it up. Just because everyone isn't out there waving a flag to let you know the good things they've done, doesn't equate to no one cares. There's got to be more out there than me. Problem is I think they may be few and far between. Sorry you forced my hand, otherwise you would have probably never known. Make sure you "fight the good fight" otherwise you'll be fighting an uphill, long, drawn out battle if you plan to do it without God's help. Best to you, Jim and all victims
On the 23rd at 1023AM JR again tries a display of his chops out on Main Street.
That “we” who “all know that” I am “an idiot or worse” is comprised of the Abuseniks he names. Readers may consider the quality of that crew as they may.
And by presuming what precisely is at question here – i.e. that there actually was a broad-scale “train wreck” – he can then move on to what he would like to be his zinger: that “since both the state and the church choose to do nothing”. But the “state” is somewhat limited in what it can overtly do, this being a democracy and a limited constitutional government and all; the Church now has the most competent protocols of child protection of any large (or perhaps even small) organization on the planet.
However, I would add that the government has done its bit in contributing quietly to the synergy that is the Stampede.
‘Dan’ returns on the 23rd at 1219PM.
He now reveals that he himself understands what it means to be falsely accused because – marvelously – “the Catholic clergy and laity have laid upon me terrible accusations that were completely false” and they “lied” and – we are to believe – said that he wanted to “kill them”. And the story goes on from there.
Readers may consider this curious variant on the usual Abusenik story as they will. But if anybody in the Church organization called attention to any material of his such as we have seen here, then he might want to seriously consider that the gravamen of those observations were hardly “lies” (except to a mind that is convinced it is informed directly by God and so on and so forth).
Apparently he was “jumped” from behind and he reported this to the “principle”. Was he as an adult going on with school kids? Or is this a story from the way-back (implying that ‘Dan’ has been having trouble with people for quite a while)?
But – that marvelous psychic economy – he dismisses all objections to whatever his material is or has been as “Lies, on top of lies, backed by more lies”. Back to the sun-porch then, seems the best thing to do here.
But then he reveals that has been “in jail 6 times” and “in mental institutions 6 more times times”. Well, that is a revelation – if true – that readers may consider as they may.
He then addresses me directly: he doesn’t “need proof to prove it”, doncha see?
Then an odd bit about receiving “information from the courts 6 months later” and before one can properly wonder at that revelation, this “Dan, servant of the One true God” then PS’s that – had you been waitttttting forrrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – all these three instances of ‘6’ lead up to the familiar ‘666’.
What more, really, can be said?
On the 23rd at 956PM ‘Miranda’ instructs that “definition” is “required” for my use of the term ‘Stampede’. It has been given, at length and with substantial explication. It’s not on this thread? Then she has to do some research – but that’s not how she rolls.
You claim it's in your head. Oddly, the circuit between your brain and fingers malfunctions whenever I ask that you type it out. "Length and explication" isn't a merit in this case; I'm looking for the dictionary, not the encyclopedia.
On the 23rd at 1014PM ‘Miranda’ tells me that I am “falling short in the analogy department”.
If she went back into “the kitchen” she would find the term described at length and in great detail, nor would she then know merely “by default”. A genuine researcher would want to do that anyway, but that’s not how she rolls.
And nobody’s writing a “dictionary entry” here; this is a serious and extended and extensive discussion she has chosen to join; she’s not a consumer/customer in a restaurant (but I think she’d make an unpleasant customer, certainly).
She then tries to wiggle around the problem with her research chops with the theory that “the subject doesn’t define relevancy, the researcher defines relevancy”. Well, then, if we presume the validity of her rather dubious theorizing here, she’d best get ‘researching’, if she’s a ‘researcher’.
And since this is so highly focused a site, and since I have gone to great lengths to filter my submissions for relevance to the focused topic of this site, then she won’t be wading through a lot of extraneous and irrelevant material – if she is actually looking to come up to speed on the Catholic Abuse Matter as that subject has been developed on this site. But she isn’t looking to bring herself up to speed on that Matter; she seems to have some other plan or agenda that she wants to deploy here.
As to her (professional, she would have us think) declaration of my stance on her demands to be “a huge red flag”, readers may consider as they will. As I have said in my most recent comments, her performance here has been waving a rather significant set of signal flags about herself.
And before getting to the interviews, a researcher would have to bring him/herself up to speed by reading the relevant material, just like in debate.
Having witnessed what you consider to be "filtered" material, the dictionary definition is the best use of everyone's time.
The "relevant material" would be industry standards, internal protocols, legal restrictions – that sort of thing. Formats that require groups of people to conform to them. You're positing that it's worthwhile research to read up on one individual's personal thoughts on a subject – their diary entries or work-in-progress manuscript. Unless I'm researching the individual (which I'm not), then that sort of deep dive is wasteful.
Your protocols and definitions serve an audience of one: yourself. They're not a standard and the only insights they give are into you as an individual. I'm asking you for summaries, in this case slang definitions. That's an appropriate extent for research.
On the 23rd at 1025PM ‘Miranda’ claims she doesn’t really know (“Heck if I know”) why she seems to conflate her opinion with the opinion of everybody – which, as we have often seen on this site, is a typical Abusenik gambit to try to spackle up the status of their personal assertions and claims.
Such a lack of insight into herself could use some work and I’ll leave it at that.
Her next effort to wish-away her problems here is to declare that I am “not a source for reference”. She wants the definition of a term I developed and I am not a valid “source for reference”? What is she up to here (presuming she is not simply getting rather confused)?
And if I am “not a source for reference”, then why does she want any material from me at all?
She then tries to finesse this gaping problem she has just created for herself by claiming that I am just a “discussion participant”. As is she, is she not? And so once again we are back to square one – or rather, we haven’t left it. If we are all “discussion participants” and – in her schematic here – such persons are “not a source for reference” then … what?
And how would she actually and accurately know enough about my material to assert that I am “footnoting [my] own thoughts” and nothing more if she hasn’t read my material? And if she does indeed feel that she has sufficient evidence from my material to make that assertion legitimately, then she can explicate her assertion with accurate quotations from my material (including what she reads about my use of the terms in question).
And she concludes with her usual bit about not ‘defining’ my own “made-up terminology”. She can read, so let her read. Researchers have to do a lot of that.
No, that would be your thought. My "heck if I know" is in reference to you being seemingly incapable of defining "the Stampede", which is your own terminology.
You're confusing definition with etymology. I don't care how you arrived at your definition, I want the working definition of a phrase you frequently use. Not years of evolving thoughts - just this moment in time, what do you mean by "the Stampede".
I don't need to know about your material to assert you're footnoting – you keep telling me to look at your vast body of work to explain your posts. It's a shadow play.
On the 23rd at 1032PM ‘Miranda’ once again bemoans that I have it all “in my head” but I won’t give it to her. And I am making her have to go “trawling through the archives to winnow out the disparate piece you’ve scatter about”.
First, that’s a lot of what researchers do. And on a highly focused site like this, she isn’t going to have to put up with too much that’s irrelevant.
Second, if she doesn’t know too much about the Catholic Abuse Matter and the ‘status questionis’ as it has been developed on this site, then as a researcher she needs to do the reading. But again: if she’s not actually a researcher, or if she already has a scripted-scenario or gameplan she’s trying to implement here, then that might well explain her refusal to do any reading: she doesn’t need to because she’s up to something else.
She then claims that by going through my material in the record here she would just be opening herself up to the possibility of being contradicted by me at some future point, or to the possibility that I will use an “infinite” variety of dodges to confound her. This is a possibility every researcher faces; did she not learn or realize that during the course of her education? But I don’t dodge on this site; indeed, most Abusenik complaints have been to the effect that I discuss too many aspects (thus complicating, if not also screwing up, their neat little canned scenarios and claims).
Does she come to this site looking to participate in an ongoing and long-established discussion? It would seem not. She has a scenario in her head, she needs a “500-word” “elevator-pitch” snippet to get her little plan working – that much was clear to me almost from the outset here. She’ll need to read up and then she can run her little plan and I’ll deal with it as we then go along.
And as she then says outright: she really and actually “doesn’t care about anything” except that definitional snippet. So she’s up to something after all.
And so I am not refusing here out of “pique”. Rather, I sensed she was up to something almost from the outset and I’ve been blocking that play all along. But if she wants to read up and then join the issues with accurate quotations and some larger degree of information, she will find a ready interlocutor in me.
Researchers do that when the creator is dead or unavailable. What's bizarre here is that you're available, you're just being deliberately obtuse and evasive.
Are you under the impression that you're leading a seminar?
This is conspiracy nonsense again.
I came to the site looking to discuss the attached article. That's generally how publishing websites work, as well as comments sections. You discuss the attached article.
On the 23rd at 1039PM she then gives herself away: I am “hiding behind “a pile of obstructive, irrelevant and outdated material”. And how would she know that, not having ‘trawled’ through my material already?
She then gets herself away from the substantive and tries to go the ‘personal feelings’ route (toned, as always, in the epithetical mode): it’s “amazing” to her and so on.
It’s only “amazing” if she presumes she’s so clever that her primary (and ulterior) motive and game could not possibly have been obvious.
Ditto then her effort (in boldface) at a ‘logical’ conclusion: “Upshot is, you don’t have a definition”. And she would know that … how, especially if she hasn’t read my material? But this is just another example of her trying to use her little block collection to build herself a congenial structure.
And that paragraph continues with her analysis of my material, an analysis so specific that either she has read the material already or she is just trying to spin my material in a way congenial to her game.
And she concludes that my “style of debate” is “tiresome and unconvincing”. It may tire or frustrate her, but – as I have said – it’s not designed to ‘convince’, it’s designed to suss out the actual ulterior game she’s trying to run here.
Because you won't define a term you use frequently, coined, and claim to have defined, preferring to wave in the direction of archived comment threads.
Because I say "what's the definition" and you won't give it. The concept of dictionaries has been around long enough to be generally recognized, I'm not sure why you've decided to overturn millenia of written tradition.
I assure you I haven't. So you can leave that part out of whatever intrigue you're cooking up.
On the 23rd at 1049PM she says that she would go about participating in an on-going discussion (with an extended focused archive) by “asking for definitions”. They’re in the archive at length, she’s purportedly a researcher, so … ?
She has never experienced what she is experiencing here: a “common poster” telling her to look up things on the site archive. Well, one can only imagine what sort of internet sites are more congenial to her and the quality of any “common poster” there. But this is a highly-focused site and she’s a researcher and there’s a lot of focused commentary that is surely not the usual “common” stuff to be found on more general sites at various levels of the internet. Is that news to her?
Nor am I at all trying to get rid of her with a “get out of here, newbie” gambit. She has continued to keep herself a “newbie” by refusing to bring herself up to speed on the archives and I, for one, am not going to go along with her game here. So I would suggest she research, quote accurately, state her objections, and we can certainly proceed on that basis.
She then quotes Merriam-Webster as to the meaning of “cattle stampede”. Is this the usual level of her research? But she’s off to a good start. When she gets to my ‘Stampede’ material it may very well help her there.
BT
On the 23rd at 1052PM ‘Miranda’ will then avoid the (for her purposes) uncongenial aspects of her own ‘debate’ scenario because – doncha see? – my “extra-thread musings are not ‘relevant’ material”. Then why is she on about wanting anything from my material at all? This thread isn’t the only thread on a highly-focused site about a topic that – we can only imagine – she is rather interested in.
And then another running of her “amazing” bit.
Dictionary, not enyclopedia. Dictionary.
Because you keep introducing your made-up term "the Stampede" as though it means something, but when asked what it means you won't give a definition. If you're going to bring in a random term of your own making, be prepared to also bring a definition.
On the 23rd at 1057PM she tries another familiar gambit: I am merely indulging in “arrogance”. Which, coming from one who has delivered herself of so many ungrounded accusations, declarations, and assertions here is rather revealing, in that marvelously projective way.
And she repeats it, just for good measure.
If she were really a debater, she would already have familiarized herself with her interlocutor’s material on her own. (Or: perhaps she already has done so and all this is just a gambit.)
And then – again in that marvelously projective way – she declares my position here to be “the tantrum of an egoist”.
I view those who refuse to answer questions out of arrogance and superiority very dimly. It is the complete opposite of what is valuable in education. It's basically hoarding.
On the 23rd at 1104PM she claims that she came to this site (only) with “knowing the common terms used in the English language”. But as a researcher and debater she would have come to this site knowing what her chosen interlocutor had written.
She then tries to spin away what I think is her actual attitude to prior material on this site (i.e. “doo-doo”) by saying that my terms are “just made-up terms”. The archive is there (and who knows if she hasn’t already read through it?) and their explanations are available in detail.
She then claims that she is indeed “very interested” – but only in “getting a definition for ‘the Stampede’”. (She can research that very easily.)
Then a Wig (“sadly”). Alas for her. And then she goes on witht her opinion about my ‘Stampede’ term that “it doesn’t seem to have a concrete definition” – it would, if she researched it. (Or perhaps she already has.)
And – also alas for her – my definition of ‘the Stampede’ hasn’t become outmoded nor have I fundamentally changed it in all the time I have been on this site. This refutes her effort to justify her gambit on this thread by implying that my prior material may now be “outdated” (so she wants to avoid “outdated” material by getting a fresh and up-to-date definition). The Stampede hasn’t changed in its fundamental elements and dynamics and neither has my definition, so she won’t have to worry about that.
Thus too there has been no “etymological journey” in my definition of the term, so she doesn’t have to worry about that either.
I didn't choose you, you showed up. I came for the article.
Well that's just fact. You didn't take them from a source, and they haven't been picked up as a standard. It's just you.
You think hairpieces are made of adverbs. Got it.
Fabulous. Then with no fundamental change there should be no need to go into archives to trace etymology. You use the phrase enough that you're confident in its meaning. Definition, please.
On the 23rd at 1110PM she tries to extricate herself from my implication that there is a questionable aspect to her “aura” of “no-nonsense and professional” by taking it as a compliment. Readers may judge as they will.
She then tries to justify her gambit here by insisting that she only doth “read final copies”. Well, every comment I put up here has been carefully considered and expressed and I consider each one to be a “final copy” of itself; none of my comments here are rightly characterizable as “scribbled notes” or “drafts”. So she is welcome to consult them. Her effort to connect herself to the editor’s task is undermining her here.
And in regard to my point that I am involved here with “drawing her out” – in a standard debate stratagem or tactic: she tries to wish that away with her “hobby” comment. Juvenile, but there it is.
That you might actually believe this is… [WIG VERB].
Why would I "wish that away"? Go for it.
On the 23rd at 1122PM ‘Miranda’ then talks – as if she were professionally familiar with it – about “journalism”. And she has just made comment about only reading “final copy” and a while back she demonstrated an example of how she would edit my comments. So perhaps we might be dealing with a newspaper person here. Readers may consider as they will.
As to her take on my comments about the types of references in some of her linked-articles, she will simply say (or instruct) that the article I quoted had many quotes. So it did, and I referred to some of them and accurately.
And she then discourses about aspects of journalism. But again, there grows the strong inference that she is somehow connected with newspapers (or a newspaper) and if that inference is accurate, then we are indeed dealing with some ulterior gambit here and have been all along.
But she would correct me: it isn’t that she is “not amused” with my “popcultural touchpoints”. Rather, she declares herself – in a somewhat juvenile expression – as being “totally mystified”. Really? “Totally”? She needs to get out more.
Her (distracting and irrelevant) speculations about my age and so forth can stay right up there.
Don't worry, you're not – you can take the tinfoil hat off. Researcher, remember? I have a strong interest in how well a quote would hold up to scrutiny; slander and libel are good motivators.
Of course I need to get out more, I've wasted a massive amount of time going back and forth with you when I could be out socializing. But you basically referenced Sputnik and then Lisa Simpson, while posting Dickens-esque wordcounts. How would I not find those contradictions mystifying?
And on the 23rd at 1125PM ‘Miranda’ reasserts the accuracy of her technical arcana. She thought it was “apt” but apparently missed the metaphorical and cultural context of the references.
Can't help it that you picked an analogy that I knew more about than you.
On the 23rd at 1127PM ‘Miranda’ tries to get her definition again. No luck there.
Noted! So weird that you can't define your self-coined term "the Stampede"…
On the 23rd at 517PM ‘Dan’ returns.
Marvelously, he is on about the Church calling itself “The True Church of God” – and this from a self-styled “Servant” and so on and so forth.
He presumes – as he must to keep his thing going – all the “horrible crimes”.
That “sex abusers” comprise only a small (the Jay Reports tally 4 percent of priests since about 1950 accused) percentage of the priesthood is – he asserts – “wild claims” (which he knows … how … unless by spiritual telegraph from the Beyond).
And then he’s on about “marriage”.
And ‘Dan’ returns on the 23rd at 1054PM.
Readers can consider his bits to “Jim” as they will, although I note his remarkably inaccurate reference to the Church’s “mother mary, goddess” and such.
He does, however, acknowledge that it was the Church that compiled the NT as we have it, and incorporated various of the OT Books as well.
At this point, he simply doesn’t think the Church has lived up to its potentials and responsibilities as fully as he would like. Nothing human ever lives up to its potentials and responsibilities as fully as anybody would like. It goes with the territory and is included under the theological rubric of the Mystery of Sin, to the dynamics of which everything human (and material) is subjected. This would include ‘Dan’, alas – although clearly that possibility is not congenial to the psychic economy he has constructed for himself.
And ‘Dan’ returns again on the 24th at 1222AM – or at least, the ‘Dan’ that does get excited about tossing about the epithetical. In light of my observations in a prior comment on this thread in regard to his of the 23rd at 1219PM I think his bits here can simply be left where they are and enough about that.
Jim, I absolutely feel you and all victims should be paid off generously for what was suffered and know there is not enough money in the world to pay for the pain and damage you and your families had to endure. At the same time, I've kept up on many stories and am disgusted with the bankruptcies, excuses, lies, denials and overall shell game they have played with victims. Take care, Dan
P, As already described "smwarmy". You are a fact twisting, greasy, sleazy, oily, irrelevant, obnoxious, pretentious, little nurd dweeb weasel, that isn't worth my time or energy to discuss or debate anything with. You make the bishops of your church who shifted known child molesters to other cities, towns, states, countries and orphanages look like saints. With catholic deceivers and excusers like you, I can understand why your church is willing to elevate any losers to the position of saint. It's called desperation. SERVANT DAN
P.S. Maybe when the liars falsely accuse me again, I'll pay you a visit out on the sun porch. I heard your a permanent resident. I'll see if your so willing to spew your garbage then!
It is written, "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things about you because you are my followers. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who came before you." Matthew 5: 10-12
So you can put that in your dope pipe and smoke it! Or is it 'dope', you can put that in your pipe and smoke it. Works both ways, P Wee.
Yes, I acknowledge that they compiled the Bible, but be clear that they did not write any of the material. By their actions, I don't believe any of your kind know how to read it or interpret it. Me again, reluctantly acknowledging the irrelevant one.
"Was he as an adult going on with school kids?" – P The children were in the school yard, behind a chain link fence that's 8 ft. tall. I was walking by on the public sidewalk, and made no attempt to approach the children. Your sick little dirty mind wants to make something of that? I'm not on Megan's list like the majority of your clergy should be if they're not already. At first I didn't understand Jim and others saying bad things against you, but now I understand completely and know you deserve everything you get. Creep on sicko! Crawl back under the rock you slithered out from.
P.S. There's no "Mystery of Sin". Your wicked church and belief system has the market cornered on the "theological rubric". And why do you capitalize "Mystery of Sin". Is it because of it's importance to your beliefs? Duh! I don't know why were such bad sinners? It's all a mystery to us. Try keeping your zippers up and you might solve the mystery, cause you're no mystery to us. TOTALLY EXPOSED AND DISGUSTING!!!
P says Dan's "remarkably inaccurate reference to the church's 'mother mary, goddess' " and conveniently leaves out "Queen of Heaven", which seals the deal. I gave you Jer. chapter 7 and 44 predicting a heathen belief system worshipping numerous false Gods and idols. OT declaring things to come in NT future times, right down to her exact title of "Queen of Heaven". "You have disobeyed me by putting your disgusting idols in my temple, and now the temple itself is disgusting to me." Jer 7:30 "Time after time I sent My 'servants the prophets' (Dan) to tell the people how much I hated their disgusting sins. The prophets warned them to stop sinning but they refused to listen and would not stop worshipping other gods. Jer 44:4-5 "we worshipped the 'Queen of Heaven' and offered sacrifices of wine and special loaves of bread shaped like her(form of the moon refers to the host). So your church, in front of the monstrance, pagan symbol to sun worship, offers wine and round white disks in the shape of little moons. Guadalupe is seen standing on a black moon, the color of darkness, not light. You worship her at Lourdes. Check out your TV program EWTN and see how much programing is devoted to her, statues and images of her on many of them. Pictures of your popes bowing down to the crowned goddess. More pictures of your pope dressed like santa claus and yet make claims that I worship the pig, who slithers down the chimney. Even brainwashing your little children, demanding them to pray the gospel, so you can indoctrinate them at a young age. Despicable. Are you that dense or do you still believe my description of your mary to be "remarkably inaccurate". "Like their statues, they have eyes but refuse to see and ears but refuse to hear". God calls, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up high as heaven and God has remember her iniquities. Rev 18:4-5 Read Revelations chapter 17 and 18 and tell me that it doesn't describe Vatican City, Rome. Don't let the idol worshipping pagans deceive you. Their desire is that you follow them into the depths of Hell, while they rob you of all your belongings, including your soul, before you get there. Fear the Lord your God and you shall fear nothing else.
Peace and Love to all who have the ears to hear, Dan
Correction- "Even brainwashing your little children, demanding them to pray the 'gospel' " Gospel should be 'the rosary'. Guess I was wishful thinking. They would rather you hear things in Latin so you have no clue to how they pollute the bible and gospels. I know P, your gonna tell me about how brilliant you are because you know Latin, you annoying twit.
Miranda, I do not believe that you will ever get a straight answer for the def. "The Stampede". Like everything else he spews, does it ever make sense to the business at hand or is it just a bunch of nonsensical jibberish that more or less impresses himself and none of us. With my "Godly psychic abusenik economy" I'll try to clairvoyantly define it for you. "The Stampede" is anyone who doesn't agree with P's agenda of deceiving, twisting facts, lying and polluting the truth in an attempt to confuse us and keep all from knowing what is true. Can I use it in a sentence for you? "The Stampede" is onto you Publion and ready to trample you underfoot.
I hope that is of some help, Dan
It's interesting to see how hard he struggles to avoid committing to a definition, isn't it? It's like someone going on and on about their birthday and when you finally say "so when IS your birthday?" and getting the response "I'm not going to tell you. Go look in the archives."
There's no good reason to refuse to provide information you claim to already have fully-formed inside your head.