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.
On the 24th at 739PM ‘Miranda’ instructs that “’length and explication’ isn’t a merit in this case” and that she wants a “dictionary” explanation, and not an “encyclopedia” piece.
And we are to accept her instructions here because … why? She can read it in the archive and she can go on from there.
Her fixation with getting her way here indicates to me – as I have said before on this thread – that she wants to run a particular scripted scenario that she likes, and for that she doesn’t need to inform herself, she just needs me to give my definition again. Whatever the game is here – and I think by now it’s obvious that she got one she’s trying to get going – it’s not going to work quite the way she wants. I don’t think she likes to be told that, but there it is.
Conspiracy theory again. What exactly would this scenario be?
Yes. I need your definition for "the Stampede". What exactly is the danger in providing it?
On the 24th at 746PM ‘Miranda’ will claim that on the basis of the material of mine that she has seen (just on this thread, presumably) then she doesn’t think it’s very filtered at all and so she still wants “the dictionary definition” as the “best use of everyone’s time”.
She proffers no examples of what material of mine is not “filtered” sufficiently, so what remains is simply – as so very often – her opinion, which, however, seems to her more than sufficient to handle all objections.
She then refers to “industry standards” and one does wonder: are we dealing with a newsie here of some sort, or some form of professional, or are we dealing with just another Abusenik with one or a dozen grandiose and declamatory bats in the belfry (as we have seen often, and so very recently, on this site)?
She’s going for the idea that it’s not worth her while to consider any prior comments on this site as needing to be ‘researched’ since they’re all nothing but “one individual’s personal thoughts” anyway. And won’t the definition she so insistently requires that I give her not also be – in her schematic – nothing more than my “personal thoughts”? There is then a fundamental incoherence in her entire gambit here.
And – really – has she not already “wasted” more time here already than she would have spent going over the archived commentary? So ‘wasting time’ is not the point here; she’s up to something else.
And would this not be even more so if – as she says here – she is just asking for “slang definitions”? What would be the point that would justify the significant expenditure of her time and effort here so far?
Nothing adds up here, when you look at it.
All of it. You don't edit, you repeat yourself, you use made-up terminology and you think quantity and quality and synonymous.
I've already told you I'm not a journalist. I'm a researcher. "Industry standards" is a pretty common term – like airline regulations or legal constraints.
Exactly.
Yes, but a definition would be SO MUCH SHORTER AND FASTER than trawling through archives.
Not sure that more time's been wasted, since I'm pretty sure even reading the entire archive would result in you refusing to commit to a definition. But I'm now far more curious about your persistent evasions than I was when we started all this. What began as a genuine desire not to waste time and effort has become a mystery as to why you won't just define "the Stampede" in this thread.
On the 24th at 751PM ‘Miranda’ tries to extricate herself from her rather obvious “Heck if I know” bit by now claiming that her bit there was actually referring to something else. That’s not how the grammar would have it in the comment she herself composed and put up.
And then she tries to avoid my question about “material” by trying to make a distinction (which I am “confusing”) between “definition and etymology”. Whatever I write will be my “material” and she has done nothing here but rather too-obviously attempted to evade the question arising from the corner into which she has painted herself here.
Ditto, she then tries to evade the question as to how she purportedly knows so much about my material if she – as she claims – hasn’t read it: she “doesn’t need to know about [my] material to assert [I’m] footnoting”. She doesn’t need to do much reading to ‘know’ an awful lot, it would seem. And perhaps that’s a habit with her.
That's the original exchange. You ask why it would be that you wouldn't want to supply a definition, and I say "heck if I know". Pretty straightfoward.
These are different words, so of course there's a distinction. Definition; "a statement of the exact meaning of a word". Etymology: "the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning". Functional difference.
I don't need to read your archival wonderings about and evolution of "the Stampede" (etymology), I need the exact meaning as you're applying it right now (definition).
Please don't flatter yourself. I have absolutely not touched the archives.
On the 25th at 755PM she tries to evade the what-researchers-do point by claiming that researchers only do that when “the creator is dead or unavailable”. She does like to make up the rules of this and that universe as she goes along. Do her debaters not ‘research’ interlocutors’ positions? And surely such debaters are not planning to debate the absent or the dead.
She then tries to evade the extent (or not) of her knowledge of the Catholic Abuse Matter and so forth by simply tossing out some snark: “Are you under the impression that you’re leading a seminar?” This from a commenter whose assorted instructions, orders, declarations, and lectures are now voluminously in the record. Is she not under the impression that she’s in charge here and leading the class?
She then attempts to pooh-pooh my surmises about her purpose in all of this by declaring that “this is conspiracy nonsense again”. Is she quite clear on the concept of “conspiracy”? I have not asserted she is in any way ‘conspiring’ with others, only that she gives quite a few indications that support the probability there’s an ulterior game play she’s trying to run here with all this ‘dictionary definition’ bit. There’s no other way to explain her performance here, unless we go the route of some form of obsession (and it would be nice to have at least one Abusenik around here who hasn’t got psychiatric issues bubbling under the surface).
And she then attempts to evade my final question – i.e. did she come here to participate in an ongoing and long-established discussion? – by asserting that she (only) came to “discuss the attached article”. Well if that is true, then let her discuss the attached article by all means. My term “Stampede” wasn’t in the article so what’s going on here?
The activities of "researching" and "debting" are not synonymous. Researchers look for fact, debaters look for information to support a thesis. Different things.
Fine – you're delusional. Better word?
You introduced the term repeatedly and finally, I asked about it. The article was the origin of discussion and then you introduced a new term. I asked for the definition and you then started off this incredibly evasive journey, including a claim that it's reasonable to demand that I go through archives to figure out what you're banging on about. This exchange is happening in this thread; if you want to bring something to this thread, that's fine, but then attempting to send people off the thread to figure out what you're talking about is unreasonable.
On the 24th at 759PM ‘Miranda’ tries to evade my question as to how she ‘knows’ so much if she hasn’t read (or “trawled through”)my material already: she just ‘knows’ this – doncha see? – because I won’t give her a definition most chop-chop on an easily-digestible kiddie-platter and have invited her to read up and inform herself from the material on this site, where the answer she seeks awaits her. I have apparently committed some form of ‘lese majeste’ in her personal universe (sorry for not adding the appropriate accent marks).
She then nails my thought down by demonstrating outright when she writes “Because I say ‘what’s the definition’” … and are we not to infer that she is under the strong impression that she is in charge here?
And in refusing to go along with her dictionary gambit she then proffers that in doing so I do “overturn millennia of written tradition”. I have always held, and continue to hold, that the TMR site is indeed unique and important, but not to the extent that it flies in the face of “millennia of written tradition”.
And she assures one and all that she has not read my material. OK, then, but that leaves her with only a mighty slender reed upon which to anchor her characterizations of my material.
Nor am I suggesting necessarily “intrigue”, if by that she means her “conspiracy” charge. She may well be running her own game according to her own ulterior plans and motives, and that’s as may be.
That is a lot of writing to cover up the fact that you don't have a firm definition for "the Stampede".
The issue here is that you're being deceptive in your conduct here. You made up a term, and leaned heavily on it while debating. When things started getting detailed and you were asked for a definition, you did everything you could to divert attention and evade while NOT providing the definition.
So we're left with a couple of conclusions. Either you are aware of the value of having a rougly-defined term to refer to in discussion, allowing you wriggle room to get out of rhetorical corners, and so refuse to fix to a definition (which you assure us is in your head); or your arrogance has convinced you that you somehow are above such detail as explaining what the hell you're talking about when you use internal slang. Neither conclusion is flattering, but could be easily dispelled with a definition.
On the 24th at 802PM ‘Miranda’ again repeats that she wants a “dictionary, not encyclopedia” definition.
She then attempts to support this by claiming that my term “Stampede” is a “made up term”, although she herself has reported finding the term in Merriam-Webster (thus it can hardly be a “random term of [my] own making”). And, as I wrote in an earlier comment on this thread, she will find the Merriam-Webster definition quite handy when she comes to inform herself as to my adaptation and application of the term for purposes of the discussion on this site.
You routined note it as "the Stampede", making it a proper noun. I noted "cattle stampede" is available in M-W, to give you an example to follow when providing your own definition. I never accused you of making up the word "stampede", only that you had coined the term "the Stampede". A term that you claim has a definition, though you don't feel inclined to share.
On the 24th at 804PM ‘Miranda’ informs me that she views “arrogance and superiority very dimly”. Thus the declamation from Osborne House. She is clearly not amused when she doesn’t get what she wants.
I –however – am not one of Her Majesty’s subjects. This may not amuse her, and may even surprise her, but there it is.
And while I have been accused by Abuseniks of many things on this site over the years, “hoarding” is not one of those things. Indeed, quite the opposite.
And by suggesting that she inform herself by reviewing the archived material, I am very much looking to further her education. With – it would seem – little success.
Your reference here is Queen Victoria? Okay.
It may come as a surprise to you, but commoners are allowed to view others dimly. Which you're making very possible.
On the 24th at 808PM she once again claims that she came to this site “for the article”. It remains right up where DP put it, for whatever consideration and comments she would care to proffer. She may rest assured that I will read any such comments with alacrity and respond as best I can.
And as for her further effort to evade by accepting that there has been no “etymological journey” with my adaptation of the perfectly acceptable English term “stampede”: she can thus research it with no fear of having to ‘waste’ her time on “outdated” or “outmoded” material. Let her have at it, then.
You claim to have the definition in your head. Just provide it.
On the 24th at 810PM, ‘Miranda’ will attempt to evade my statements that my material is “carefully considered and expressed” and that I “consider each one to be ‘final copy’ and that none of my comments here are “rightly characterizable as [using her term] ‘scribbled drafts’” .
And she deals with that by merely deploying yet again a bit of mere snark: “That you might actually believe this …” Osborne House has spoken yet again. And she would know this … how? Can she (accurately) quote any of my material from even this thread that she can describe and explain as “scribbled drafts”?
Why would she try to “wish away” my ‘drawing her out’ stratagem? Because, I would say, it’s not only a very rational probability to explain my actions in regard to her “dictionary” demands but also because it’s been demonstrably successful (which would indicate she’s not quite knowledgeable about the process and strategy of ‘debate’, despite her use of the ‘debate’ metaphor).
I already did this, with my edits.
As for the "strategem" – seriously, go for it. It's a game you're playing with yourself, so no skin off my nose.
On the 24th at 814PM ‘Miranda’ assures one and all that she is not a “newspaper person”, which I had suggested as a possibility on the basis of several points I explained in my comment.
OK, then. Readers may judge as they will, whether she is or she isn’t and whatever consequences might flow from either the affirmative or the negative in that regard.
As to how “slander and libel” enter into the matter here is anybody’s guess. Unless it is on its face slanderous or libelous to wonder about the possibility that one might be a journalist.
She then allows as how she has indeed “wasted a massive amount of time going back and forth with [me]”. While, speaking for myself, it is getting rather repetitive and tiresome, I don’t consider it to have been a ‘waste of time’ for me: it has been interesting to draw her out and try to get a sense of whatever she might be up to here.
But I don’t know if all of this is going to bear much more fruit for readers, and I do know she’s going to have to garner her own “quote” – which I will then be more than happy and ready to discuss.
I also point out that her alternative to all this posting on TMR so far would have been … “socializing”. For myself, it’s eaten into my reading and thinking time, but that’s just me.
She passes over her “totally” usage, and perhaps wisely so.
She is also stumped by my “Dickens-esque wordcounts”; I have always said on this site that you can’t deal with as complex and demonstrably fraught an issue as the Catholic Abuse Matter (and the Stampede) with “elevator pitch” snippets or Twitter-type declamations. And while compound-complex sentences can be irritating or even “boring” (as has been reported by this and that Abusenik here), yet that grammatical form is a sturdy and robust vehicle for complex ideas.
The Stampede – like so many propagandistic gambits before it – thrives on the simplistic and the viscerally-gripping and seeks to preclude careful and complex assessment. And Goebbels was of the opinion that propaganda is best delivered as piggybacked upon entertainment (whether of the upbeat or the shocking kind). There is little good to be said for that gentleman, but he did know his propaganda methodology.
Still not a journalist.
As I said, it's useful because there's a legal consequence to incorrectly quoting someone. It's a check on accuracy.
You miss the point completely: Dickens was paid by the word.
Definition required.
On the 24th at 927PM ‘Dan’ returns, or at least the ‘Dan’ who reely reely gets off on epithets and such.
In light of his prior self-revelations, I don’t see that saying anything further about the content of his comment is appropriate.
And the same goes for his of the 24th at 1029PM.
However, as to ‘Dan’s comment of the 24th at 1147PM:
I was simply reflecting the fact that his story about the school-children was sufficiently vaguely stated that it wasn’t possible to determine if we were getting a story from his own childhood or we were getting a story from a more recent era, i.e. in his adulthood.
From what he now relates in the 1147PM comment, it would appear that as an adult he was walking by a schoolyard – the children being behind a tall chain-link fence – and … what? He as an adult somehow got into it with kiddies playing in a school-yard on the other side of a tall fence? About such matters as religion or theology or similar topics? These must have been remarkably precocious kiddies indeed.
And – alas – his inference that I was somehow implying something sexual in the whole thing is actually rather convenient for him. I was not; my point – of far more concern – was to envision an adult walking along by an enclosed schoolyard, and then getting into an apparently significant exchange with the kiddies about inappropriately deep matters which could only have been of (obsessive) concern to him.
And did the kiddies initiate this unhappy exchange? Or did he? (My questions here are not meant to elicit further from him on this clearly painful subject. The questions are for readers to consider.)
And on the 25th at 1212AM ‘Dan’ (the theological one, this time) now doth declare that there is no such thing as the “Mystery of Sin”. And he ‘knows’ this … how? It is certainly a major point of Catholic doctrine, whether one is called to believe that doctrine or not.
His bit about “your wicked church” is his own and he is welcome to it. It would appear that he considers himself to be equally (if not more) adept in the forum of “theological rubric”. That must console him.
And on the 25th at 649AM ‘Dan’ proffers the title of Mary as “Queen of Heaven” as proof – to his mind anyway – that Mary is a “goddess”.
But that opens up his path to unloading a bunch of pericopes about idolatry and such, specifically aimed at the Church – rather in the style and tone of assorted fringe-fundamentalist anti-Catholic material that was in vogue some decades ago.
However, I would note the remarkable assertion/revelation six or so lines down in his first paragraph: from the Book of Jeremiah, God is quoted as saying He had sent His “servants the prophets”. Immediately after which phrase, there is inserted the parenthetical bit “(Dan)” … by – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’. Readers more familiar with grammar might better grasp the remarkable eccentricity of this bit if instead of the parentheses ‘Dan’ uses here, they imagine the bracket (i.e. [ ]), which is used to indicate an insertion into a quotation.
He goes on further in a similar vein in his comment of the 25th at 702AM.
And on the 25th at 131PM ‘Dan’ will speak to ‘Miranda’, apparently trying to piggyback himself on her material in order to spackle up the stature of his own submissions as discussed above. And he even gives himself a chance to pronounce another Woe at me.
What eccentric characters these Abuseniks be.
No more eccentric than someone who provides a running commentary of comments threads using his own glossary.
On a not-irrelevant point, I refer back to ‘Miranda’s of the 19th at 1048PM (which comments in part on mine of the 17th at 532PM).
In that 17/532PM comment I had mentioned the 1998 Rind meta-study. Bruce Rind et al. had ‘studied the studies’ and drawn conclusions quite contrary to the then (and still, in many places) ‘conventional wisdom’ as to the consequences and effects of childhood sexual abuse.
I had further noted that the political element involved in the sex-abuse arena was vividly demonstrated when in 1999, for the first (and so far only) time ever in its history, Congress actually passed a unanimous Sense of Congress resolution condemning the meta-study.
On the 19th at 1048PM ‘Miranda’ dismissed the Rind study rather assertively as merely being “deeply flawed”.
First, it was a meta-study, which is – as I had reminded readers – a study of extant studies.
Second, any readers so inclined can enter into their search engine a parameter such as ‘rind metastudy of 1998’, which – in Google – will lead them to an option for general articles or ‘Scholarly Articles’. Clicking on ‘Scholarly Articles’ will quickly yield a number of such, and even a brief review of the material will indicate that there is not at all any such certainty or consensus as to the invalidity or unreliability of the Rind meta-study.
Which suggests strongly to me that ‘Miranda’ is the sort of partisan who deals with uncongenial material or facts or actualities merely by dismissing them. And does so in a rather brassy and (faux-)authoritative and in-your-face and directive style and tone.
Continuing with my immediately prior comment:
My impression is supported by the gambit that immediately follows her dismissal: she reports (cue the ominous drum-roll of PC here) that – to her, of course – “it is disturbing and unfortunately telling that you keep referring back to it”. But as I have said here, a review of those ‘Scholarly Articles’ indicates that it is her faux-authoritative dismissal that is ungrounded, and thus it is that uncongenial actuality about her assertion that is “telling” here.
Her further point – i.e. that “it’s possible for children to recover from child sex abuse [“CSA”] without psychological trauma” – can only lead to the conclusion that CSA does not inevitably cause psychological trauma. (Unless the operative definition of ‘psychological trauma’ is so elastic as to encompass any dissonance or discomfort whatsoever.)
This of course was what got Congress going and moved the pols in 1999 to their first-ever tip-toe through the poisonous tulips of Soviet Lysenkoist praxis. This is what results when ‘science’ is somehow contaminated by a too-close (and subordinate) association with political considerations, as was seen with the Soviets and Lysenko’s discredited (but doctrinally correct, according to the Party) theories and as we see with much so-called ‘advocacy science’ nowadays.
You can see why any tort attorney (among others) would consider the Rind meta-study as a danger.
And in that same paragraph in her comment I detect a familiar contemporary Victimist trope about ‘sexual assaults’ and ‘rape’ (however that now-elastic term is defined in her dictionary).
Which she quickly tries to burnish with another foray into the epithetical: ominously, she is “starting to think” that I “genuinely don’t understand the dynamics of sexual assault”.
And immediately she lards on bits about “masculine” (as opposed to feminist, perhaps).
And she then snarks that I should realize that “women are assaulted more than men by an order of magnitude”. I realize only that the vast majority of ‘sex assault’ theory and doctrine (and the Stampede which flows from same) is based on self-reports, often gleaned from some form of uncorroborated ‘survey’ method, which surely qualifies as a form of ‘flawed methodology’ for achieving any accurate, objective, and scientific basis for study, let alone conclusions.
Continuing with my immediately prior comment:
She then deploys another familiar trope: “sex abuse from an authority figure breaks trust”, is a “betrayal” and (far more dubiously than the prior two assertions) “it changes your entire view of the world”. This “your” meaning … who, exactly? Everybody? Does everyone who actually experiences one of these episodes respond in the same way, i.e. by having his/her “entire view of the world” ‘changed’ (and, of course, not for the deeper or the better) … ? This bit here demonstrates a false universality, which is then synergized with a sense of utter certainty and a sense of catastrophe to create … a Stampede, perhaps.
I hold no brief whatsoever for genuine sexual-abuse, of children or anybody else. But I do insist on seeing some actual evidence and some clear and rational and logical and coherent thinking drawing conclusions from that evidence. None of which is congenial to a Stampede, but then I don’t like stampedes either, whether actual cattle stampedes or the kind used to manipulate people (even if, by those gunslingers firing into the air to scare the herd, in an oh-so-good cause).
And in that regard, I would note what Bruce Rind said in the Abstract of his rebuttal to critics of his meta-study (link below)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184900800013
He will demonstrate that “the science behind our meta-analysis” is “sound science” and that attacks upon it were “specious”.
He will then – of even greater use for readers of this site so-inclined – “discuss orthodoxies and moral panics generally” and will argue that the meta-study was so remarkably attacked “because it collided with a powerful but socially-constructed orthodoxy that has evolved over the last quarter century” and he warns other scientists that such attacks on science could occur again and that “sacred cow issues do not belong in science”. I can only agree, since this lethal and ominous set of synergies creates the perfect-storm conditions for a Stampede (and, one might also say, not accidentally).
So MePhistoPheles slithers back onto the scene, to twist truth and inflate his deceptions in hopes that the ignorant would be swayed by his lies. You say you have yet to be accused of "hoarding"? Well, may I be the first. You think you can hoard the conversation and in your multiplication of needless, big(and many times stupid) words, brainwash the readers to consider you must know what your talking about, because of your longwindedness. Like previously said, I believe your the only one you've impressed, though you keep looking for fans for your klan klub of bigots.
Then he("mePhistoPheles") continues to label the "catholic Abuse Matters" as "complex and demonstrably fraught". Absolutely according to your dangerously "fraught" twisted mind. To the normal mind, it is simply, hardup, depraved clergy of all ranks, protected and coddled by bishops and head bishops(popes). All done to protect the reputation of an already badly soiled establishment. Grown men unable to control perverted desires and try to keep their zippers up, or in their case their dresses on.
Now we draw deeper into the depths of a sick mind, P wants to applaud who he considers a "gentleman", Goebbels. P says, "There is little good to be said for that 'gentleman', but he did know his propaganda methodiology." One has to ask, "Is that possibly who you've learned your "little good" and "propaganda methodology" from? Dan has to ask if you've been able to perfect your goose step yet?
Then his donkey(dumb- ___) chimes in with he had "an apparently significant exchange with the kiddies about inappropriately deep matters. Did the kiddies initiate this unhappy exchange? or did he?" He wants you to believe he was actually there and knows it was "inappropriate" and an "unhappy exchange" with the children, and joins with the thug creeps in twisting it into something filthy. So ironic that perverts who can't keep their hands off the "kiddies", seek to pollute the innocent with their lies and filth. Now I truly understand the ongoing attempts they have made to blame the victims and hide their deceitfully horrible and despicable crimes.
Catholic doctrine def. – longwinded words to misinterpret the bible and make their sheep believe it to be gospel truth, superseding the bible to protect their secretly disgusting agenda for the good of their holy mother, goddess worshipping church. Didn't mormans do the same with their superseding "book of morman" and also commit immoral crimes against the innocent. Now do you understand why catholics like mysteries so much? Those who have nothing to hide have no problem explaining definitions for you, little p. Let me know if that was to deep for you and I will make it simple.
I previously mentioned how you attempt to squirm around and avoid discussing my Bible quotes, trying to misinterpret their meaning in order to fool others into believing your sick agenda, which doesn't seem to work as well as you think. As far as my "bunch of pericopes about idolatry", (Bible quotes would be fine, unless you're trying to impress others with your intellegence), God has many more in the Word, because He knew how disgusting the churches obsession with idolatry would become(i.e. exorbitant and excessive temples, enormous statues of popes and so-called saints, artwork up to the ceilings(literally), icons of all sorts, even of ugly, corrupted flesh and bone, etc. etc. etc.). Did I use my "(i.e.)" properly and to your liking, Mr. Persnickety nerd.
Your ignorance is exhausting, so I think I've had enough of you for now. I have faith that you'll give me more ammunition for tomorrow. Later hater
You see me as eccentric because you depend on catholic doctrine to take precedent over God's Word. Now I understand your failure to discuss in detail things I quote from Scripture because in your poor opinion you believe it to be strange and unusual.
You keep claiming my pronouncing Woes against you, when in reality it's the consequence of your own actions(i.e. mocking, labeling truth to mean eccentricity, a consistent twisting and perverting of Biblical fact).
I'm in no need of trying to "piggyback" on anyone when I have the wisdom of the Almighty to back me up. And unlike yourself, I'm not looking for a fan club, though I am interested in spreading my Creator's truth, not looking to fill my bank account and my catholic piggy face.
Later hater
On the 26th at 1219PM ‘Miranda’ again seems to misuse the term “conspiracy” – it requires at least two to ‘conspire’ and – to repeat again – I am not proposing that she is necessarily ‘conspiring’ with anybody else.
Rather, she may be running her own little game, which – to repeat again – increasingly appears, like an iceberg, to be far more beneath-the-surface than above-the-surface.
And it is that increasing probability of ulterior-ness that I think is more interesting than – from her performance on this thread – any value to be gotten from whatever comments she may eventually make about my adaptation (not invention) of the term ‘stampede’. There is no “danger” to me in providing it to her forthwith, but the inconsistencies and incoherences in her proffered material here are of far more interest; she has now spent more time on her commenting about not-getting the definition than she would have spent doing the ‘research’ and presenting whatever her thoughts might be.
Here’s an “elevator-pitch” type of answer for her: she is not going to get that definition repeated (for whatever her own purposes may be) here; she – as the “researcher” she claims to be – can go over the material and quote it accurately and lodge such points as she chooses to make and I will respond.
Agreed! At first I called you a conspiracy theorist, in reference to the type of person who sees cloak-and-dagger intrigue behind every corner because that character trait was cropping up with alarming regularity in your posts. Then I'd shorten to "conspiracy nonsense again", in reference to that trait. But you're absolutely correct that you have not implied that I'm colluding with anyone, you've just implied that there's some mysterious master "game" that I'm playing, so… Switch out "intrigue" for "conspiracy" and all should be well. (Apart from the fact that you keep cooking up hypothetical "games" that I'm supposedly runnning.)
Sounds spooky. What's my endgame here?
So you won't define "the Stampede" and instead want me to approach you as a petitioner and play an elaborate guessing game to gradually draw confirmation out of you. For a definition you claim to already have fully-formed in your own head. You, sir, are a fraud.
P- I must admit that I don't normally read all your post to others, of course to avoid brainwashing(and not in a good way). Your comments however on 11/26 @ 11:05 pm, I found quite disturbing. I believe you quoted, "sex abuse from an authority figure breaks trust", is a "betrayal" and (far more dubiously than the prior two assertions) "it changes your entire view of the world". From my perspective, sex abuse from a supposed 'man of god', or should I say many men of god, surely changed my entire worldview. Especially my respect for a church, which in my youth I thought was leading me to the 'promised land'. I could have never dreamed they could be driving innocent children in the opposite direction. I love your terrible use of "episodes" when questioning if raped children "respond in the same way, i.e. by having his/her "entire view of the world " 'changed' (and, of course, not for the deeper or better) …?" Are you insinuating that a young raped child, or one raped several times over the course of years, could possibly gain a 'deeper or better' view of the world. Deplorable!
As if that isn't enough, you continue with, "But I do insist on seeing some actual evidence and some clear and rational and logical and coherent thinking drawing conclusions from that evidence. So you wish you were there to watch, so you could have conclusive evidence to the rape. I believe bishop juan barros could help you with that. He apparently got his jollies out of watching fr. fernando karadima rape young boys and was "allegedly" complicit in the cover up of the crimes. Oh! I do believe that deserves a promotion to bishop, if ever there was a better reason to make someone the leader of your cult. It's such a shame that bishops, clergy and popes didn't use "some clear and rational and logical and coherent thinking" when it came to all the catholic SEXUAL ABUSE MATTERS. Yeah! Big letters for big screw-ups.
As far as your other psychological problems, in the rest of your posts, I'll be happy to let the readers take that as they may. Is it time for your medication and afternoon nap yet.
Dan, Servant and Prophet of The One and Only True God
P.S. Waiting for your church to show some guts and open all your secret files, so the real truth can be known. Until then, it would be wise for you to stop your insuations and doubts of innocent victims. There are far too many witnesses and far too many cases and far too many crimes and criminals and far too many priests admitting guilt, for you to turn a blind eye and deaf ear, questioning as if none were credible. Time to come clean, catholic church.
On the 26th at 1230PM ‘Miranda’ will reveal a bit more of her approach: in response to my observation that she hasn’t given any example of material of mine that is not “filtered sufficiently” she merely tosses off “All of it.”.
That’s her opinion and readers may judge as they will.
Ditto as to what I – according to her tea-leaves – think about “quantity and quality” as being “synonymous”.
As for her remark about “industry standards”, if she is a professional “researcher” and it is to that “industry” that she refers, then she hasn’t demonstrated any such research chops here and I have pointed that out in several explications.
Is she not a newsie? Fine then. She is a “researcher” who also doth like to impose her ‘editing’ on styles with which she is not familiar or which are too complex/compound for her taste or her competence. It is what it may be here.
Then – after agreeing (that “Exactly”) that “it’s not worth her while to consider any prior comments on this site as needing to be ‘researched’” – she insists – in scream caps, indeed – that it would be “so much shorter and faster than trawling through archives”. But a) that’s what a “researcher” does and b) by this point in time this point of hers is now outdated, i.e. she has spent far more time going on about getting her own personal copy of the definition than she would have spent simply going through the archives.
Ditto as to what I – according to her tea-leaves – think about “quantity and quality” as being “synonymous”.
You're the one who claimed more pixels make a better picture.
We're in total agreement; based on your behavior here, I'd never accept such a long-winded, elusive client. You're the sort who would constantly introduce new subject matter and would always find an excuse not to sign off on findings.
Per above, this attitude to research is why I wouldn't accept you as a client. Anyone who thinks it's a reasonable use of time to go through reams of archives just to get information that the client claims to already have is delusional – or insanely rich. Researchers are expensive.
Continuing about ‘Miranda’s of the 26th at 1230PM:
But then but then: she allows as how she’s “pretty sure” that “even reading the entire archive” would result in my “refusing to commit to a definition”. She seems “pretty sure” about a lot of things, but seems to be satisfied that her mere opinion is enough to satisfy any requirement for a legitimate certainty (and accuracy). Even if she is a “researcher”, I’m not impressed by her basic approach to material she wants to ‘research’. There’s more to it here (and not necessarily a “conspiracy”, to preclude her now-characteristic mis-reading of that term).
There is something driving this odd and twisty performance of hers here, and I – for one – am curious to see where it’s going to go.
She will, finally, then try to use my “mystery” thought for herself: she is now claiming that it’s a mystery to her why I don’t give the definition to her. “Elevator-pitch” answer to that: I don’t trust her competence or chops, I don’t trust the incoherences and tendency to make ungrounded assertions, and I think that so odd a game needs to be flagged and that’s why she can “research” and do her own work and then lodge her objections or thoughts and on that basis we can proceed.
You, earlier today:
This is exactly how I thought you would choose to frame this interaction, so yes, my guesses about you are turning out to be quite accurate. You want to maintain as much wiggle room as possible in your definition, so you want me to play a demented guessing-game with you to draw out your definition piecemeal. Note that this would never result in you confirming a definition – you'd always have the space to say "ah, but that's YOUR definition of my term, there's more to it that we didn't address".
So you're scared to expose your actual definition your made-up terminology, because "the Stampede" won't hold up to scrutiny. Sound about right.
On the 26th at 1236PM she misreads my question: I had asked why it would be that she consistently conflates her opinion with factuality or actuality or the (presumed) universality of her opinion.
She responds, as is evident in this comment, by a more convenient (for her) mis-reading.
Why, precisely, she doth so urgently “need the exact meaning as you’re applying it right now” – such that, we recall, she cannot be bothered researching it and yet can spend hours whining for it to be given to her – is anybody’s guess. For myself, I am tending toward an explanation involving either a) some form of obsession or b) some ulterior game-plan or c) both.
And she then – apparently without realizing it – hammers another nail into her “researcher” chops by assuring us all most definitely that she has “absolutely not touched the archives”. Prescinding from the fact that as a matter of technical grammar her statement doesn’t say that she didn’t read the archives, then her “research” chops again appear as not only weak, but deliberately and proudly so.
Because you use in in discussion. I didn't ask about it until you'd used it a few times, you used it in a way where its definition would impact the point being made. And now you're refusing to define it, probably because it's useful to you to have it undefined.
Do you think I'm using "researcher" in the same way you use "questioner"? A professional researcher balances many elements in deciding how to unearth factual evidence. It's not a good use of my time to use the archives to reassemble a probable definition for "the Stampede" and then bring it to you to be picked over and part-confirmed. It's a dead end as it will never end is solid confirmation. You've been shifty enough that the only sure route is to have you define it in your own words.
Alternately, you could refuse to define, which has its own implications – namely, that the term is NOT defined and is instead a useful blanket phrase you deploy when you want to generalize, but you can also hide under when specificity is requested.
On the 26th at 1245PM ‘Miranda’ will then try to distract by claiming – rather simplistically – that “the activities of ‘researching’ and ‘debating’ [I presume that’s what she meant here] are not synonymous”. I never said they were. She raised the ‘debating’ imagery herself. But I will say that you can’t very well debate if you haven’t researched first. Or does her asserted knowledge of debating not cover that rather vital point?
And then and then: in response to my point that she mis-uses (perhaps mis-understands) the term “conspiracy”, she will – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – deploy epithet. I am “delusional”, which is not only epithetical but without explication appears rather irrelevant to the point of being outré.
But she is right: “delusional” is a “better word” for revealing a bit more about her. When Abuseniks resort to epithet, then you get a more vivid sense of what you’re dealing with.
I didn’t “introduce a new term” with my use of “Stampede” in early comments on this thread; it’s “new” to her, perhaps, but she’s a “researcher” and she can check it out – and could have checked it out – and proceed from there. And from the first I got the sense that she was up to something and nothing she has proffered since her first comment on this thread has reduced that sense. So – as I have said – I’m going to see where this game is going.
I'm sorry, were you momentarily possessed by a spooky ghost? Are you a medium, channeling voices from the beyond? Did you pour honey on your keyboard and all the keys got briefly stuck?
You introduced a new term into the conversation. Your personal glossary is not key reading for discussing the article. Bring the term, bring the definition.
On the 26th at 1252 ‘Miranda’ will then try this dodge: since I haven’t given her what she wants, then I don’t have a definition at all. I would refer her to the archive. And I would also point out that her conclusion is not at all sufficiently grounded by the single fact of my not giving her what she wants.
But she will then try to bolster that bit with more of those ominous PC-type ad hominems: I am “being deceptive in [my] conduct here”. Which she then bolsters by her now-familiar mistaken assertion that I “made up” the term ‘stampede’ or “Stampede”. No, I adapted it – not the same thing. And I explained it all and she can be a “researcher” and we can then proceed from there.
And it will take a lot of finessing and spinning to turn my consistent referral to a readily-available archive as trying to ‘divert attention’. Let her get the definition, lodge her thoughts/objections, and she will see how little I try to “distract” from considering that definition.
Thus she sets up a convenient Either/Or for herself. But my term is not “roughly defined” (how would she ‘know’ if she hasn’t read the archives?) nor am I ‘arrogant’ in that I – according to her – consider myself “above detail”, a point which as well may be considered as merely an unintentional projection of her own demonstrated un-grounded assertiveness, as I have pointed out in comments on this thread.
"Citizens, I have identified the Rocks Of Meaning! They are pure, they are good, they are perfect in every way! I confer with them before signing all legislation, for they are wise! But I won't tell you what they look like. Miranda, if you really want to see the Rocks of Meaning, there's a quarry over there full of rocks – if you bring the noted rocks before me, I will confirm or qualify."
On the 26th at 1256PM ‘Miranda’ she will apparently try to dodge my point that she had found the term “stampede” in Merriam-Webster by claiming that I use it as a capitalized “proper noun”. Yes, I adapted the word; I didn’t invent it. It’s a metaphor and I consider it quite apt and effective as a short-hand for everything that I explained is involved in it. She can agree or disagree as to its aptness when she’s read up on it in the archive.
Once she’s up to speed, I’ll be happy to discuss.
And this I-don’t-want-to-“share” trope is getting interesting.
Hooray. Now define it.
On the 26th at 1PM she belabors what would be the obvious point about “Osborne House” as being a reference to Queen Victoria. Fine and dandy.
Then she goes for more epithetical – and again reveals more than she probably intends.
It's just so weird – why not Clarence House? Why go back to Victoria?
On the 26th at 107PM she reveals herself as quite satisfied with her “scribbled drafts” (epithetical) assessment of my comments by pointing to her own assay at editing my material earlier on this thread.
She is welcome to her opinion as to my style (and perhaps her unfamiliarity with the compound/complex) but that hardly grounds her epithetical assessment. But – as always – she’s pretty certain that it does, and that is supposed to make all the difference.
And if there’s no “stratagem” in her performance here, then we are pretty much left with some form of obsession and does she really want to go down that road?
Then she’s on about my style again, this time about the “wordcount” which reminded her of nothing so much as Dickens. And now she says that I have missed her point “completely” (at least it’s not “totally”): her point – somehow – is that “Dickens was paid by the word”.
And if there can be any conceivable relevance to this new point at all, it is … what? That she is implying I am “paid by the word”? Are we now seeing her trot out here the old Abusenik epithetical insinuation that I am somehow “paid” to comment on this site? We are starting to see more and more of the old Abusenik gambits.
And I again instructed that the definition she wants for herself is “required”. My my.
There's no "strategem". I'm just persistent.
Intrigue again! No, I'm implying that you see value in quantity over quality.
On the 26th at 240PM ‘Miranda’ will then try to synergize her material with ‘Dan’s by her reference to commenters who “provide [their] own glossary”. All of my adapted terms have been explained and explicated at length on this site; her ignorance here is not the result of my ‘hiding’ terms or not explaining my adapted terms; it results merely from her failure to bring herself up to speed. For whatever reason(s).
"Bring me a rock."
On the 26th at 306PM ‘Dan’ returns. His material poses the following problem for me: in light of what he has revealed about his prior mis-adventures with the law and mental health, then frank and candid response has to be – I would say – tempered by the awareness of his condition. I will do my best to be frank and candid but I do not in any way want to abuse what is clearly somewhat fragile.
He will attempt to piggyback his own proffering on ‘Miranda’s assorted bits and that’s as may be.
If as a mental exercise we subtract the epithetical and the ungrounded assertions and claims then there is little to work with.
I doubt he’s read through the archive, where I have explicated for a few years now just how much and in just what ways the Catholic Abuse Matter is “fraught”. This is an ongoing conversation and presume a certain familiarity with terms among readers; otherwise there will be a lot of repetition. (But anybody who brings up a point from my prior material will get a response, as has been demonstrated over time here.)
But complexity is not what fuels a Stampede and complexity is not how certain minds process information and I think both of these points are relevant to the ‘Dan’ material here.
It is not I who here make assertions, ungrounded, supported only by viscerally-crafted stories and claims and allegations. There is a lot of “propaganda” to be seen in commentary on this site, but not from me.
The bits about a “twisted” and “sick” mind are best simply left up where they were put.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 306PM:
As for his still-cloudy exchange with those kiddies in a fenced-in schoolyard: if ‘Dan’ was going on with them on any of the topics he has raised here, then we are left with the vision of an adult walking along a street and then initiating such an exchange with (presumably unknown to him) kiddies in a schoolyard – and if ‘Dan’ doesn’t see anything odd about that, then that’s as may be but there it is.
And – once again – it has to be pointed out that I was in no way suggesting or implying anything sexual about that claimed exchange; it is ‘Dan’ who went that route. As I have said, I consider the exchange as it then has to be construed as I have just done in the immediately preceding paragraph to be of far more interest and concern.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 306PM:
As to his eructations concerning Catholic theology, they are his own (and the property of whoever is sending him the spiritual telegrams or emails) and they are what they are. However, I point out again that I am not trying to “squirm around and avoid discussing” his “Bible quotes”; they are, among other things – to repeat again – irrelevant insofar as they rely on a presumption that has not been demonstrated.
I have not tried to “misinterpret their meanings” since I haven’t tried to engage them on the level of interpretation at all.
And his comment trails off with more of the usual. However we now see a familiar Abusenik effort to conclude with a zingy epithet, this time deploying the contemporary buzz-word “hater”. If you don’t buy their material, then you are a “hater”. Ovvvvv coursssssssse.
To the surprise of probably nobody, ‘Dan’s “tomorrow” turns out to be only two hours later, on the 26th at 507PM.
He will now characterize my assessment of his material as “eccentric”. That would be the politely (and greatly) understated term that I used, yes.
His tea-leaf reading to the effect that I “depend on catholic doctrine to take precedence over God’s Word” is merely an age-old Protestant and later Fundamentalist claim that is not germane to anything under consideration on this site. He can take it to a site that deals with such matters.
But it all does demonstrate yet again the synergy by which so many assorted interests (not to say obsessions) glommed onto the Stampede and dealt themselves in.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 507PM:
He then tries to dodge his predilection for Woes by – of course – claiming that it’s all merely “the consequence of your own actions” and, no doubt, he’s just passing on what he got in his spiritual telegrams and emails. I think not.
This presumption, however – and we can see the clicking and whirring of his mental machine here as it spins furiously – then provides him with a congenial and consoling ‘conclusion’: my “failure to discuss in detail” his various eructations involving Scripture is merely because I find “it” (Scripture or his use of Scripture? – he doesn’t bother to think that through) “strange and unusual”.
But “strange and unusual” – as he puts it – is a rather largely understated but essentially accurate characterization, no doubt about that.
As is further evidenced – once again – by his reliance on “the wisdom of the Almighty” (of which, we recall, he considers himself possessed rather abundantly and directly) to prop up his assorted “strange and unusual” bits.
Continue to mock-on (i.e. "spiritual telegrams and emails"), and I'll let God take care of my light work. For anyone else out there interested in the importance of knowing the Creator's Word, he defined it today.
The meaning of the Lord's Word:
W – It is knowledgeable, when we want to give it a chance, if we read it, and want a much better way to live life.
O – Is for how we can overpower the world's word, and never be afraid or fear again.
R – The Lord never runs away from the troubles we have in life, and is there to help us until eternity.
D – The Lord is there support us in life, and the world is there to bring us down, always.
Don't you think we had better start reading and believing in His WORD, or your life is not going to be worth a plug nickle.
P – I don't need your comments on this one. It's for those with eyes and ears that actually see and hear. I so much appreciate your mocking and sarcasm otherwise.
On the 27th at 901AM ‘Miranda’ agrees that she “at first” did call me a “conspiracy theorist” because – doncha see? – such persons see “cloak-dagger-intrigue” behind every corner”. I personally don’t see it “behind every corner” but – Yes, I do see some sort of ulterior game going on in her material here. And I’m going to do whatever I can to get a fuller comprehension of it.
But then but then: in order to bolster this iffy bit of hers, she deploys – and not for the first time – a PC dogwhistle/threat: she is ‘alarmed’ (that “alarming regularity in your posts”) by the ‘conspiracy theorist’ element she thinks she sees in my posts. Her personal responses or feelings are her own; she will be hard pressed, however, to make me out as a “conspiracy theorist” – at least if she relies on accurate reading of my material.
And I fully accept her self-characterization of “intrigue” as a possible element here, although I prefer my own terminology that revolves around ‘ulterior motive’. About which more below.
What would be her “endgame here”? Since she asked: I am presently leaning toward a) an obsessive differing from ‘Dan’ and long-unseen ‘Rondre’ only in that she is higher-functioning or b) someone indeed engaged to come onto the site to do something about the ‘Stampede’ imagery.
None of which is “spooky” … and I don’t even find it “alarming”.
It doesn't have much to do with your "material" – you keep hinting there's some mysterious ulterior motive, which apparently boils down to either an obsession (with what?) or – please correct me if I'm wrong here – are you alleging that I've somehow been recruited to undermine your term "the Stampede"?
It's a bit much to think that your made-up terminology has created enough ripples to cause two separate individuals to team up to undermine it (one to recruit, and one to undermine). Hey! Also, wouldn't that then be a conspiracy?
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 27th at 901AM:
But then but then: she claims I want her to “approach [me] as a petitioner” – which is somewhat oddly plaintive And not supported by my material here. Indeed, having done her research and then formulated her comments, she would approach me as a questioner and validly and legitimately so. And I would consider myself bound to respond.
Rather: I just presume that she can do or could have done some quick scanning of the archive to find the Stampede material for herself (being now a “professional researcher” and all) and then post whatever objections or thoughts she saw fit to post about that material.
My informing her that she’s going to have to do the work she has brought onto herself prompts from her the now-usual sly bit that since I won’t define it for her right here the way she wants it, and instead want her to be a “petitioner” and – quite improbably and irrelevantly – want her to “play an elaborate guessing game” then I am – even more improbably and now illogically – “a fraud”. And doesn’t that “You, sir, are a fraud” sound like tail-feathers being huff-puffed-up for a display?
Oh, I don't know, seems to fit the bill of what you've envisioned? You clearly see yourself as the superior authority at any rate.
May I remind you that you have the definition and petulantly won't divulge it?
I'm trying to match your tone. As to whether the effort is successful, readers may consider as they will.
Going along the list of comments as they appear on the site: ‘Dan’ then comes along on the 27th at 625AM (which would indicate that my most recent comments in regard to his material ‘crossed in the mail’, as it were, and he hadn’t read them when he put this comment up).
As so often seen from Abuseniks, we get the disclaimer that he doesn’t “normally read all of my posts to others” (but – I bet – we are about to get a story to the effect that he read some or all of my posts regarding him to (some, a, then, any, his) god or other trusted advisers … let’s read on and see if my guess is correct).
We see once again that PC-Victimist dogwhistle alarm that he finds some of my material “disturbing”. And this is because – we are now apparently informed – he himself underwent ‘sex abuse’ from “a supposed man of god”, or – ‘should he say?’ – “many men of god”. These Abuseniks claims and stories do tend to grow like Topsy, do they not?
I would however suggest that from a) the material he has put up here and b) his own reports of multiple misadventures in a mental institution then there exists no small probability that his unhappy experiences – whatever they may have been – originated in characteristics far more fundamental.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 625AM:
He doesn’t like my use of “episodes”, but that is a perfectly acceptable usage, especially when trying to maintain the type of conceptual detachment necessary when wading through these types of Stampede-stories. But, of course, conceptual detachment is precisely what a Stampede attempts to preclude or distract-from; rather, a Stampede seeks to quickly induce a more visceral reaction, side-stepping or short-circuiting any rational use of the reader’s or hearer’s mind.
And – to repeat for the umpteenth time – very few of the claims formally lodged and tallied by the Jay Reports included the charge of ‘rape’ as classically defined.
Am I insinuating that a “young raped child” (of which, we recall, there were few such allegations in the Jay Report tallies) “could possibly gain a ‘deeper or better view of the world”? I am. The human being is a remarkably resilient creature and can take even the most adverse experiences and turn them into grist for the life mill. This, of course, is gall and wormwood to the Victimist dogma but there it is.
And that huff-puffy “Deplorable!” – to which the whole performance here was leading – remains just that.
And the fact that possibly ‘Dan’ wasn’t able to muster such personal resources (presuming for the purposes of discussion here his above claims of multiple sex-abuse) then that can hardly be used as grounding evidence that no other human being could possibly muster such personal resources.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 625AM:
His mind then goes on to somehow infer – from my insistence upon evidence – that I “wish [I] were there to watch”. Clearly, his assorted misadventures with the mental health system were not of an entirely random nature or merely the result of bad luck.
And his mind seems not to notice that without “conclusive evidence of rape” (I myself would have said ‘persuasive’), then … there is a rather glaring and abyssal problem with claims of rape.
He then – in that time-honored Abusenik dodge of I’m Not/You Are – tries to imply my “other psychological problems” and goes for the let-readers-decide approach, which is about the only part of his presentation with which I can fully agree.
His epithets either are or are not included in his spiritual telegrams or emails from whatever source or Source he imagines them to originate.
On the 27th at 910AM ‘Miranda’ accepts the description of “professional researcher” (which again gives rise to thoughts as to her ulterior purposes here) but quickly moves herself out of that bit by informing me that she would never accept me as a “client”. I shall put that on my list of life’s un-experienced possibilities.
And apparently – in her professional conceptualization of ‘researcher’ – such professionally-retained types don’t see it as a “reasonable use of their time to go through reams of archives” … and yet she has spent far more of her precious professional research time here demanding what she could have had for herself simply by scanning over the archives for the material she was looking for. Something doesn’t add up here, as I have said.
“Researchers are expensive”, she then informs us. Well then, since she has mentioned that: who is paying her for all this time? And why?
Sad times for us all.
When a client demands something ridiculous like making me trawl through archives for his self-created terminology, I point out his ridiculousness and then either do it (if he's going to pay me for his idiocy) or fire him. You are not paying me, which leaves me a third choice: not doing the ridiculous task while also consistently pointing out that you're being ridiculous for not simply defining your own terminology.
Let's call it a passion project – I am my own client on this one. I don't go looking for hypocritical narcissists, but when I trip across one I do tend to engage. My interest at this point is getting a definition out of you.
On the 27th at 917AM ‘Miranda’ will try to defend her assertion that she’s “pretty sure” that “even reading the entire archive” would result in my refusing to commit to a definition.
But all she does is attempt a sleight-of-hand: since on an earlier thread today I had told her that she wasn’t going to get a definition until she goes over my material and ‘researches’ what she needs and so on. But my statement in no way justifies her attempt to claim she’s never going to get a definition; she can have it – at length – whenever she wants it.
Good to hear! I want it, so write it down.
Continuing with ‘Miranda’s of the 27th at 917AM:
But upon this clear mis-reading she can then – in familiar Abusenik style – pile her little blocks to get to her self-exculpatory claim that she just knew this was how it would all turn out.
First, we see the running of the Me-Too variant of the old I’m Not/You Are bit.
Second, if she had guessed it all along, why didn’t she save herself (and/or her employer) some time and money by just getting the material herself as I said at the outset? Then more tea-leaves about my wanting – the leaves tell her – that I want to keep “wiggle room”; no, I want to force whatever’s under the ground here to come to the surface. You hold the hose long enough to the hole and something down there is going to climb out – as, apparently, we are seeing now.
And she can still go get herself the definition and submit her thoughts and we can proceed from there.
And we can then see if my concept of “Stampede” will hold up to her scrutiny. I’m confident it will, but she is, of course, welcome to demonstrate otherwise.
Because it's ridiculous to send me (me being both myself and my employer, who is also me because now you really ARE indulging in conspiracy theories) to go looking for a dispersed set of ideas, guess they apply to your term, boil them down, present them to you, and have you either say "yes" or "no". It's a waste of my time when you already know the answer, but are withholding it out of obstinancy and seem to want to be able to bestow it as some sort of reward after I've done the meaningless tasks you've set out. You're not in the position to set out hoops for me to jump through; your refusal to provide a definition casts you in a bad light, not me.
Or you could, you know, ask me? I don't know what you're getting at here, other than a vague implication that you want to waterboard me.
Fantastic, define it and let's see.
On the 27th at 927AM she tries to answer my question as to her burning need to get “the exact meaning as you’re applying it right now”: because – doncha see? – I am using it “in discussion”. Yes, but it’s the same definition I’ve been using in this extended discussion on this site for several years. So I’m not “refusing to define it”; I am – yet again – refusing to repeat the definition and she can – for whatever purpose(s) and reason(s) she has – scan for it and proceed from there.
It’s so “useful” to define my terms that I’ve done it many times here. At present, I consider it – again – more useful for readers and my own curiosity to see what’s going on under the surface here. And nothing I have seen from her so far leads me to think otherwise.
And again with that “good use of [her] time” bit, which – to repeat – has by now become rather outdated, especially if she is on somebody else’s clock and running up a bill.
And again with the bit about her not trusting me to … what? Stick around? Disclaim my own (accurately) quoted material?
And as for my term(s) not being defined … she can read or scan in the archive to realize that I take care to define my terms (it’s part of why there’s so much material from me in the record).
Great, then you have the definition at hand. Why not write it down.
You're making yourself look paranoid.
On the 27th at 931AM ‘Miranda’ opens by going for the snarky epithet. Tee hee.
Her further comment presumes that I did not define my terms even in the way-back that is in the record and archive here. She makes a lot of presumptions and tries to pass them off as something more substantial.
And I introduced no “new” terms in any comment on this thread. They are only “new” to her, as I have said.
Maybe I'm being too complicated?
Here are some definitions off the top of my head:
Not looking for perfection, just a good effort. Now you try.
On the 27th at 936AM she then tries to presume her presumptions as to my never ever having defined my terms with this rather curious “Citizens …” bit. Which as far as I can tell she has made up and it constitutes some form of … something.
Purely a form of address to the fair followers of this thread.
On the 27th at 937AM ‘Miranda’ plaints that my reference to Osborne House is “just so weird” and – she plaints – why I didn’t use another royal residence such as “Clarence House” or why I went back to Queen Victoria … ?
It seemed to me that Osborne House is the royal residence most quickly recognized as being Victoria’s.
As to why I chose Queen Victoria in connection with ‘Miranda’ … is it that ‘Miranda’ really doesn’t have that much insight into herself or is she simply uninformed as to some of Victoria’s more notable traits? Since the answer here would involve some closer consideration of herself, I’ll leave it to ‘Miranda’ to research if she is so inclined.
Her proffered discussion of my own terms – of course – would not involve her personal make-up and I would engage in that discussion far more readily.
So it's not just the royal household you're riffing on, it's Victoria in particular, eh?
What, like my plethora of children? How did you know about my long-treasured goal of being genetically related to all European royal houses? Or are you talking about my remarkable endurance and longevity?
On the 27th at 941AM ‘Miranda’ tries to dodge the stratagem/obsession issue by claiming that she is “just persistent”. That must console her. But as we have been seeing with ‘Dan’s ability to explain-away his own characteristics to his own great and lasting satisfaction, it isn’t always the most advisable course.
But the choice is hers to make, as is the choice as to research what she wants or not.
And she then dodges the “intrigue” problem (I would call it the Ulteriority problem) by trying to connect it – however vaguely or improbably – to her “value in quantity over quality” bit. And she again would appear quite satisfied with the quality of her own material and performance here on this thread. And that too must console her.
Having not been sad in the first place, I'm in no particular need of consolation. But since you might be feeling sad and projecting, let's get to the heart of the matter:
My "performance here on this thread" won't be particularly enlightening to anyone, given that's it's mostly been a litany of trying to get you to define "the Stampede", a term coined and tossed around by yourself. Anyone reading my posts won't get much past "definition please", but they will certainly be able to see the many varied ways you've thought up to avoid simply defining a term you claim to know and have full confidence in using.
I wholly admit that your responses would be more enlightening than my posts, in that you're making it perfectly clear that you're an obtuse, obstructive individual quite full of himself. It's nice that you're now somewhat realizing your exposed position and trying to imply that you're being insanely non-responsive as some sort of "strategem" to uncover [insert nonsense intrigue/conspiracy here].
For my part, I've shown myself willing to spend a ridiculous amount of time asking the same question over and over. Early on I judged that the effort of trawling the archives to surface a definition would be a pretty poor use of resources, and thought it much more interesting see what reasons you would give for NOT divulging your definition, because it's just so silly for you to refuse to give it. And you've persisted, remarkably.
Since nothing else is getting through: for me to read through archives to try and ferret out an approximate definition could have taken hours. For you to simply type the "correct" definition, minutes. This is not a reasonable expectation, which most internet commenters understand. Your insistence that I waste my time on something that would literally take you minutes to type can't be explained by anything other than ego.
I didn't think it was humanly possible for a person to become so completely delusional (def.- maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts). Is it feasible, that in your quest to impress others with your extensive vocabulary and worthless parading of what you consider to be great intellegence, you've lost the ability to understand plain english?
Fact 1- Absolutely every incident of jail time and mental hospital stay was based on false accusations (lies), perpetrated by church hierarchy and predominately catholic liars. Is this simple sentence to hard for you to understand?
Fact 2- I never said anything about what happened at the church schoolyard to be "sexual" in nature. The words the Lord gave me for the children were kind, innocent and loving and at a level they could understand. Like previously noted, for you to make something nasty out of that or "inappropriate" is disgusting. That's why I say you can join in unison with the filthy, lying, thug catholic cowards that attacked me from behind that day. By the way, this is America and we have freedoms of speech and the freedom to go wherever we please. Quit assuming things that are untrue (lies), but I have found this to become a frequent catholic MO (modus operandi), and you are most definitely proof of that.
Fact 3- I never said or insinuated that I was sexually abused and never have been. "From my perspective" (or in my opinion), and in the opinion of many, for a supposed "man of god" to lay hands on a child, can not only destroy a child's worldview, but can change his/her concept of God. Especially, if they are of the understanding that such clergy is a representative of the True God. I think you need to do some serious reseach on the effects of child abuse, before you make claims to it's possible benefits to a fragile child's mind and worldview.
Fact 4- You continue to mock God and you will pay a price, whether you think so or not. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5 From what I've heard from you so far, you're going to have a serious problem with this.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 530PM:
Again with some of his clearly hefty pile of Scriptural things. Buttressed by his sure and certain knowledge that he speaks with the undeniable and irrefutable authority of (a, the, some, any, his) god.
He will receive comments on his comments whether he declares himself in need of them or not. And I would add – again – that he seems far too easily satisfied with his sureness and certainty.