See no evil: Philadelphia Inquirer editor-in-chief Bill Marimow
One would think that the scandal of a drug-addled Philadelphia man making false abuse accusations against multiple Catholic priests – all of whom were convicted and landed in prison, where one has already died – would merit at least a tiny mention in Philly's newspaper of record, the Philadelphia Inquirer. Heck, it was noteworthy enough to merit a huge cover story in Newsweek magazine only a couple weeks ago.
And indeed during the trials against these priests, the Inquirer gave wall-to-wall coverage with countless stories and hysterical headlines.
But the Inky's editor-in-chief, Bill Marimow, has made it clear that he has no interest in informing his readers about a fraud being perpetrated right in his own backyard against the Catholic Church.
[For readers unaware of the shocking story of the accuser's fraud against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, here is one place to start.]
Handing the Inky a story
Journalist Ralph Cipriano
"[Marimow and the Inquirer] are staunchly in the pocket of the prosecution, serving as the D.A.'s press office," says Cipriano.
Cipriano reports that back in October 2014, he emailed Marimow with a "no strings attached" offer to give the Inquirer all of the grand jury transcripts and police files from the Philadelphia Church sex abuse cases that he had in his possession.
He even added that the Inquirer "could conduct their own investigation of the investigation of the church, and that grand jury report, and come to their own conclusions. It would have been a public service for the region, and for justice."
But Marimow had no interest in the story, showing a commitment to his own biases rather than the truth.
So while Marimow and the Inky fall over themselves to loudly trumpet each and every accusation against Catholic priests in Philadelphia from Church-suing contingency lawyers and careerist politicians – no matter how suspicious or flimsy – they staunchly refuse to acknowledge a false accusation even when they themselves have been party to promoting the fraud upon the public.
At the Inky, it seems, the truth is always second to its hatred of the Catholic Church.
Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:
JR then dons the Wig of Competent Historical Chops to assert and declare – even dragging “God” into it this time around – that “the church and earth bound truth have rarely been friends” (sic).
Aside from rather too-stylish rhetorical flourish in the phrasing, so broad and deep and sweeping an assertion will require more than a little substantiation and illumination, rather than simply being tossed-off as a by-the-by, especially from so unreliable an asserter as JR.
Continuing with my comments on JR’s of the 16th at 1113AM:
But he then quickly tosses in a few buried land-mine presumptions, to the effect that he is presumptively knowledgeable in “history” and is “rational”. And readers may judge those presumptions as they will.
And the whole bit concludes with the Wig of Basic Reasonableness: JR doth “just need” RC to “have enough proof that you’re right” so that “these innocent men” can be gotten “out of jail”.
Well, since he hasn’t deigned to take note of the fact, the Superior Court has just taken a mighty big step in that direction. (Short Abusenik comeback: the Church got to the Superior Court and if the whole Doe trial goes blooey on retrial, then that just proves the Church can control everything and ‘make victims look bad’ – and thus, neatly, the Cartoon can Keep Rolling. Which, as I have always surmised, is why JR is still dragging himself into the limelight, the poor noble thing, to begin with.)
We can leave the queasy bits of JR’s on the 16th at 1146AM right up where they were put.
On the 16th at 1216PM we get something modestly revelatory: JR apparently considers it something of an accomplishment that he has been “banned” from even such Stampede-friendly sites as the National Catholic Reporter. One is reminded of the no-lifes out at the back of the parking lot who are cackling-proud that they have been expelled.
Why would he be banned? No doubt he consoles himself with the explanation that “free speech” is at-risk in this country and he is a ‘victim’ of that; he tells so much truth that he is banned, doncha see?
I would think that a more demonstrable explanation is that his modus operandi has two rather disquieting effects for the pro-Stampede and Abusenik crowd.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 1216PM:
First, his stuff tends- not to put too fine a point on it – to ‘make victims look bad’; instead of the rational and vulnerable and hurt (and oh-so-implicitly honest) ‘victims’ called-for by the script, one is confronted instead by the likes of JR.
Second, his stuff tends to remind pro-Stampede and Abusenik types that their gambit has enlisted the services of such types as himself – which is an insight that will not only a) sour the milk for the Correct elites who consider themselves not only Great and Beautiful but Good as well but will also b) cast the entire Project in a rather queasy and unsavory light since it reveals to a lot of other people just what dynamics are operative down in the boiler-room of the Stampede.
You dare speak of "Project" ?
There is neither a boiler room nor a stampede.
P and TMR keep pretending there is one and it's "run" by thieves when in reality no real victims meet or are being paid compensation at all.
That's the core disconnect in this good guy bad guy scenario.
One group pretends it's doing something for victims.
While on the P/TMR side: it pretends somethings being done against the church.
When really neither things are happening.
NOTHING is what is happening.
It's all meant to look like something's going on.
When really we,victims, can hardly meet each other without SNAP running in and attempting to, and usually succeeding in controlling the dialog, all the while telling us how great SNAP is.as they steer the conversation to their defined limits.
That's the flip side to P.
And 15% compensation is the outcome after 25 years of a fake struggle..
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 1216PM:
He further bolsters this consoling cartoon of his efforts not only by casting himself as a Tribune of Free Speech (and ‘victim’ of its demise) but also as the heroic and truthy truth-teller who has come onto the “conservative (reactionary)” TMR site to continue the fight.
Oh, and did you notice that NCRep is also now denounced as also being a “church appointed ‘liberal’ element in the Catholic dialog”?
As if “dialog” is actually anything JR could really conduct.
As if “questioning” is something he can handle.
As if JR has really mastered “obedience”, even to the principles of rational inquiry and assessment.
Thus – slyly worming in his self-advertisement – he doth “post the truth here”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 1216PM:
And he even does a sly bit of pre-emptive spinning to characterize himself: he’s just “the crazy gay neighbor” (which is moving perilously close to the old ‘village idiot’ characterization, but it is what it is).
He’s much more and much less than “the crazy gay neighbor”, as his material here has demonstrated and as so ‘liberal’ a site as NCRep has realized.
Nor is it a matter of “numbers” of readers here. JR is running his game for his own consolation and purposes.
I would also note that the ‘free speech’ bit is the same defense ‘Dan’ used to claim that he had a constitutional right to ‘talk to’ the students at the schoolyard fence.
And – come to think of it – we haven’t yet heard back from ‘Dan’ as to whether it was ‘Dan’ or (his, a, some, any, the) ‘God’ who misspelled the Latin term.
What happens when the village idiot is a priest?
I had mentioned that with Abuseniks it’s always ‘today’, and we aren’t supposed to recall anything from their prior material.
On the 16th at 1127AM JR yet again brings up the bit about “only 2000” although it was demonstrated quite a while ago here that his figures here are drawn from a decade-old Wiki entry that covered only a partial listing of States. And yet he keeps putting this thing up as if he had just ‘discovered’ it and nobody has seen the problems with it.
Thus, of course, his ‘calculations’ are useless because his base figures are outdated and incomplete, at the very least (we still don’t know how many ‘victims’ were actually genuine).
But it’s all he’s got.
It's all anybody's got. Those are the only figures that I've found available. You have more accurate info? please share it with us. If not; I'll stick with what I know so far.
So this big stampede of unpaid victims has managed to only get 15% compensated.
Why us, victim fraudsters mustn't be trying hard enough. How strongly you defend the church against giving any compensation. Your a bank guard P. A Stooge.
We get so little thanks to SNAP, who alone knows who all the victims are, but refuses to organize victims for our own self interest. (And P here yells: We are paying these thieves too much allready.) SNAP pretends to be too good; too concerned with survivors to mention our need for compensation. So between P and SNAP; victims are left out of the picture COMPLETELY.
We are only used as an imprematur to validate a leadership that the church has creatd FOR us. To get what the church thinks we ought to have.
Yep all us victims jest LOVE SNAP and all they've done for us.
Less than 15% compensated. What a victory for the oppressed!!!!
P you fire a lot of shots but you never hit anything. You only smear. You never prove your calumnies. You throw the insult but there's no follow through , no proof for what you say. You haveno finish. You just denigrate for the sake of denigration. You smear and run and you must be paid to do it.
You're on here all day and post 4 times what anyone else posts. That takes time and what with time being money. Somebody's paying for your time.. Don't you think people can see that?
JR on the 16th, at 11.46 am, attempts to introduce a atmosphere of theatrical humour. He jokingly describes himself as "drama queen", who must retire to his "couch'… because he is overcome by all the fuss and bother.
Nice try ..but it's still a smoke screen. He has previously told us about his own million dollar settlement… in respect of sexual abuse, when a schoolboy. Of course, I can't really call him a liar… because I wasn't there. Some would say that the settlement itself means that others did believe him. Otherwise why would they pay up? Good question, and deserves some attempt at an answer.
It is perhaps best understood by considering the 'Billy Doe' criminal case in Philly, currently gettting much deserved attention. If these convictions stand… then the contingency lawyers will have a powerful lever against the Church. The lawyers will make future claims and say "pay up". Otherwise we go to court and the court will come down on our side. No matter how flimsy our evidence, or how dubious the alleged victim. If 'Billy Doe' can win ….then anybody can win against you. So pay up! The mainstream media is complicit in this. It's role is to convince a gullible public that every accuser is genuine, and the Church is always guilty.
When all the smoke drifts away it becomes clear what is going on.
It is extortion…modern day extortion
What proof have you that all accusors or any percentage of us are fraudulent?
Seems to me like the basis for your argument lies in your imagination.
You're banking on 1 victim in Philly being a fraud and projecting that on all victims. Only one so called fraudster and you've no proof he's lying. In fact what you have are people imprisoned by the justice system that believed Billy Doe. You are batting zero here.
And Malcolm you are in Australia. Where are all the fraudulent victims there? Got any? Or are you too banking on Billy Doe, in the U.S., being "found out"?
I recieved $650,000 dollars really; after 40% was taken by my lawyer. Since we in California got the most of any victims who were allowed to sue; the whole reason i post here is to show how little to nothing everyone else has or hasn't recieved in compensation from the richest church in Christendom . The same richest church that has only "managed" to compensate less than 1/6th of it's victims in the U.S. and that's after 25 years of scandal. If you guys are being victimized and ripped off here who's your winning oposition? 2000 underpaid compensatees?
My recent comments have put a lot of possibilities and points on the table here. What do we get from JR?
On the 17th at 939PM:
Whenever JR starts off with “dare” you know one of the (many) Wigs of Outrage has been brought out of the box.
Then it appears his stratagem here will be to simply go down the list of points I raised and deny them through mere assertion (sort of a No It’s Not variant of the puerile I’m Not/You Are bit).
But even here his Cartoon is so threadbare that he can’t keep it all straight: in order for everyone JR has it in for to be conveniently included, then both “one group” and “the P/TMR side” both ‘pretend’ (while JR, of course, is a sterling instance of genuine authenticity and veracity).
But JR – yet again – has a solution (or at least a mere assertion): “really neither things are happening” (sic). Thus, no group is “doing something for victims” and there is no “something” that is “being done against the church”. (But JR, of course, is a sterling instance of genuine authenticity and veracity.)
And – as so often – he seeks to bolster that mere assertion with scream-caps.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 939PM:
And instead – JR would have us believe – it’s all just a matter of all of it being “meant to look like something’s going on”. (italics mine) Thus: who are your going to believe: JR or your own lying eyes?
Having thus conveniently and sufficiently (to his own mind, at least) disposed of all the problematic points, JR can indulge in his more congenial pastime of tossing-up his usual spin-points: the ‘victims’ (among whom, of course, JR includes himself – genuine or otherwise all) are ‘victims’ of having the “dialog” ‘controlled’, such that they can’t say their say. This harks back to his silly bit about the ‘dialog being controlled’ such that – what? – he can’t get a word in? But in the internet modality one can get as many words in as one wants, and we have the record of his words here.
And to keep his personal Cartoon going, he then has to slip in a doozy of a howler: that everywhere the ‘victims’ (among whom he includes himself) turn, they are told or they read “how great SNAP is”. Not here they don’t; I can recall nobody on this site – DP or commenters – who have ever praised SNAP; quite the opposite, in fact.
And then, to conclusively bolster his bit about “that’s the flip side to” me, he tosses in – yet again – the useless, outdated, and inaccurate figures from that old Wiki article.
And that’s all he’s got.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 939PM:
One begins to wonder: does JR actually even think-through his comments (as if in at least some attempt, however vitiated, at ‘dialog’) or if he simply compulsively tosses up whatever plop-tossy comebacks he can at any given moment, just to have something to toss up.
On the 17th at 911PM JR will now try to defend his continued use of that useless (outdated and partial) Wiki article.
He continues to use it because “it’s all anybody’s got”. In other words, it may not be very good, and it may even be useless (outdated and partial), but it’s all he can find.
Now a competent researcher, or even anyone who has ever had to compose an even modestly valid essay, term-paper, or longer such document, would realize that if the only supporting or establishing information you can find is useless, then you can’t really be drawing conclusions from it.
But not JR. If useless junk is all he’s got to make his ‘case’, then useless junk is what he will toss up. And – but of course – it would be sociopathic, un-Christian, insensitive, un-caring, non-dialogic, elitist, patriarchal, oppressive, child-rape-enabling, conservative/reactionary and fill-in-the-blank to take issue with his assertions, claims, stories, conclusions and cartoons simply because they are based on useless junk stats.
And he fills out the rest of the comment with sentimentality and a distracting appeal to emotions by strumming the old ‘victim’ tune.
This is the type of reasoning that supports the Stampede.
On the 17th at 919PM he will then try to bring the show home with – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – a pile of epithets which – once again through the wonders of clinical projection – prove far more accurate and revelatory in the recoil than in the projectile.
The conclusion which he draws from the whole pile: I “must be paid to do it”.
But don’t go thinking that he hasn’t thought-this bit through: he has a ‘logical’ process of arriving at that conclusion.
Specifically: since I post so very often here / and since that takes time / and since time is money / then … tah dahhhhhhhhh! – “somebody’s paying for [my] time”.
Perhaps it doesn’t actually take me too long to compose my comments. Perhaps I am sufficiently well-set up financially that I have the time. Perhaps I think this topic is important enough to warrant the time and effort. Or perhaps JR is simply trying to scrape up some plop to toss, in the absence of anything better to proffer.
So – in response to his final question – I would say that I have enough confidence in the competence of most readers of this site to consider the many possibilities, and not simply indulge in the epithetical cartoon-constructing which is JR’s stock-in-trade.
In a recent article on the BigTrial site, Ralph Cipriano referred to “Victimology” in the sense of distinguishing it from established science.
I think it might be useful at this point then if I proffer a list of some of the classic tenets of Victimology (all of which I have discussed previously on this site). To some readers they may appear as what can be called ‘conventional wisdom’ nowadays, but that appearance has much to do with the extent to which these tenets have been insinuated into the public consciousness over the past few decades.
Victims never lie / Victims cannot lie / Victims cannot be questioned because that would merely re-victimize them / Victims cannot be Victimizers / Victims cannot be expected to tell completely rational and coherent stories / Victims may take years to realize they have been victimized or to work up the courage to tell a story of their victimization / Victims “have a right to be believed” (as Hillary Clinton recently declared) / Insistence upon evidence is merely a form of the patriarchal oppression of ‘rationality’ (Catharine MacKinnon, Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, 1989) / Victims can produce repressed memories that are purely objective and complete ‘films’ of victimization events that happened years or decades prior and which memories are thus evidentiary-grade and must be treated as such / Absence of proof is itself evidence of victimization / Considering a possibility that any self-reported ‘victim’ might have ulterior motives for making false accusations is itself re-victimizing.
In regard to JR’s of the 18th at 1143AM:
As we have been seeing in his recent comments on this thread, JR – as if none of this bit were ever assessed here before – will once again ask for “proof” that any ‘victims’ are “fraudulent”.
We have been all around the garden on this before: there are so very often no witnesses nor any dispositive corroborating evidence for any of the stories, claims, allegations and assertions.
Thus any third-party (which includes anybody in the world except for the allegant and the alleged perpetrator) must rely either on a) being persuaded rationally by the probability or b) – the preferred Victimist solution –simply positing ‘belief’ in the stories, claims, allegations and assertions put forward by the allegant.
And as I have often posited and explained here, the elements of probability that the Stampede has created an almost perfect-storm of hospitable elements that seek to both i) override rational persuasion and ii) rely on mere ‘belief’… is demonstrably strong, and so point-perfect as to suggest a remarkable synergy.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1143AM:
The same actuality of the lack of clear and dispositive evidence that undermines their claims in a ‘traditional’ legal universe is made to work as ‘evidence’ in a Victimist legal universe.
And this opens the door to what I have recently pointed out to be the genuinely sociopathic element in the Stampede: relying-upon (some might say preying-upon) the ‘belief’ propensity of most people to assume that nobody would create false victimization stories for any reason.
And thus also the effort then to spin any doubts arising from probabilities as being merely “in your imagination” (which, nicely, may well be where many allegants’ stories originated to begin with).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1143AM:
Thus then JR will – with uncharacteristic attention to detail – try to dispose of the Doe case(s) by preemptively dismissing it all as a) merely being “1” case and “1” victim, and anyway b) there’s “no proof he’s lying”.
In regard to (a): I would say this case demonstrates precisely so many of the elements of Victimist and Stampede tactics and strategy as they have been now long-established and carefully-scripted. But this time around the stuff was carefully analyzed and assessed, and – who can be surprised? – the whole thing falls apart under such sustained and competent examination.
In regard to (b): in this type of one-says/the other-says case (now so frequent in an era of Victimist law) there is rarely if ever any play for “proof” and JR either knows that or is even more seriously thought-challenged than anyone might have thought – his own allegation could produce no “proof” of his claim.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1143AM:
But once we consider the matter on the ground of either ‘probability’ or ‘belief’, then after the sustained examination of extant demonstrable material that we have seen in the Doe case on the BigTrial site, readers may consider the probability of Doe’s credibility and veracity.
And that goes for all of the Stampede cases where no direct dispositive evidence existed. And given the paucity of criminal cases (which would require at least some stab at such direct dispositive evidence), then it is fair to presume that the Anderson strategies were most wise in keeping most Stampede claims in the civil-litigation forum (a lower standard of evidence and much more room for ‘belief’ to come into play).
JR himself demonstrates this overtly when he asserts (accurately enough, as far as it goes) that a jury “believed Billy Doe”. But – of course – he neglects to rely on that same “justice system” now that it has much more recently directly impugned the integrity of the trial and conviction of Lynn and ordered a retrial.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1143AM:
The further bit about ‘Malcolm’ being “in Australia” is nothing but distracting epithet, since the principles of rationality are the same in Australia as anywhere else (although once Victimist legal agitation starts-up, then wherever they do one can expect efforts to undermine the principles of rationality).
And the bit concludes then with a recitation of JR’s only getting 650K for his efforts. Alas, re-victimized yet again.
But he then tries – illogically – to use that point to demonstrate that no other State’s ‘victims’ could get as much cash “from the richest church in Christendom” (nicely capitalized here). And further bits calculated – yet again – on the useless stats from that outdated and partial Wiki article (but it’s the only plop he had available to toss).
Yawn! I guess P's being paid by the word. Is this your thesus, fool? still trying to get that masters? Nobody cares what you think. You blow smoke.
People aren't as stupid as they used to be. Sure a lot are still; but young people when they hocked their future to get an education. Got one. If Bernie's doing as well as he is. People are a lot smarter than they used to be and a lot poorer too.
Your masses of words can't compare with masses of well read people who( if they can stand it ) slog through your swill; laugh bitterly and know you to be the outlandish bullshiter you are.
It's in every word you write. You are consistantly wrong and like a stupid child you lie that you're not. You seem to overlook that people get you're a fake; and a barking bore about being one.
Now I'll nap while you make more money. How much a word P?
You're so outraged I got $650,000?. Me too.
It's no where near enough for what I went through thanks to your church.
You got off cheap.
And with all the points on the table yet again, how will JR manage to get out of it this time?
No surprises on the 19th at 1232AM: he will simply repeat his bit about my being paid to write here.
While also indulging in some uncharacteristically florid rhetorical flourishes, riffing on the idea that the Church is doomed and nobody believes anymore / which (we are not supposed to notice) is incoherent when placed next to another favorite Abusenik cartoon-theme: that in this day and age the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has the power to subvert, suborn or otherwise seduce and control all of the elements of the Philadelphia justice system and – don’t forget – the allegant and his relations themselves / which bit is then also incoherent when placed next to another favorite Abusenik cartoon-theme: that the trial-jury found Lynn guilty so the case is closed and so the Abuseniks – myah, myah – don’t have to talk about it anymore.
Money rules. Political power rules. Morality? Completely unnecessary for the church as long as it holds the other two.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 1232AM and 1238AM:
Abuseniks a) need to have some excuse for avoiding the problems with their material and Abuseniks b) really can’t imagine anyone being interested in something if there’s no money (or, if you wish, “compensation”) in it. Which, come to think of it, is no surprise at all.
And this bit is then reinforced by his comment of the 19th at 1238AM where he is on about money again. But – also no surprise – he has to somehow make it seem as if I were the one interested in money, so he invents the characterization that I am “outraged” at the amount he got (these types enjoy having people “outraged” at them; it seems to them to be some sort of achievement – perhaps one of their very few).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 1232AM and 1238AM:
And once again he strums the old Stampede/Victimist tune about “how much [he] went through”. Which, especially for regular readers who recall the specifics of his misadventure as he described it here quite a while back, raises just about all of the classic Problems with Stampede allegations (the Causality Problem, the Pre-Existence Problem, the Credibility Problem, the Probability Problem) while also drawing upon many of those major points of Victimology that I noted in my comment here of the 18th at 215PM.
Have I told you to fuck off lately? Just wondering. Wouldn't want to miss any opportunity.
I do notice you never finish your accusations about people. You insult with no evidence that what you say is true. You simply declaim your accusations to be true. Like some bargin basement pontiff
How Catholic-esque! (You offer hell and heaven with no proof of those being true, either..)
You have no information about any figures newer than the 11,000 victims. 2000 of whom are compensated; yet you imply that such figures exist.
How would you know? Show me Mr. Research.
You rape me. That's not a problem as far as you're concerned?
But if I want compensation and justice; that's a problem for you?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
And you claim to be a follower of a just god because why?
Not much new again, but let’s see what can be done with what’s here.
On the 20th at 1037, after clattering on stage with an epithetical bang, JR will try to claim that I make accusations and” insult with no evidence”.
First, I’m just following the material that’s put up.
Second, I point out the problems – in this case the Problems that have been dealt with before (but of course, to Abuseniks, it’s always today). Nor do I recall JR making any effective response to the Problems when they were raised and described the first time around.
Third, there is no “evidence” one way or the other, as is the case in so very many of these claims. We must assess probability using logic and the coherence of the available material.
And once again with the clinical projection: “bargain basement pontiff” is a good one – but will it be JR or ‘Dan’ who gets to wear that hefty Wig? Stay tuned.
"Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." MT 7:6
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 20th at 1037AM:
Then a sly maneuver indeed: JR will try to distract from the problem with his Wiki-derived “2000” figure by claiming that I have no newer figures.
First, the figures from the first Jay Report (dated 2004) are on page 4 of that Report, some 10,667 allegations made as of 2002 or 2003. Then there are the figures for allegations going through 2009, on pages 8 through 10 of the second Report (dated 2011).
These are the figures for allegations-made. There are no figures I can find for the number of allegations for which money was paid out, except for that decade-old and partial Wiki article (which up to that year compiled information from a few States as to the number of the payouts made through settlements). Even in 2005 the Wiki article’s numbers were admittedly partial, and given the fact that payouts have been made since that year, then the Wiki information is both partial (as it was from the get-go) and now out of date by a decade.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 20th at 1037AM:
JR will attempt to imply that since his figures (i.e. the Wiki figures) exist, and no other compiled figures exist, then … what? Since the Wiki figures upon which he bases his various bits – demonstrably partial and most certainly outdated – exist, then they are reliable? There is no way to establish such an assertion logically.
And indeed, he himself refers to “the 11,000 victims”. That number comes from the first Jay Report (actually, 10,667 allegations).
Where did I “imply that such figures” (i.e. more complete and updated numbers of those who received money) “exist”? My point is precisely that there are no such figures as to how many of the allegants received money.
But we do have figures generally in the area of 2.5-3 billion dollars paid-out and the best we can do is presume that most of the 11-12,000 allegations successfully received payouts. One might, of course, try to extrapolate from the partial Wiki numbers and try to reach a number for all of the States, but that would have to be a very complex algorithm to achieve some significant degree of accuracy.
In any case, the idea that JR’s Wiki numbers are in and of themselves of any value at all cannot be deemed credible.
On the 20th at 1041AM JR will then try to bolster his grossly iffy ‘figures’ bit by scampering back up to the more congenial Abusenik territory of emotional manipulation, with the “rape” trope and – apparently – the implication that I do not see it as a “problem”.
I have pointed out the problems with the material; he can hardly infer from all those problems that I don’t see a “problem”. I see many problems.
And “compensation and justice” – another familiar trope – can hardly be considered on their merits until the many problems (or Problems) that I noted are resolved. They can only be resolved by a serious assessment of probability (since there were no witnesses to the allegated event) but that is a task for each reader, taking everything into account.
And the bit concludes with an attempt to presume what has yet to be demonstrated, dragging in “a just god” in the process, for the desired rhetorical effect.
You can presume that all 11,000 victims in the U.S. have been compensated; yet everything else you want photographic proof for?
THIS IS WHY YOU ARE A LIAR! You are a liar by ommision.
No proof of compensation by you Assumption of compensation for all by you.
Alas. ‘Dan’ had a problem: he couldn’t very well answer the very clear and direct question I put to him (who made the error in the Latin quotation he used – ‘Dan’ or God/god?).
Well, actually there was that other question too: were children involved in the five other jailings and mental-facility stays he reported?
But if he didn’t answer them, then he had dealt himself out of the game and couldn’t very well keep posting his stuff.
Whatever to do?
By amazing coincidence, he chose a favorite Abusenik solution familiar to regular readers: he waited until he figured maybe everyone had forgotten or nobody really cared, and then suddenly materializes again (the 21st at 447PM).
Yes, his comment is irrelevant and epithetical, but it tests the water. No doubt he hopes to be up and running again as if (we should all pretend) the questions were never asked and he never didn’t-answer them.
What do you want me to tell you, that God doesn't know how to spell so you can believe you're even smarter than him. Did you see any scripture quote (i.e. Proverbs 9:8) or "Thus saith the Lord", so even the simple mind could understand that it was my spelling mistake. What is your problem, Mr. Know It All? What makes you think that I have to explain everything to you, even things that are obvious. To insist on rehashing, what you know little about, other than the lies you've expounded on in regards to the school children, clearly shows your ignorance. In regards to the quote, MT 7:6, being irrelevant, apparently you're unaware of the fact that you are swine. "None so blind as those who refuse to see." Here's the Proverb 9:8 for you: "Do not correct mockers (scoffers) or they will hate you. But correct the wise and they will love you." Since you probably think this is irrelevant, I'll let the wise decide if my message is from a true follower and servant of the Almighty. Leave me out of your material, so I can respond to those who seek the truth in life and don't buy into your lies and manipulations. Dan, servant of the Lord
On the 21st at 719PM JR will continue to try to wiggle out of the corner he painted himself into.
I had proposed that if we wanted to come to any numbers as to allegants-paid, then our best route – all things considered – was to presume that most of the 11,000 or so allegations tallied up in the first and second Jay Reports were paid something.
Otherwise, we either have between 2.5 and 3 billion dollars that disappeared into thin air or we have a mere 2,000 allegants that split that enormous sum (and while there are many news reports about large total-settlement amounts, there don’t seem to be any talking about individuals receiving so significant a sum as 1.5 million each (3 billion divided by 2,000).
The alternative to all that, of course, is simply to accept that there are no figures (up-to-date and complete) that have ever been compiled that reliably tally up the number of allegants-paid.
Since JR raised the point in the first place (with his Wiki bit) then there are only those options available if we try to assess his claim.
Continuing in regard to JR’s of the 21st at 719PM:
And the alternative to assessing the validity of his claim is to simply dismiss it for lack of any reliable figures. Because if there are no reliable figures, then you can’t go drawing conclusions simply on the basis of the demonstrably unreliable figures that are available.
On that basis, JR eagerly dons tone of his favorites, the Wig of Outraged Aha! – scream caps and all, to claim that I can “presume” about the allegants but about all the other Abusenik stuff I require “photographic proof”.
Continuing in regard to JR’s of the 21st at 719PM:
First, I ‘presumed’ only for the purposes of trying to assess JR’s initial claim, rather than simply dismissing it as based on greatly unreliable figures. My own recommendation would be to dismiss it as being based on greatly and demonstrably unreliable figures and to waste no further time trying to make sense of it.
Second, JR – for his own convenience – yet again creates something I didn’t say in order to lubricate his own bits: I precisely do not “want photographic proof”; I precisely have been saying that there is no available proof at all – and that thus we are left with either i) assessing probabilities or b) blind belief in whatever the allegants allegate.
Indeed, it was on this basis that the Stampede has sustained and engorged itself for so long: there is no proof, but Victimology insists that you ‘believe’ the allegant and that’s all there is to it. JR’s was among the many whose cases surfed this greasy wave from the get-go.
Continuing in regard to JR’s of the 21st at 719PM:
Thus we see that the Stampede was built on a double manipulation: i) you must ‘believe’ and ii) you must not assess (because, as Victimology’s mantras insist, to assess is simply to patriarchally and obsessively demand rationality and re-victimize the ‘victim’).
What I “want” is rational assessment (determining probable actualities and then drawing conclusions that can be legitimately grounded in those actualities).
So JR has set up a false task here and one which – by amazing coincidence – is convenient to his purposes: the Abuseniks are not confronted with a demand for “photographic evidence” and thus they are not confronted with an impossible task. Rather, they are confronted with rational assessment of the material they put up, which should hardly be an outrageous burden.
But, of course, their material can’t stand up to rational assessment. And thus the scream-cappy epithets instead.
‘Dan’ has realized he’s going to have to somehow deal with the question(s).
Thus the 22nd at 137PM.
He opens immediately – and slyly – with the Wig of Bemused Victimization: “what do you want me to tell you”.
He then quickly adds that “even the simple mind could understand” that – tah dahhhhh! – “it was [his, i.e. ‘Dan’s] spelling mistake”.
Let’s step around the distracting bits and get right to it: ‘Dan’ made the mistake.
OK, then. As I had mentioned before, that indicates that there is some amount of space between ‘Dan’ and (a, the, his, some, any) ‘god’ or God.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 137PM:
Having established – and by his own admission – that there is room for “mistake” between a) the god-gram transmission and b) ‘Dan’s handling of the transmission, then there is room for rational persons to consider the content and extent of ‘Dan’s ability to “mistake” the material he claims to be receiving.
Thus questioning ‘Dan’s material is not quite so obviously tantamount to ‘questioning’ (a, the, some, his, any) ‘god’ or God.
Thus ‘Dan’s signature attempt to establish the authority of his assorted bits by insisting that they are (a, the, some, his, any) ‘god’s or God’s bits … isn’t tenable and – indeed – might well qualify as being humorous in the intensity of their ungrounded assertiveness.
And ‘Dan’ remains simply one more claimant upon the authority of (a, the, some, his, any) ‘god’ or God in order to create a status of authority and legitimacy for whatever personal eructations might be put forward.
Oh! So your going to insinuate that since I misspelled one letter in "ad nauseam", then that would mean, my transmission of what you mockingly term God-grams is somehow flawed. First off, the sentence with the misspelling was my own words and never did I claim them being from God. Secondly, if you think that God's followers make no mistakes, then you truly need a lesson on understanding the flaws and sins of God's prophets and disciples, of which none were perfect. You may want to refrain from trying to deceive and fool readers with your utter nonsense and poor suppositions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 137PM:
Even ‘Dan’ seems to realize that his answer has placed him on very shaky ground.
So he immediately dons the Wig of Outrage and tries to spin the whole thing as “[my] problem”.
Because, he plaints, he sees no reason why he “has to explain everything”.
We see here a shared tendency of Abuseniks and religiously-hyperexcited types: they really do like tossing around their stuff, but they are (fill in the blank: hurt, irritated, shocked, outraged, insulted, victimized, re-victimized, all-of-the-above) by having to “explain” their various claims, assertions, allegations, demands, and so on and so forth.
This wasn’t the way it was supposed to go. Victimism and the Stampede were supposed to have provided insurance and guarantee that they wouldn’t have to actually “explain” or effectively answer anything about all the stuff they tossed around.
It was obvious that I wrote it, which would mean to a normal mind, it would need no explaining. I understand your problem with reading comprehension, which gives you no right to question anyone's mental capacity. Your false accusations towards others and your insistance on defending the pedophile perverts and enablers of your cult, definitely qualifies you as swine, and don't leave out the dog half. "A dog returns to its vomit," and "A pig that is washed goes back to wallow in the mud." 2 Peter 2:22 Of course, we're not sure whether you were ever washed, other than brainwashed, but we've definitely had to deal with your vomit. Dan, still serving
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 137PM:
And he then immediately (and slyly) seeks to bolster that gambit by then sliding in the bit about the legitimacy of his material being “obvious” (so anyone who questions it has to be a dumb indeed).
And then tries to bolster that bit by claiming that I “insist on rehashing … what [I] know little about”. Which is code for noting in his own material assorted and not necessarily small problems with it, whether it be his Scriptural bits, his doctrinal assertions about Catholicism, and – but of course – the incidents (with children in at least one case) that led to his repeated jailings and enforced-stays in mental institutions.
And did you notice that sustaining assessment and questions in regard to which no sufficiently rational answers are forthcoming is nothing more than “rehashing”?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 137PM:
But – no surprise here – he doesn’t really want to get into that second question I had raised, about the number of times his jailings and enforced stays in mental institutions arose from incidents that involved children.
And instead, he slyly and shrewdly moves us quickly along to much safer and congenial ground for him, i.e. his defense of his use of a Scriptural pericope (on the 21st at 447PM).
And here the spiritually mature and ‘divinely’-inspired Servant and Scripture maven doth defend the relevance of his use of that pericope: it is relevant, saith the Servant, because – had you been waittttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – the pericope demonstrates (indubitably and definitively, to his mind) that “apparently you’re unaware of the fact that you are swine”.
In other words, the definitively-informed and spiritually-guided conclusion is … an epithet that I/we am/are “swine”. Hardly an impressive performance by (a, the, some, his, any) ‘god’ or God.
Unless, of course, we work on what we have now established in this sequence of comments and consider that I/we am/are being proclaimed “swine” not by any divinity but merely by ‘Dan’, currently in-between matinees at a mental-institution.
All cases were based on lies by your evil, deceiving, wicked, lying, perverted clergy, followed by your stupid additions to those lies, imbicile. Also, My God considers you to be swine and I absolutely agree with His assessment. There you go. Two witnesses. So you just continue to show your ignorance, in mocking Him and His chosen, and we'll all sit back and watch how that benefits you. Dan, waiting patiently for your Judgment Day
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 137PM:
And on the basis of that bit, he can then simply indulge himself in more Scriptural pericopes, built upon the same abyssal problem as his original one.
And he instructs me to “leave [him] out of [my] material”. Yes – that would be great fun for him: he could then spout on and on and not be questioned. That’s what all Abuseniks and religiously-hyperexcited types always want.
And the Stampede made sure to try to give them exactly that type of field on which to play their games.
No one "spout[s] on and on" about nothing, like you do, except maybe a parrot.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1218AM:
In response to his rather startled question: I am saying that there is clearly some room for difference between whatever ‘Dan’ puts up and whatever God might have in mind. Clearly, unless we posit that God has trouble with languages (and Latin at that), then – as ‘Dan’ himself admitted – there is room for mistake in ‘Dan’s material.
But then we are now told that ‘Dan’ wasn’t speaking God’s words (or what-have-you) when he made the error in the Latin term. So now we are to understand that there are times when ‘Dan’ speaks ex cathedra, as it were, and when he is just being himself.
And he’s the only one who knows exactly when and where those differences occur.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1218AM:
But then but then but then: I am upbraided for thinking – tah dahhhhhhh! – that “God’s followers make no mistakes”.
Well, then: if those who seek to follow God can “make … mistakes”, then there’s a very great deal of room for careful assessment as to where they have and where they haven’t.
I have demonstrated where ‘Dan’ has made a number of mistakes, both in his Scriptural exegeses and in his theological assertions and in his further assertions drawing conclusions from those mistakes.
And one might go further: if ‘Dan’ – claiming as he does that his stuff is direct from ‘God’ – winds up leading people astray with his mistaken claims and assertions … then what?
Using your dumb logic, how can you give a critical explanation in regards to Scripture or claim my theological assertions are mistaken, when you don't know the correct spelling of exegesis. Your mistake would make void any misinterpretation you have of Scripture.
Back atcha, Snarky Persnickety Mocker
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1218AM:
And then and then and then: ‘Dan’ huffs and plaints that I “truly need a lesson in understanding the flaws and sins of God’s prophets and disciples”.
I would say that while priests and Catholics generally aren’t quite categorizable as “God’s prophets and disciples, of which none were perfect”, yet ‘Dan’ might need a lesson in understanding their (and everyone else’s) “flaws and sins”.
And to which of his own “sins” ‘Dan refers here … is a matter of some interest.
And we are still left with this problem: ‘Dan’s concept of “God’s prophets and disciples” says either too much or too little. Are all believers categorizable as “God’s prophets and disciples” … or is it just ‘Dan’ who has given himself (Himself?) a special warrant and appointment as being an official member of the company that includes Isaiah and Jeremiah, Peter and Paul … ?
Publyin' states, "I would say that while priests and Catholics generally aren't quite categorizable as 'God's prophets and disciples [followers], of which none were perfect'." That is one of very few truthful statements you have ever made. They can most definitely be categorized as idol worshippers and disciples of the "Queen of Heaven" and of many other false gods and saints. And this is the reason why they are terrible liars, because they unwittingly worship the devil. "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 And try as you might to find excuses for the "flaws and sins" of your despicable, pedophile clergy and their excusers and enablers, so I'll give you the quote one more time. "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea." Mt 18:6 Reaffirmed in the gospel of Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 So if you again think you can claim my Biblical quotes to be irrelevant, then I would have to respond that they are no where near as irrelevant as you and your lying cult are becoming. servant of the Almighty, True God
P.S. So keep on mocking and I'm not surprised you know the spelling of imbecile, seeing that you probably have it written across your forehead.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1218AM:
What advice might I proffer to ‘Dan’ at this point? Why, his own: “You may want to refrain from trying to deceive and fool readers” (and children, especially, it would seem) with your claims of being a reliable and directly-informed spokesman for God.
And on the 22nd at 944PM ‘Dan’ will simply whistle by his own graveyard by airily dismissing all of his jailings and mental-institution misadventures as being “based on lies” (perpetrated, he adds, by the school staffers; and, I would add, believed by the police and a judge, multiple times).
That may be his preferred characterization of the charges against him. I have made the case that the facts – even as he has described them – easily support an alternative explanation that speaks much better of the school staff, the police, and the judge(s)).
And might we conclude that the epithetical (if misspelled) “imbicile” comes from ‘Dan’ and not from ‘God’?
But no: we are immediately informed that “my God” (i.e. the source of ‘Dan’s illuminations – or, rather, eructations) “also considers you to be swine” and ‘Dan’, but of course, can only “absolutely agree” with (a, the, some, his, any) ‘god’ in that assessment.
Oh, and ‘Dan’ will be waiting for “Judgment Day” when, but of course, he will be proven right and very clever. This is the fantasy of somebody who really really plans to get back at the world for his own problems and has drafted ‘God’ into his plans and consoling daydreams.
Are you so dense, that you can't understand that since all the accusations were all based on the lies of your cult, then it really wouldn't matter who believed their lies, even if it was the president or your evil leaders. Any more than anything you have to add to the lies really matters. Won't you crawl back under the rock you slithered out from.
This is insidious. Absolutely evil. No other words for it.
Any Catholics who support P and the damage to people that asswipe does here are nothing but criminal. Read him ( there's no one else too read) He hogs all debate and tries to destroy what he can't manipulate.
How does this baboon's behavior help ANYONE? Including your church.
Enough. If i go away and Dan goes away watch the comments shrink. P will have no one personal to attack here. I'm furious! You deserve the filth you wallow in. Rot!
And now for ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 345PM:
He opens – predictably enough – with an epithetical bit.
He then creates for himself a more congenial reality than that presented in the text (a habit that carries over into his Scriptural bits as well): I had quoted him to the effect that none of “God’s prophets and disciples … were perfect”.
He will take that not-being-perfect to equate with being “idol worshippers” and then goes on – yet again – about “the ‘Queen of Heaven’ and of many other false gods and saints”. Readers theologically inclined, and perhaps informed as to Catholic doctrine, can try to suss out the usefulness and accuracy of his bits here.
On then to JR’s of the 23rd at 243PM:
And what do we get?
Merely an epithetical pronunciamento, delivered under the bangles of both the papal and the theological Wigs.
Followed in the second paragraph by merely a second epithetical pronunciamento, similarly be-Wigged, which this time is aimed at “any Catholics” (nicely capitalized) who … and so on and so forth, with – had you been waittttinggg forrrrr itttttt? – some adolescent scatology tossed in.
And then that hash is buttressed by another epithetical pronunciamento, this time delivered under the Wig of Law and Justice to the effect that any such Catholics “are nothing but criminal”.
My how Abuseniks do like to puff up their feathers and deliver their pronunciamentos.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 243PM:
And that paragraph continues with – yet again – JR’s whine that I ‘hog’ “all debate” and that I try “to destroy what [I] can’t manipulate” – which bit is again brought to us by the wonders of clinical projection. If my questions interfere with the basic manipulative Abusenik and Stampede game-plan, I most surely do not apologize.
The third paragraph gives us another epithet.
But since he asked “how does [my] behavior help anyone?” (scream-caps omitted) I will answer that my material helps to expose the essential Abusenik and Stampede dynamics and objectives and game-plan.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 243PM:
But then, apropos of nothing, JR will pull out another of his well-thumbed 3x5s: if he (and, generously, ‘Dan’) were to stop commenting, then the numbers of comments would “shrink”. Yes, I imagine they would – but what’s the point? If bank-robbers stopped robbing banks, the police would have nothing to do … and thus … what? I personally would find it a pleasant release not to have to engage such mentalities so frequently. But then, if they stopped commenting, there wouldn’t be the opportunity to demonstrate some of the essential operational dynamics behind the Stampede.
And then another well-worn 3×5: to question is to attack, a bit that is right out of Victimology 101.
And the whole bit then spiced up with the somewhat histrionic “Enough!” and “I’m furious!” and the follow-on epithets.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 243PM:
But it is clear enough that JR is irritated for some reason about my continuing to assess ‘Dan’s material.
Which perhaps isn’t so surprising. After all, the whole Abusenik game-plan – as I have said before – is based on the Victimist presumption that you’re not supposed to question their material, especially in any sort of sustained manner.
And no wonder. When you do question their material in any sort of sustained manner, you wind up a) discovering that their material doesn’t hold together very well and b) they tend to reveal some vividly quease-making aspects of themselves that don’t comport with either the Victim image or with the image of ‘Servants’ of God.
I also notice that I didn’t fully deal with ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1027PM when I commented on it above:
He also tries to equate what he would like to spin as my “problem with reading comprehension” with the “right to question anyone’s mental capacity”.
My points about his “mental capacity” are based on a rather clear comprehension of material that he himself (Himself?) provided, which includes “six” times being sent for psychiatric observation by a judge and the assorted bits of material he himself (Himself?) put up, as I explicated at some length here.
Continuing with my further comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1027PM:
And then the classic bit – shared by Abuseniks and anti-Catholic hyper-excited types – to the effect that I am “defending the pedophile perverts” (he would need to provide an accurate quotation from my material here). But – doncha see? – that ‘defense’ “definitely qualifies [me] as swine”. Neato.
And then some pericopes that deal with “dogs” and “swine”, which – to his (and his, a, the, some, any god’s) mind – is relevant because he has already constructed for himself the ‘fact’ of my ‘defending’ and so forth.
Which then also clears his path to his concluding epithet about “vomit”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 345PM:
Then this bit opens the way for him to ‘explain’ why they are “terrible liars” (i.e. the school staffers who ‘lied’ about him to the police and the police believed it and told the judge(s) and the judge(s) believed it).
They are “terrible liars” – tah dahhhhh! – because “they unwittingly worship the devil”. Whereas, of course, ‘Dan’ gets his god-grams from the Other Direction … as should be “obvious” to any “normal mind”. And, but of course, we may consider ‘Dan’ to be reliably familiar with the workings of a “normal mind”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 345PM:
Then he’s back to the ‘millstone/drowned in the sea’ pericope which – when it was previously pointed out that his interpretation was deficient and incoherent with other Gospel material – he has yet to explain and defend. How, for example, does he square his interpretation with the Marcan Good-Shepherd material?
And the whole hash is then concluded with epithet built upon the presumption that his Scripture and theology are both accurate and relevant.
And the “P.S.” … is that from a supposedly mature ‘god’ or is that just ‘Dan’ himself (Himself?) rattling on here?
You previously tried to convince us that in MT 18:6, Jesus wasn't referring to children, but to adults becoming like children (i.e. innocent, pure, loving, etc.). But Jesus sat a child on His lap and did say we must become like little children. In most every translation of MT 18:6, Christ's words were, "Whoever shall offend one of 'these little ones' who believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." He says this with a child on His lap, but you still insist He wasn't talking about those who destroy the innocence of a child or one of His children, so it doesn't apply to your sick, disgusting hierarchy? Jesus said, "you must become like this child", not rape, molest and abuse children. Even secular people consider rape a morally heinous crime, so how would the rape of innocent little children rate in any decent persons mind. You can believe, as you do, that the rape of multiple little boys is forgivable, and that would be your opinion, but I see it as a very twisted view, by a corrupt, deceiving group of false believers. You might consider my interpretation as "deficient and incoherent", but how would a carnal mind understand the things of the Spirit, when they are only Spiritually discerned. How can a persistent mocker of God, think he can interpret Scripture better than those whom the Lord has poured His Spirit upon.
I have no problem with the Parable of the Good Shepherd, but that doesn't make void MT 18:6. John further expounds on unforgivable sin in 1 John 5:16. "There is sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that." The book of Jude will also help anyone better understand the wicked, evil, mockers of the Almighty God. Trust in the Lord's Word and not in the lies and false accusations of deceivers.
Pre-note: I had to send a series of further comments to DP by email because of an ‘error’ message on the site machinery. It may take a while for them to get up.
On now to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 106AM:
We note his reference to “dumb logic”. They don’t like “logic”, the Abuseniks and other types: they can’t easily mimic it convincingly and they surely haven’t got a working knowledge and grasp of it and it does tend to screw up their presentations by uncovering the incoherences. And we note that ‘Dan’ never actually points out any problems with my “logic” (but, of course, as he has said in self-exculpation, there are so many the poor thing just wouldn’t know where to begin).
Anyhoo, he’s on about my use of “exegeses” and how it clearly demonstrates my lack of knowledge in things Scriptural. “Exegeses” would be the plural of the Greek singular “exegesis”.
Clearly, when ‘Dan’ made a virtue of necessity by proclaiming that he didn’t need to read any books but the Bible (and his god-grams) he didn’t realize that god-grams don’t actually substitute for an educated and trained mind and certainly cannot eliminate the infelicities consequent upon a deranged one.
I have pointed out problems with your "dumb logic". It's basically all lies and stupid excuses. You think it's "logic". We think It's stupidity. And you continue with more of your stupid comments and mockery of God's Word and His prophetic wisdom. And you think you're "an educated and trained mind". That's hysterical, you "deranged" creep.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 130AM:
He slyly (always so slyly) opens with a preemptive epithet to the effect that I must really be “dense”.
He then again puts up his signature self-exculpation to the effect that all of the claims made against him were “lies” (repetition and scream-caps and exclamation points, so often seen in connection with this bit, omitted).
Specifically, he wants us to believe that whatever report was made by complainants to the police – and thence by the police in their report to the judge – were merely “all based on the lies of your cult”.
Maybe I should have said you were ignorant instead of dense. I'm so….ssooorrrrryy!
"Specifically, he wants us to believe that whatever report was made by complainants to the police- and thence by the police in their report to the judge- were merely 'all based on the lies of your cult'."
Correction- I could care less what a liar like yourself believes. And I'm not looking to make others believe in what I'm saying. I'm simply telling all of you that all accusations were "all based on the lies of your cult". That is the absolute truth. Take it or leave it or in your case, you can stick it where the sun don't shine. You know, under the dark, slimy place you slithered out from. And if you have to question if that was from God or from me, that would most definitely be me, servant of the One Almighty Truly Awesome God, who knows the truth and also has His sights fixed on liars. Keep it up, little peewee punk.