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 ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 130AM:
And are we then to believe that the staffers and/or other complainants (for those six times) raised the points of the “Queen of Heaven” and all the “false idols” and “saints” to the police, who then put it into their report for the judge? And that the judge(s) sent him to a mental institution based on his conceptual disagreement with points of Catholic doctrine?
No. ‘Dan’ was jailed and convicted and sent to a mental institution multiple times because of what he actually did, which actions were reported to the police by whatever complainants were involved, upon the basis of which actual actions of ‘Dan’ the judges came to the conclusions they did – ultimately sending him to a mental institution.
Readers may consider the actions of the various complainants, the police and the judges as they will.
Pliar goes on; and on and on and on and on and an and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on andon and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ( yawn!) and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on………… And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and, "waittttttttt forrrrrrr itttttt!" …………………….And then on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and "wig" and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and……. then somemore.. and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and no and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and another "wig" and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on……….and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and….. Get what I'm sayin'? and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…………………….= smoke.
Would that the police might find a nice "institution" for you P rincess. Then you could have that day room you are always talking about.
I wouldn't be pointing out mental flaws if I were you P.. Slippery slope.
On the 24th at 133PM ‘Dan’ will again try to demonstrate his Scriptural chops by going back to what is apparently one of his favorite bits, MT 18:6, wherein we have the Jesus/children/millstone/ drowned sequence.
Readers may recall my comments of the 29th of January at 1147PM and 1148PM.
‘Dan’ wants to make the claim that Jesus was referring to actual children, which would fit nicely into his general cartoon-interpretation that turns the pericope into a specific Woe pronounced against child-abusers and more specifically, the Church and priests and bishops and so forth.
(Which, in a neat and sly economy, justifies any undue or eyebrow-raising interest ‘Dan’ might have in children, since he is actually trying to give them (his version of) God’s Word rather than leading them astray … like the assorted priests, bishops, staffers, Catholics generally, and perhaps the police and judges and psychiatrists as well.)
Let’s to it, then.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
He will do so by focusing – like a magpie or a pack-rat – only on those itty-bits of Scripture that appear useful to his own purposes.
Thus he ignores the first verses of Mt 18, in which – asked by the disciples who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven – Jesus calls over a child and says to them “unless you turn and become like children you will not enter”.
And Jesus uses the word talya, which in primitive Aramaic – in an intriguing and relevant ambiguity – can mean either ‘child’ or ‘servant’.
The key here is clearly that both the ‘child’ and the ‘servant’ are dependent.
It can hardly be the case that Jesus was insisting that the disciples or any believers actually and physically become a child again. Rather, they must become “like” a child.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
Thus when in verse 6 Jesus refers to “these little ones” (in the plural) while the child He has called over to the group is standing there, it can only be that He is using the particular child as a teaching-aid to render vivid the point He is trying to make.
There is also no indication in the text that Jesus sat the child on His lap as ‘Dan’ would have it.
And “these little ones” cannot grammatically refer to that (singular) child in front of the group but rather to all those (plural) who have followed His exhortation to “become like children” or “servants” (plural).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
Thus anyone who causes a believer who has followed the advice of Jesus to “become like children” (or “servants”) to stumble commits a grievous sin.
But there is no such specificity as ‘Dan’ would like to imagine in order to further his purposes in regard to Catholic clerical child-abuse. Rather, anyone who in any way causes a believer (who has become like a child or a servant) to stumble is guilty of grievous sin.
I love that by the last statement of your 1:37pm post and this post, you've succeeded in condemning yourself of grievous sin, seeing that you seem to get some sick pleasure from lying, harassing and falsely accusing a servant of the Lord. Although I've only stumbled in your evil, little, perverted brain. How's it feel to have the weight of a millstone bearing down on your neck. I've heard that swimming in a lake of fire is a great way to lose weight. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
And in addition to that close and grammatical reading of the text, one is then also confronted by the implications of the Parable of the Good Shepherd in Mark (who will leave the other 99 to search out the lost one). And which – ‘Dan’ has failed to note – is also included by Matthew immediately afterwards, in verses 10-14.
And “one of His children” would, as I have said, refer to anyone who followed His exhortation to “become like children”.
So the sense of the text, derived from the text itself, cannot support ‘Dan’s favorite fever-vision as he then further describes it (through the wonders of clinical projection) in his bit about “your sick, disgusting hierarchy”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
He then gets to riffing about the rape of children and nobody on this site has ever supported such an act.
However, we then come to a further theological point and question: is the rape of a child forgivable by God? This is a question in the same category as ‘Did God let Hitler into heaven?’ or ‘Who can humans assume to most certainly be in hell?’ And who can answer that? What human on this side of the Veil can know? Surely not ‘Dan’ on the basis of his god-grams, from whatever source they derive.
The fact that ‘Dan’ considers himself sufficiently divinely-informed to pronounce definitively on this theological question is what it is and readers may consider his illumination (to put it charitably) as they may, but it remains his opinion – and to the extent that it is based on the reading of the Matthean pericope he has given us here, it is hardly impressively grounded, however much he finds it congenial to his purpose and however much he warrants himself as being “Spiritually” informed enough to ‘discern’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
Nor would I agree that ‘Dan’ doth “interpret Scripture” here. Rather, he simply imposes his own urges and excitements upon the text, however incongruous they may be to the actual wording of the text and the fuller context of the pericope.
But he then reveals the true extent of the madness in his method (however psychologically or psychiatrically-driven it may be): ‘Dan’ considers and for all practical purposes declares himself to be one of “those whom the Lord has poured His Spirit upon”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
Which says both too much and too little: it says too little if he merely means that God’s grace is available to all and it says too much if he means that he dwells in the sure and certain knowledge that he is one of “those whom the Lord has poured His Spirit upon” in some definitive and reliably divinely-inspired way.
As I have said before, the most notable – though hardly unique – element of ‘Dan’s personal construction here is that whereas less imaginative types might don a Napoleon hat and consider themselves that Emperor, ‘Dan’ has chosen to wrap himself up in the direct aura of the Word and Will of God. Whether that is more an instance of hubris or of mental infelicity is for readers to decide.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
He then tries to weasel out of the problem with the Parable of the Good Shepherd (in both Mark and Matthew, as noted above) by saying that he doth “have no problem with” that Parable.
But that is mere rhetorical twiddling. The Parable of the Good Shepherd most certainly has a problem with ‘Dan’s interpretation of Mt 18:6. That Parable and ‘Dan’s interpretation of Mt 18:6 cannot both be right.
Matthew places this Parable immediately after the millstone sequence. Why would he do so? To indicate that the disciples must not only avoid leading believers (who have become like children) astray but must also go and search out believers who are lost (rather than simply consigning them to life outside the Christian community and beyond God’s ken and grace). There is more rejoicing, Jesus declares, over the return of the one lost than the 99 who didn’t stray.
It is difficult not only to square ‘Dan’s interpretation of ‘children’ with the sense and wording of the text, but also to square ‘Dan’s interpretation of un-forgivableness with Matthew’s rather overt – if not also startling – placement of the Parable of the Lost Sheep directly after the millstone sequence.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
And while 1 Jn 5: 16 refers to “sin that is deadly”, there is no explanation as to just what that “sin” might be or mean. Some scholars consider that the ‘deadly’ sin is that of renouncing membership in the Christian community; this is considered the only way to interpret the text in relation to other statements made in the Letter, i.e. I JN 1:6-2:2 (the “sinful Christian” is forgiven through the expiation of Christ’s death and I JN 4:10 (forgiveness is attained through His advocacy for sinners before God).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 133PM:
But in I Jn 3: 6-9 the Letter states that the true Christian does not sin, which creates a serious theological dissonance unless one considers “sin” here to mean overt and deliberate renunciation of Christ (a problem which plagued the early Christian community under the pressure of persecution and heretical beliefs).
Again, we see the magpie/packrat tendency to select just those bits that are convenient and useful to an already-determined vision or ‘interpretation’ that ‘Dan’ very wants to impose. Just as he imposes on his description of events at the schoolyard fence the interpretation that it was all nothing but “lies” and so on and so forth.
So we'll, (the catholic cult), just burn them at the stake or boil them in oil and that will take care of that problem. And you have the nerve to say I'm the unforgiving one, when your cult has been plagued for centuries with RAT-zingers at the helm. As far as clinical projection goes, what could be worse than trying to falsely claim that I harmed children, while your cult has been raping, molesting and abusing 'little children' and then secretly concealing, lying and hiding evidence and files. Time to crawl your way out of the darkness, and check out your own backyard, it's overgrown with disgusting weeds, you being one of them. servant
On the 24th at 527PM ‘Dan’ will – no doubt unintentionally – reveal more interesting aspects of himself.
It is nothing except familiar now that he will a) open with an epithet and b) claim that he really really “could care less what a liar” believes . But my assessments and interpretations were drawn from the text he provided and I explained each step carefully; so – like JR – his effort here to reduce it all to a matter of ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’ isn’t accurate.
And he certainly does rely on the “liar” and the “lies” trope to dismiss (in his own mind, anyway) uncongenial consequences of even his own material and actions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 527PM:
But there is larger revelation and a larger point here as well: we see clearly in these epithets and threats (“Keep it up, little peewee punk”) the violence buried never far from the surface in a personality like this.
Did he demonstrate precisely this tendency when at the schoolyard fence? If some child disagreed with his raving, or perhaps simply told him he’s crazy and to go away … did ‘Dan’ quickly revert to this same level of threat and epithet with the children? That surely would have alarmed staffers. And if in any of his misadventures with the police, he was still in that gear or reverted to that gear in front of them, then his arrests and subsequent confinement to a mental facility would seem quite explicable.
You can't get it through your thick scull and peewee brain, that I was falsely accused. You're an incessant liar adding to the lies of your untrue cult. What will you dream up next? Cowardly to blame an innocent victim of your cult, but it seems to be typical for you hypocrites.
Yeah. I misspelled skull, harass and you're, more than once. Sorry to take away your snarky little [sick] correction comments, O great teacher of nothingness.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 527PM:
And it cannot be overlooked that in those epithets and threats he also reverts to a certain sense that he is addressing children: I may be many things, but “little” and “peewee” and “punk” would certainly come from some vision that is imposed upon my material and myself, a vision coming from somewhere inside ‘Dan’s internal machinery. Why, even JR thinks I am old, and even older than he is. (Although JR also at one point surmised that I was a “nun”, so we are well-advised to take JR’s material with a grain or two of salt.)
And we note again as well ‘Dan’s enlisting God in his threats (God – “who” (sic) is “Truly Awesome” – “has his sights set on liars”).
Little peewee punk is in no way referring to your age, but your mental acuity. Your a lying little bully who belongs back in kindergarten, so you can pick on children of your age (mentally).
Moving on to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 602PM:
He claims that he has indeed “pointed out problems with [my] ‘dumb logic’”. But he hasn’t. He’s simply kept repeating his preconceived bits and trying to dismiss my points with epithet and assorted riffs on this or that bit of Scripture or uttering threats on his presumed authoritative warrant he has awarded himself from the “Truly Awesome God”.
And he demonstrates that again with his mere epithetical assertion that my material is “basically all lies and stupid excuses” – which, through the wonders of clinical projection – provide a nifty enough description of his claims and his efforts to spin-away the many and various problems in his material or revealed through his material.
And who might his “We” be who “think It’s stupidity”? Does he seek to enlist other readers in his effort here? Or is this the royal We of Dan-and-(a, the, some, his, any)-god?
Oh! So you think that yourself, being a persistent liar, excuser of perverts and mocker of God is the one He has chosen to teach and correctly interpret His Word. Your a joke!
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8
"Nothing unclean, or anyone who does anything detestable, and no one who tells lies will ever enter it. Only those whose names are written in the lamb's Book of Life will enter it." Revelations 21:27 The CEV says, "No one who is dirty-minded or who tells lies will be there."
And again, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." Rev 22:15
So to sum up- Your cult practices idolatry, not just sexually immoral but pedophile perverts, been known to be murderers (God says to hate is murder) and from my own personal experience have been blatant liars (you included) and definitely big cowards. Instead of disputing my place with the Almighty, your time might be better spent repenting for your own deceptive lies and excuses. Drowning in the depths of the sea would be a blessing, compared to swimming in a lake that burns with fire and sulphur. I think if you're really as smart as you think you are, you might want to find someone else you can harrass.
P.S. By the way- You are so troubled with my calling myself servant, but you use it to explain who God was describing as becoming like little children. How ironic, Mocker of truth.
The Abusenik tendency to make unintentional self-revelations is further revealed in JR’s recent spate.
The two short comments (the 25th at 1208PM and 1210PM) simply give us JR without the benefit of that other authorial influence (given to better spelling, more grandiose rhetorical flourishes, a notably more evolved capability to structure comments, a better ability to string bits together with some coherence, and a few signature tropes of its own) and we see nothing unfamiliar or surprising in them.
But the comment of the 25th at 1201PM is something else again.
Clearly all this discussion on the psychological level evokes a notable amount of agitation in JR (which is reflected even in the short-comment reference to a “day room”). I don’t at all find that surprising in itself.
But then we see that agitation expressed in so vivid a manner in the comment of the 25th at 1201PM.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 1201PM:
Clearly JR is not up to addressing his apparently deeply-agitated concerns in any rational way. And since he and ‘Dan’ are – as I have said before – two peas from the same pod in a rather essential way, then that’s not surprising either.
After all, ‘Dan’ has chosen to vest himself with the Warrant of a divinely-authorized mouthpiece of (a, some, any, the, his) divinity, while JR has chosen to assign himself the functional status of Tribune of the Victimry (and while he allows as how there are others, he can’t really bring himself to name any rivals, let alone betters, in the business, although he is quick enough to disparage as somehow fraudulent just about any other names that might come to mind).
Their game-plans are thus in a very real way essentially the same, stemming perhaps from similar sources.
And what conspiracy would that be? Who would give us the game plan of me telling the truth for victims who don't know what's been happening; and Dan who wants to slash at Catholicism as a faith?
Interesting tactic guys; but nothing presently "real" and important to the problem is being mentioned ?
The problem being the injured. (Hi! Remember us.) We are mighty quiet thanks to you and SNAP.
SNAP keeps talking about how wrong the church has been but is silent about what victims need. Not much of a Survivor group if no one survives joining it.
So who would send me and Dan here to do what exactly? Why?
My conspiracy theories are so much better than your's p; because all the contradictions that prove my theories as true, are in the public forum. And the 15% success rate in compensating victims. Now that tells the tale.
My puzzle pieces all fit. My analysis hasn't changed in all the years I've posted here. What have you got to show?
I can't think why such smoke is being blown.
Except possibly that Spotlight has been picked as likely best picture winner by a majority of U.S. film critics. And "God" forbid anyone should come here and read what the real issues are. Drawn by Google search and a possible Best Picture Oscar.
The only person being covered by the smoke here is me. I shouldn't be seen if anyone smart fom the press comes poking around .
(You know P I can call myself names if you'd like? save you the time. if that would make you happy. Trust me I'll use that ol' self punishing Catholic whip.The church does self hatred brilliantly Suffering as the "true" path to heavenly fullfillment. What a racket!)
What is being "fed" to SNAP and Anderson that they can flourish? Money sure. But the source of the money is us victims. We are the real food the whole shebang lives by. We are eaten by them. Devoured. The same way as our cause has been devoured here. Eaten. Chewed up.
We could/ can only meet through SNAP. But there are no meetings. There's only the front of an organization and the never ending begging for money. Exactly like the church.
There are no rivals because each member of the victim community is isolated.
The only spot of focus on the horizon is SNAP and Anderson. It seems aa gathering place for victims but it's really the entrance into to a Catholic straight jacketed hell. Victims pov being handed to them by the rapists themselves.
There is no competition. There is only the church. And the willfully dis"organized victims
Competition can not form; due to the isolation and lack of connection of the victims. That's what the trap of SNAP was built to do. And it does it brilliantly!
On onther tac
Funny how with Jeff Anderson and Tom Doyle o.p. ;neither are in Wikipedia.
SNAP VOTF Blaine all have their own Wiki page. but neither THE lawyer nor THE expert testifying priest have a page. Yet they both are so core to the abuse problem.
Here's the "cleansing" history of Doyle that SNAP shares.http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/doyle_loses_job.htm
See if his career path makes any sense to you. A priest being punished for testifying for victims.? All the church would have to do is order Doyle to stop testifying if they wanted to They are princes for Chris' sake. No other priest had the low down in the church? Only Doyle in all this time????The whole thing's a sham!
On the 26th at 228AM ‘Dan’ will again try to run the same old cards by us.
Moving beyond the now-almost-obligatory adolescent epithets, I would say:
First, we haven’t at all established that he was “falsely accused” (in any of the six instances that resulted in jailing and a required confinement in a mental-institution).
Second, we have indeed established – and from an assessment of the material he himself provides here – the notable probability that he was not at all “falsely accused”, either by Catholic priests or nuns or school-staffers or whoever else summoned the police or brought legal action against him in those instances.
Are you under the impression that everyone is a liar, like yourself
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 228AM:
Third, he merely attempts to sidestep the consequences inherent in his own material and claims by insisting that they are “lies” and anyone who takes note of them is a “liar” – which mantra is certainly wearing thin, however invisible that reality is to him.
Fourth, he now attempts to characterize any points uncongenial or irritating to him as being ‘dreamed up’, when they exist clearly and logically within the material he himself has proffered.
Fifth – had you been waittttting forrrr itttttt? – he attempts to paint himself as an “innocent victim” of the Catholic “cult” and so on and so forth. Readers may consider that convenient self-characterization as they will.
On the 25th at 1048PM ‘Dan’ will again give us a variation of his oddly-child centered epithet about “little peewee punk”, this time claiming that it refers not to my age but rather to my “mental acuity”. Readers may judge as they will.
He then gives us another variant on that theme by claiming that he is being victimized by “a lying little bully” (Abuseniks and similar types do manage to keep au courant with any cultural tropes that serve their purposes).
And the “little” in this case clearly harks back not to my “mental acuity” but to some long-ago scenario that seems to drive him, as I had said in a recent comment on this thread. And perhaps, judging from his own comment here, that would date back to his “kindergarten” experiences.
And then the comment concludes – through the wonders of clinical projection – with the remark about “pick on children your own age” … this from an adult who in at least one of the six instances got into a verbal dust-up with children in a schoolyard sufficiently intense to evoke the alarm of school staffers and the attention of the police and the courts.
So just add more lies to your schoolyard fantasy. You're a creep.
On the 25th at 1147PM ‘Dan’ then tries to presume that I (and let’s move beyond the now-obligatory and familiar epithets) am “the one He has chosen to teach and correctly interpret His Word”.
I made no such claim (although ‘Dan’ has, on numerous occasions here). I simply pointed out the exegetical problems with his interpretations.
He cannot make sufficient response to the problems thus noted but we see that in his mind somebody has to be the divinely-authorized interpreter (which, I suppose, would make me a rival claimant in his mind). But I make no such claim.
Thus readers may consider just who is the “joke”.
Yes, "readers may consider just who is the 'joke'." The lying, mocking 'joke'. Do I need to give you a clue. No. We know that's not necessary. And I'll leave it to God to decide.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1147PM:
He then tosses in several pericopes from the Book of Revelation, which again do nothing so much as to us the molten core of anger and violence and threat underlying the “Servant” here. Which then also raises the question as to how frightening his actions and even his presence might be ‘in person’, to those individuals who saw reason to summon the police and/or bring legal action, six times at least.
Did he, when confronted with disbelief or dissent from his chosen targets, start reciting these passages? Imagine that scenario as if you were a film director and see what comes to mind.
Those are God's Word's of warning to the wicked, not mine. If you think you can go on living a life of sin and harmful lies and think that God should have to coddle and pamper you, then you can ignore His warning and just reap what you sow. God is loving and kind enough to give you a choice. He won't beg you or anyone else to change. Ball in your court.
And as far as my "molton core of anger and violence and threat", if you were lied about by so many catholic hypocrits, including yourself, as I have been, you might show a taste of anger, unless you were superhuman or Jesus Christ. I love to see your lack of compassion for those who have been victimized by your cult. You are truly a class act. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1147PM:
He then moves to a summation.
Here he simply squashes into a ball all the various pack-rat collected bits that pass in his mind as a theological position and tosses it.
And concludes by claiming that he is being ‘harassed’. He has chosen to put up material on a website and he receives analytical comments in return. And he doesn’t like it. Not my problem.
Why don't you tell me someway you've been falsely accused or wrongly treated in life, so I can extrapolate and exagerrate and make it such a pile of lies that even Satan's impressed with the gross exaggerations. You're a terrible liar, publion, and you don't know how to truthfully discuss or assess much of anything. Most of what we witness from you is character assassinations, from one who might want to take a very serious look at his own faults. servant Dan
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1147PM:
Nor am I particularly troubled by his self-designation as “Servant”, any more than I am by people who claim to be Napoleon.
But that self-designation is noteworthy from both the theological and psychological points of view and I think that the noteworthy aspects are worthwhile for readers, especially given the context and dynamics of the Stampede.
I would also – again – come back to the reasons why I take the time to sustain an assessment of Abusenik material.
The way the Stampede game has been set up, allegants and assorted other anti-Catholic types were allowed to make all the claims and tell all the stories and indulge in all the (negative) characterizations that they chose to make, and – under the reigning protocols of Victimism – their material was not to be itself assessed, especially in any sustained and rational way.
I would use the image of the old aerial dogfight, as some readers may recall from footage of the Battle of Britain: you didn’t simply get to fire when you felt like it and then fly off into the blue. If you chose to fire, then somebody else (often the individual you fired-at, was going to fire back at you. And, indeed, that individual might very well continue to follow you and keep firing even though you’d much rather not-play anymore and just wanted to enjoy the jollies of having taken a few potshots and now wanted to slip back into the big blue sky and enjoy the rest of your day.
This is one of the very few sites – especially in regard to the Stampede – where those fired-upon can fire back.
And the Abuseniks and such types as ‘Dan’ don’t like it one bit. That’s not how they want to play their game; those they choose to fire-upon, like a piñata, were simply supposed to hang up there and get whacked-at when the Abuseniks and other such types felt like it and that was supposed to be that.
Not my problem.
It would be fair, if your returning fire was based on truth, instead of blatant lies. All I've seen you do is shoot blanks, your plane was obliterated months ago and your having a struggle staying afloat in the deepest, darkest, fiery sea. I'm bearing down on you in my USAF F-22 Raptor and ready to snuff you out as easy as whacking a pinata without being blindfolded. That's what I think of your analogies. Next time you may want to bring more than a paper airplane to a dogfight. Servant of the Almighty
Catholics everywhere- Don't let the apologists fool you with their false excuses for idolatry.
"You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or bow down to them; for I the Lord your God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20: 3-5
"All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame." Isaiah 44: 9-20
I will destroy your idols and your sacred stones from among you; you will no longer bow down to the work of your hands. Micah 5: 13
"People take gold and make crowns for the heads of their gods." Baruch 6: 9 Take notice of all the catholic statues and paintings of Mary crowned in gold, "Queen of Heaven". Read all of Baruch 6, also known as The Letter of Jeremiah in some Bibles.
Read your Bible and find the truth. Don't let those with excuses of why they disobey God's word keep you from the truth and rob your soul. If they won't obey and accept God's Word, then they really never loved you, they only loved your money and your free labor.
On the 26th at 1007AM ‘Dan’ will simply try to avoid the points I made by trying to divert focus to (his fever-vision of) the Church with all of his favorite little bits.
Nor did I say he was “unforgiving” – I simply pointed out the problems with his interpretation of the pericopes from Matthew and the First Letter of John that he put up here. Against which points he has not yet come up with any response except to deploy his ‘Lies! Lies!’ mantra.
But as for his “clinical projection” point: it has not at all been established just what transpired between him and “children”; I have put forward and explained points that flow clearly from the material he himself provided, and all he has done is to claim that anything that makes him look like anything less than some sort of prophet delivering a sermonette on the mount is nothing but “lies” and so on. (Imagine him delivering his mantra here with his hands over his ears and shaking his head vigorously back and forth.)
You could get as much in a day-room.
peewee says- "it has not at all been established just what transpired between him and 'children' "
What is your problem? You mean it has not yet been established in your mind because you still insist on adding more "lies" to the incident. There was no jail time. No "conviction". No seeing a "judge". No "dust-up with children". No "mental institutions". There were four, cowardly, catholic thugs that changed what transpired with the kids into wicked "lies" as an excuse to hit me from behind. How do I know this to be true. Because I was there and you were not there. So why not try to show some sense of maturity and stop your nonsense. Like previously said, do you think everyone is a liar, like yourself?
As far as my " 'Lies! Lies!' mantra", you as a catholic should know all about 'mantras' with your holy rosary mantra. I wish, as a child, that I could have put my hands over my ears during those repetive, worthless prayers to your "Queen of Heaven".
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of there many words." Matthew 6:7 Is this the reason you babble on with all your nonsense, because you think you'll be heard through all the noise. servant, 'Dan'
repetitive- before you claim that God doesn't know how to proofread. Mocker
I agree that JR and myself are in no way peas from the same pod. In fact we seem to be total opposites. I've been given the job to expose the wickedness of false religions of all types, and not just "to slash at catholicism as a faith". The whole Bible has been given as a tool to teach the truth and divulge falsehood and deception done in the name of God. I'm not here to condemn, but rather to lead souls to the truth found in God, through His Son, Jesus Christ. Apparently this offends many. Hate to quote p, but "Not my problem." I'd have to say, more the problem of guilty minds. To all those offended, you may want to thank God, for once the conscience is seared, then you really are in trouble.
"Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light." Ephesians 5:11-13
The Lord said in the last days, "The things done in darkness would be brought out into the light." We even use the term, "Out of the closet." Don't think that's a coincidence, everything these days seem like there becoming exposed.
I am going to deal with ‘Dan’s latest bits in the chronological order in which they are date-timed, rather than the order in which they appear in the list of comments.
He largely tries to keep repeating the same points – as usual – so I will try not to let this become repetitive.
On the 26th at 7PM – in response to my Battle of Britain aerial dogfight analogy – he will simply attempt to get us all to accept that anything except his version of his misadventures must be “lies”.
Yet the material itself that he has provided is far more supportive of an explanation that he wants everyone to ignore, as he ignores it himself.
And who cannot be charmed by the childish fantasy of Dan not only wearing his Badge of Divine Authority but also ensconced, helmet and all, in the cockpit of his “USAF F-22 Raptor”?
It is, however, understandable that he will try anything he can to ward off my analogies and the rest of my points. What else, really, can he do?
On the 26th at 936PM he will again try to start the play on base rather than with an at-bat: he once again tries to slyly manipulate readers into accepting that he was “falsely accused”, but that is precisely the point that a) we have not established and that b) appears from the material he has himself presented precisely not to be the case.
He also delivers that “wrongly treated in life” bit, but this indicates rather vividly and clearly that at the base of all of his stuff there is some sort of long-standing issue with how he has been “treated in life”. To what extent such an experience or such experiences fuel his present positions and words and actions is hardly irrelevant, but this is not the proper forum for exploring or answering those questions.
But it does have to be pointed out – since he attempts to ward off those questions here in his final sentences – that he seems rather fixed in his self-exculpatory defense that all of his unhappy experiences were/are based on “lies” and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a “liar”. This is not the forum to go into that much more deeply, but I don’t imagine that this pattern is going to change with him.
On the 26th at 955PM ‘Dan’ will point out that the bits from the Book of Revelation are “God’s words” and “not [his]”.
But that is not really the point. He has chosen to go around throwing them at various persons, with the unhappy results as recorded in his misadventures with the law and psychiatry.
A heavy reliance on the Book of Revelation (and on the assorted Woes available here and there throughout the Bible) has long been an avenue of convenience for molten and angry persons. That is clearly the case here.
The further and more immediately relevant question, however, revolves around his apparent habit of going around harassing or haranguing people with his bits, especially those children in the schoolyard and whomever else he approached who then called the police or otherwise resorted to legal process against him.
On the 26th at 1007PM ‘Dan’ will then – revealingly – try to justify his “molten core of anger and violence and threat” by – again – claiming that it is perhaps a perfectly rational and normal response by one who has been “lied about” … but again, we haven’t established that he has been “lied about” or “victimized by your cult”; and actually it would appear rather clearly from his material proffered on this site that the only ‘lying’ is being done by ‘Dan’ to himself.
And we see again the now-familiar Abusenik and Victimist reach for the Victim-y high-ground: he is not being treated with “compassion” – doncha see? … apparently because his preferred spin is not being accepted as he would like to be and as he insists that it be.
On the 26th at 1107PM ‘Dan’ will then – again – deliver himself of a sermonette/exhortation to “Catholics everywhere”, bolstered by several more of his preferred (and rather violent and threatening) Scriptural bits and Woes.
And “Catholics everywhere” are then merely exhorted to “read your Bible and find the truth”. A fine suggestion, although from what we have seen of ‘Dan’s exegetical chops, they are also advised not to take ‘Dan’ as their guide.
On the 27th at 1242PM ‘Dan’ will revert back to a more congenial gear.
He cannot see what my “problem” is, except that I have been “adding more ‘lies’ to the incident”. I have made very few assertions or claims about the schoolyard incident, but rather pointed out what is there in ‘Dan’s own description of it: an adult – quite possibly with no direct relationship or acquaintance with any children in a schoolyard, and certainly not part of the school staff – begins quoting (probably not in a low tone of voice) his favorite Scriptural bits and thoughts at them, in such a way as to alarm the staff. And this is only one of six incidents that resulted in “jailings” and judicially-required stays in mental institutions.
I have added nothing to what he reported. Does he not like what he sees? It’s all there in his own material.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1242PM:
And does he now claim that the “four, cowardly catholic thugs” who actually were the school staffers and possibly parish priest, also tried to “hit [him] from behind”?
And is he now denying that he reported six “jailings” and six stays in mental institutions? Or is he slyly trying to dodge the problem by claiming that in the particular instance of the schoolyard there was no “jailing” and so on, which would make the schoolyard incident – as he might be trying to frame it now – a seventh incident … ?
This is what I hope to be my final response to you- "He largely tries to keep repeating the same points-as usual- so I will try not to let this become repetitive." This is precisely what you've been doing in regards to what transpired at the schoolyard. You were from the beginning told that I was falsely accused, but you prefer to twist it into something to complete your sick, disgusting fantasy. You are a mean, vindictive, lying, poor excuse for a human being. I only repeated anything in regards to the incident because you were the one who insisted on adding your two cents worth of lies to the truth. You added nothing to the conversation except the lies you have fabricated against me. I have manipulated no one to believe something that wasn't true. You claim myself to be this angry person, and you're the one who can expose my misinterpretations of Biblical truth. Great swami, explain this quote, "Be angry, but do not sin." Ephesians 4:26 I've run into a few liars in my life , but have never met someone as vicious a liar as yourself. You fit in perfectly with your Cult of Liars.
Anyone who is convinced that I'm wrongly using or quoting scripture, I wish well if you prefer to listen to a persistant liar and mocker of everything that is truth. Read the Bible often and God will reveal to you the truth in His Word. Do not be deceived by the wicked, lying, poor excuse of so-called Christians that are among us, when truly they are the devil's assistants. Thru with you, Mocker. Please leave me out of your posts with Jim, so I have no reason to come back to defend myself. Glad to be done with your lying nonsense.
Dan, servant of the Almighty true God
Why not claim that "four, cowardly catholic thugs" were all nuns, to further perpetuate your lying theories, seeing that you were there to witness the whole incident. Lying mocking punk.
Spotlight wins the Oscar for best picture!
…and for BEST PICTURE the Oscar goes to SPOTLIGHT.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
He has misread my comment about himself and JR: I said they indeed are two peas from the same pod.
Thus what ‘Dan’ is doing here is not ‘agreeing’ but disagreeing.
My point remains that they are essentially similar; the only difference – “total opposites”, as ‘Dan’ would have it – is that JR has donned a secular Wig and ‘Dan’ has clapped onto his head the Wig of Divine Authority.
And you have donned the Wig of Liar.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
Other than that, the similarities are demonstrable and substantial: both of them demonstrate a core (molten, angry, unripe) / that is at odds with the high-flying persona they seek to present (JR the Tribune of the Victimry, ‘Dan’ the Servant and so on) / and both claim that anything they don’t want to hear must be nothing but “lies” (a claim so often accompanied by scream-caps, exclamation points, repetition, and so on but never accompanied by any clear demonstration of any specific instance of such “lies” / and both seek to make numerous sweeping and negative assertions (again unaccompanied by demonstration) / and insist on being ‘believed’ at the cost of the questioner being a re-victimizer and being un-Christian and sociopathic (JR) or “mocking God” (‘Dan’) / and yet both are quickly and deeply irritated by any questioning of their assertions, claims, and stories or by any observations that demonstrate the problems with their proffered material / and neither can tolerate much insight into their own dynamics.
Oh how wrong you are. I also believe you are sociopathic, a sociopathic liar. More appropriately, socio-pathetic. You don't question or analyze an opponent. You only add false assumptions in order to assassinate a person's character. Your time might be better spent psychoanalzing yourself and your own material. I think you're way too afraid to find out what you might discover.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
And surely JR is a candidate for what ‘Dan’ claims is his own “job” (i.e. “to expose the wickedness of false religions of all types”). The only difference would be that JR has assigned the job to himself on the basis of a) his ‘victimhood’ and b) the lack of any other genuine Tribunes of the Victimry being available, while ‘Dan’ has “been given” this “job” by (a, some, the, any, his) personal and directly-communicative divinity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
‘Dan’ will then seek to deploy the old I’m Not/You Are gambit by claiming that those who don’t believe his material are “not my problem”. How true. His “problem” is that he has undertaken a project for which he is neither capable (Scriptural exegesis and comprehension) nor by temperament suitable (persuasion of willing listeners is not his métier; rather, he will assertively – and quite possibly aggressively, it would seem – seek to impose his ideas on those whom he chooses to target, including children in schoolyards).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
What “offends” me – to use ‘Dan’s term here – is his ham-handed and incompetent abuse of Scripture as a weapon to vent his own molten core and its assorted excitements. Scripture itself, and God, do not at all ‘offend’ me and actually I am rather attracted to both.
And the fact that ‘Dan’ can apparently see utterly nothing in his assorted actions and words to feel “guilty” about must stand as its own indictment.
Rather – in that clever, sly, and neat ‘psychic economy’ with which readers here may now be familiar – he construes his own aggressions as merely the divinely-appointed mission of ‘searing consciences’ and cawn’t think why anybody (including school-staffers, the police, the courts, and psychiatry) could entertain any different perspective on his words and actions, unless they are “thugs” and “liars” and “mockers” and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
His theology of proclaiming the Word then reveals its fundamental distortion and derangement by his statement that “once the conscience is seared, then you really are in trouble”. He can’t get himself very far from the molten need to threaten, especially when the threats serve to burnish his own (self-proclaimed) status as “Servant” or Special Agent or what-have-you.
Any time the genuine Word of God ‘sears a conscience’, the opportunity arises for metanoia, change of heart. Scripture is meant to be an instrument of conversion and salvation, not ultimately as a weapon (especially a weapon to be wielded in one’s own interests and for one’s own congenial convenience).
Publiar says, "Any time the genuine Word of God 'sears a conscience', the opportunity arises for metanoia, change of heart."
"[T]he genuine Word of God" says, "Such teachings come through 'HYPOCRITICAL LIARS', whose 'CONSCIENCES HAVE BEEN SEARED' as with a hot iron." 1 Timothy 4:2
So here we have it. Are we to listen to a habitual liar tell us what the "genuine Word of God" says, or are we to read and realize that Publiar's misinterpretation of scripture is the complete opposite to what is truth. Don't allow the devil's accomplice to fool you and rob your soul. Evil people, and especially blatant liars, will not be satisfied until they drag you down into the pit with them, laughing as they slide into the depths of hell. And I see there is no end to your mocking and lying. Keep up the good work, Deceiver. servant Dan
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 103AM:
How nice (whether intentional or not) that he then deploys the pericope from Ephesians: it would certainly seem to me that we have indeed been making many things “visible” by having them “exposed by the light”.
His problem here is that he has mistaken his own ‘lights’ for the Light. And “mistaken” may be too mild a word here: he has deliberately done so, for his own purposes (however those purposes are sourced and fuelled).
Nor is all this exposure a “coincidence”; it’s taken quite a bit of time and effort. But all in a good cause.
Spotlight won. And SNAP won thank to Mark Ruffalo's mistaken support at a press conference earlier in the day in front of the L.A. cathedral.
Last night. SNAP had an Oscar viewing party at a bar in Hollywood( RSVP of course a list for approved victims only) and only 7 blocks from the Oscars themselves. THE WORST night of the year to drive in Hollywood. Yet SNAP rents a place right in the heart of it all to watch the Oscars on t.v.!!!!!!
No local victims would drive to Hollywood on Oscar night. So only SNAP officials would be there to speak to the press if they showed up.
The show goes on. I am posting on Mark Ruffalo's FB page. Attempting to still adfter all these fucking years to get the truth out about COINTELPRO SNAP. I could use other victims support there.
By the way I still don't love the movie Spotlight as a film. Just my opinion.