Failing grade: Columbia Journalism Review
A new article from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) by Boston-area professor Terry Ann Knopf asserts that there was a "collective silence" from the vast array of local Boston television stations during the frenzied 2002 reporting of the Catholic Church sex abuse story.
However, research from TheMediaReport.com uncovers that CJR's claim is demonstrably false. In fact, Boston television stations actually played an essential role in creating the fevered animus against the Catholic Church that enveloped the Boston area before it soon spread to the rest of the country.
Just the facts, ma'am
CJR's Terry Ann Knopf
The Globe quoted Knopf as saying, "Boston's TV stations were largely derelict in their own duties" to report the Catholic Church abuse story.
"Largely derelict"? Not even close.
1. For starters: As far back as May of 1992, it was local station WBZ-TV – not the Boston Globe – which first exposed the story to the Boston area of the notorious priest Rev. James Porter, who molested many youngsters decades earlier before he exited the priesthood in the early 1970s.
Building upon WBZ's initial report, the Boston Globe would then publish nearly 60 articles on the Porter case, many on the front page, in the remaining eight months of 1992.
2. In June 1998, when the Catholic Church laicized the notorious John Geoghan from the priesthood, it was the lead story on every single major local TV newscast in Boston. Don't believe it? Watch this video (posted by SNAP leader Phil Saviano at YouTube).
3. In December 1999, when Geoghan was arraigned on criminal abuse charges, local TV covered the story exhaustively and included interviews with alleged victims. Stations would continue to report on the Geoghan case in ensuing years, even going as far as to follow Geoghan in public running errands.
4. In April 2001, when alleged victims of clergy abuse spoke in front of the Massachusetts legislature in support of clergy members being included within the mandated reporting law, local TV stations were there aplenty to give it prominent coverage.
5. On January 9, 2002, when Cardinal Bernard Law held a press conference to address the Boston Globe's reporting (which began only three days earlier), local television stations abruptly preempted regular programming to carry the event live. (Not convinced? Here's the video.)
6. In the early weeks and months of 2002, local TV stations broadcast numerous panel discussions about the Catholic abuse story (this and this, for example).
Our list is very abbreviated – quite far from exhaustive – but you get the idea.
The enormous story of Catholic Church sex abuse did not just emanate from the Boston Globe. It blossomed from all media at the time, including national television, talk radio, the Internet, and, yes, local television.
Don't let the Columbia Journalism Review tell you otherwise.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1110AM:
He then tosses up a bunch more pericopes. He appears to have missed the one about Peter being the rock upon which Christ would build his Church. But like all packrats, he only takes what would be useful to his purposes. And would the rest be “worthless”?
The key question – as ‘Dan’ viscerally avoids it like a vampire recoiling from holy water – is not whether his pericopes are the words of Scripture but rather whether they apply to the instance under discussion.
You talk about incoherence. What does Peter have to do with my Bible quote, especially when your church was started some 300 years later, and doesn't come close to having anything to do with Peter's teaching or God's for that matter. Funny you catholics calling others "rats" or "packrats" when your led by two of the biggest "RAT- zingers (devil's food) to walk the earth, let alone the rest of your hierarchy of RATS. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1110AM:
He then raises the point that I have not to this point ‘denied’ that the Pope “along with bishops and priests … are all perverts”.
So, first, since I have been asked, I do deny it.
Second, he then instantly retreats from that bit and tries to qualify it as their being “and at the very least, perverters of the truth”. And I would deny that too. Although – as I think would be clear – the Church’s doctrines are certainly obstructing ‘Dan’s personal truth (as revealed to him – “His chosen” – by (a, the, some, any, his) version of God.
And ‘Dan’ certainly retains an abiding interest in “perversion”.
The rest of his comment contains familiar bits already discussed in previous comments.
I believe it would be your cults pedophile perverts who would truly have the "abiding interest in "perversion'. Nice try with another of your "clinical projections". Still mocking, imbecile?
Glad to see you deny it now, that they, "bishops and priests…..are all perverts" or "at least perverters of truth". Sorry p, a late swing of the bat doesn't change the fact that they're "all perverts" or "at least perverters of the truth". Truth remains truth. Besides the game is already over, and your fake fans are all leaving the stadium, slowly but assuredly. servant
P.S. That was for you. I know you like analogies.
As I have said, sustaining the assessment of ‘Dan’s various eructations seem worthwhile to me because a) we get a chance to see in some depth just what types the Stampede drew to itself and b) most readers would probably not have the chance to observe the kinds of ‘issues’ that fundamentally drive various persons whom most readers would most likely not encounter (or would deliberately seek to avoid encountering) in the normal course of their lives.
So let’s to it again, then.
Your right. Some catholics do avoid encountering me because they hate to hear the truth about their cult and I'm fine with that. Why is it necessary that they falsely accuse me to cause me hardship. I've never called the police on them for screaming obscenities or threatening me. Your cult is chalk full of evil, lying hypocrits. Decent catholics everywhere, run from this deceiving, evil church. Don't go down with them. servant
On the 6th at 543PM ‘Dan’ now theologizes that “no one is capable of ‘awarding himself the status of ‘His Chosen’”. He backs that up quickly by – as best can be inferred from the wording here – piously bleating that he isn’t capable of making such a self-award, either (…”nor am I”).
That sounds very nice, until we realize that in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse, he has been “Chosen” and that you either have to accept his claim that God did it or you are “mocking God”.
It’s a neat psychic economy, but a self-serving construct nonetheless.
Were he claiming to be Napoleon or the one “Chosen” to carry on that personage’s work and words, and were he to make the same claim as he does in regard to his being the “Chosen” of God, then one might even more clearly grasp the whackness in his core gambit.
I'll repeat that you just can't handle Scripture truth. I would bet that my "psychic economy" would trump your psycho one. Still into cartoons and mocking, I see.
But now but now but now, in his comment of the 6th at 603PM we come to a point that is far more susceptible to demonstrable evidence available to all: Dan’s claim that I am ‘lying’ when I refer to his six stays in “mental institutions” as he himself reported that.
How – you might wonder – is he going to get himself out of this hole he has dug for himself?
First, he cawn’t quite seem to recall having posted the comment (or at least he cawn’t quite “find” it, although the date-time stamp was provided and he merely needed to scroll back in the article-threads to it).
Second, he will however – and, all things considered, amazingly – “take my word for it” that I have (yet again) accurately quoted his own comment of November 23rd, 2015, at 1219PM.
So far, so queasy. He won’t admit he wrote it, but he won’t (can’t, really) deny that he wrote it.
"But now but now but now". You know you might be able to see a doctor about your stuttering problem, and maybe he can fix your problems with your repetitive nonsense.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 603PM:
But – doncha see? – it was simply a case of his “mistakingly writing” (sic) the phrase “mental institution” (actually, he wrote he had been sent to such a facility six times).
Consider it if you will: here is someone who – if he is to be believed – mistakenly wrote that he had been in a “mental institution” (and had been sent to one six times). Readers may consider the credibility of this bit as they may. And they may further consider which is worse: that somebody wrote it about themselves or that somebody now claims that writing such a claim was just a ‘mistake’ and nothing more.
And he doth then “apologize” … because – doncha know? – he has “never been in a mental institution before”. (The acute reader may quickly ask ‘before what’ or ‘before when’?)
And how does he know he has never been in a mental institution before? Oh, that’s an easy one: because he went and looked at “google maps” and has realized or decided that he “has never been in any of the listed mental institutions” (“in California”, he says, or “anywhere else” … and did he Google such facilities throughout the whole world?).
I'm withdrawing my apology. Never been in a "mental institution" on this earth. Now will you claim, maybe somewhere in the universe, whack job.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 603PM:
Having thus – to his own satisfaction and in his own mind, anyway – disposed of any possible question as to his mental history and status or his credibility and truthiness, he then doth graciously allow as how he will remove that ‘lie’ (that I supposedly told about him) from his “list” of” lies” that he claims I have told about him.
And he huffs and bleats in self-exculpation that “we all make mistakes” (but surely not if we are directly inspired by (a, the, some, any, his) ‘god’ as one of that entity’s “Chosen”).
And if he can make such a howler of a ‘mistake’ in the matter of his own history (with which we must suppose he is rather largely acquainted) then how is any reader not to imagine that ‘Dan’ can make similar or worse howlers and ‘mistakes’ in his myriad other assertions and claims about Scripture and the Word, Thought, and Will of God?
Back to your poor analysis that Christians are perfect. Gives you another chance to mock some more. You must be awful proud of your ignorance. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 603PM:
And thus, in that regard, does he actually imagine that anyone can then credit his toss-off assertion that he doth “stand by everything else he said” in that quoted paragraph? Having, as it were, having written that he had seen a pink elephant riding a unicycle, does he then imagine that anyone will put that howler off to the side and credit anything else he said? (Yes, ‘Dan’ does imagine that … and apparently expects it.)
And he riffs a bit further.
But then, in conclusion, tries to salvage the situation for himself by ‘noticing’ that I am “stepping up the mocking in almost every post”. If I am, it’s simply because his mental status and credibility are now simply too obviously in question to take with a completely straight face.
On the 6th at 608PM the (self-styled) Servant and “Chosen” then descends into epithet. Does ‘Dan’ sense or realize any incongruity in this, in light of his certainty that he has ‘conformed himself to Christ’ as written in one of his selected pericopes? No, ‘Dan’ doesn’t – not at all.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 615PM:
Being unable to refute the problem of his trying to equate “substitute” with “the real McCoy”, he tries to create a more congenial ‘point’ upon which to stand. But it doesn’t erase his core error here, even though he works creatively to riff about “fake” and “false”.
On the 6th at 627PM he tries another scam to evade the complications for his position posed by the pericope about Christ naming Peter the rock upon which He would build His Church”: he claims that he simply cawn’t see the relevance of the Peter-rock pericope to his own stuff.
And while his subsequent (and familiar) claims about the Church not coming “close to having anything to do with Peter’s teachings or with God’s” are what they are and more of the same from him, yet the bit about the Church not having been “started” until “some 300 years later” surely is a howler of the first order.
Three hundred years later than … what, exactly?
And what point or event is supposed – in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse – to have “started” the Church?
And what was there before that ‘starting point’?
Yes, I do “talk about incoherence”, and ‘Dan’s cartoonish material is rife with it.
Busy readers who want to get even an inkling of the work required in comprehending Scripture might want to dip a toe into the pool by looking at the Wiki entries for the first and second Petrine Letters.
Oh, and he riffs on “rats” – but nothing new there.
I decided not to respond to the rest of your nonsense. Although you probably consider yourself as one of the Big "rats" of your cult, you rate closer to a mouse, more of a little peewee rat.
And by the way, in order for your cult to claim it's existence back to Jesus Christ and Peter, then they would have to follow the teachings of that time. They wouldn't be greedy, lying, idol worshipping, pedophile hypocrits by any means. The Holy Roman Empire, became, with Constantine's invasion of Rome, the unholy roman catholic cult, with simular palaces, nude, disgusting sculptures, king's thrones, lust and gluttony, the same evil entity that invaded them. A bunch of unholy and unforgiven hypocrits and pigs. READ THE BIBLE
P.S. I've in detail described their failure to follow and obey the Word in previous posts.
And on the 6th at 639PM ‘Dan’ will sound a familiar note we have heard from other Abuseniks here: to his own “truth is truth” bleat, ‘Dan’ adds the bit about it being all over for the Church and he riffs on that for a bit. Frankly, from the quality of material he has produced here, I consider analogies a bit beyond him, and would consider some other source for his bit here.
Was watching EWTN's show, Grab Your Catechism's program on ccc 1749-1769, "The morality of human acts". In the study the priest mentioned the "sins of abortion, stealing, sex after the disco, birth control-gravely disordered, and lying in court as morally reprehensible. Strange that I've personally witnessed, sworn in the name of God, priests and nuns in vestments, pastors, cops and hypocrit laity, lie through their teeth as soon as they said, "So help me God." Are they asking God to help them lie? They showed no remorse for their false accusations, and got some sick pleasure out of trying to charge for the many crimes of their imagination.
The priest continued in saying in regard to sins, "omissions can be relevant" and lets "talk about our passions". "Passions are the reservoir for moral living." What I find so puzzling is the obvious "omission" in the program, of any mention of your hierarchies grave sins of pedophilia, child abuse or molestation. I also notice the popes and bishops have done everything possible to avoid the subject, unless cornered and their backs against the wall.
Does the church think we're all as stupid as their brainwashed, dumb sheep. Are we waiting for the United Nations or the courts to bring up the subject and then claim, "How sorry we are that we did these horrible crimes against victims and humanity."??? You surely are a sorry bunch, with your empty apologies. Servant of the Truth in God
We continue now with more of ‘Dan’s attempts to deal with his credibility (and perhaps even sanity) issues.
On the 6th at 1019PM he tries a distraction: I had left out that – he claims – a relative went to the pastor of the parish (that ran the school whose children he went after at the schoolyard fence) and the pastor told her – ‘Dan’ claims – that ‘Dan’ hadn’t really said anything “bad” or “obscene”.
I didn’t include that part because it’s not relevant to the point I was making about ‘Dan’s own claims as to “mental institutions” (which point remains substantively un-refuted, about which see more below).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1019PM:
But assessing his relative-pastor bit on its own merits, what have we got?
From a man with an admitted history of police and required mental-institution stays, we get an effort to simply get out from under the possibility of his having raised overt sexual material with the children whom, for no reason conceivably justifiable, he had chosen to harangue through the fence.
That’s as may be and I never asserted otherwise about that specific incident (although about his demonstrated tendency to operate from a child-like vision of “peewee” and “first grade” and “kindergarten” and so on, much remains in play).
But to repeat my point about the schoolyard fence incident: the very fact that any adult would choose to go after children in a schoolyard with any sort of discussion – let alone the ‘content’ of his “Chosen” sermonettes as we have seen them and delivered in the mode that we have seen them delivered here … that alone and in and of itself would raise serious questions.
And does any reader – especially those with grade-school age children – take issue with the actions of the staff in trying to get him away from them?
Publiar says, "possibility of his having raised overt sexual material with the children whom, for no reason conceivably justifiable, he had chosen to harangue through the fence." You are such a despicable, lying, troll, creep, hypocrit, who makes a dumb jackass look smart. At least the beast doesn't talk. Calling you a rat would be a compliment.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 313AM:
He has now “found” his comment from November.
And he has now ‘seen’ his “mistake” … but it is merely a minor grammatical mistake that he notices. (Talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees, but – after all – he is trying to distract us from the real issues here.)
And what does he proffer in his defense? A nonsense bit about how he “must have been” taking prescription drugs “that [he] never was given”. And anyone who can make sense out of that – except as a nonsensical effort to distract readers (and probably himself) – is welcome to try.
And then that leads him to now completely denying any of the (six) jailings or ‘seeing a judge’ as well as the (six) required stays in mental institutions. How that is to be squared with his November 2015 comment, and how any presumption as to his credibility (and perhaps sanity) is to survive this latest effort here, is anybody’s guess. Readers may consider it all as they will.
It's obvious you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never denied "(6) jailings" or "seeing a judge", but did deny stays in "mental institutions", because that was not true. I clearly was referring to the "schoolyard" separately from other false accusations and lies from your [oc]cult. It does not matter what consequences I had to suffer, BECAUSE ALL ACCUSATIONS THAT GOT ME IN THESE PREDICAMENTS, WERE ALL LIES FROM CHURCH HYPOCRITS, OF WHICH I FIND YOU TO BE ONE OF THE WORST LIARS. ARE YOU THAT BLIND THAT YOU JUST DON'T GET THAT FACT. IMBICILE!!!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1125AM:
Apparently imagining that in recent prior comments he has managed to both a) erase the consequences (and even the reality) of his prior admissions of November, 2015 and b) retain an aura of credibility and sanity, he now tries to use as further supporting evidence what is instead merely another instance of his claiming, asserting and story-telling.
Thus he tells us a story about watching a catechetical show on the EWTN network.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1125AM:
The show – doncha see? – reminded him of how he himself has “personally witnessed” the sins of the clergy and the Church because the show, by the most amazing coincidence, listed “lying in court” right up there as equally “morally reprehensible“ with “abortion, stealing, [and] sex after the disco”.
Put aside for a moment the prospect of this utterly remarkable and convenient (to his purposes) coincidence.
Put aside for a moment a listing of serious and hardly-rare sins that also includes something as exotic and infrequent as “lying in court”.
Now consider this: a man who i) has just denied on this thread the gravamen of documentary evidence (i.e. his own admission in comments he put up in November), and ii) has instead asserted in very recent comments above on this thread that he was never arrested and never in court before a judge and never committed by judicial order to a mental institution, now iii) claims that he has “personally witnessed” instances of clerics and also “cops” and “hypocrite laity” lying under oath and making “false accusations”.
According to publiar, "lying in court" is something "exotic and infrequent". Spoken and accepted by publyin's and habitual catholic liars, including but not limited to catholic hierarchy, everywhere. Your judgment day draws near. Keep up your good work. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1125AM:
Which could only have happened in court, and if the police were there as well as clerics, and other persons (“hypocrite laity”) as witnesses testifying “under oath”, then … ‘Dan’ appears by his own admission to have indeed been the subject of at least one court case.
Contrary to what he now claims.
But you’re not supposed to notice that, let alone focus on it.
You’re supposed to go with his preferred spin, i.e. that he was lied-against by liars under oath in open court.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1125AM:
After all, since admission into the Dan-verse requires subscription to the Dan-dogma that a) he is “Chosen” of God and that b) any suspicion that he is rather largely something else constitutes nothing less than “mocking God”, then there can be tolerated no other explanation for his misadventures than that he is constantly lied-about (even under oath) by clergy and police and “hypocrite laity”.
In other words, he isn’t crazy and perhaps in person a little scary when he’s on a roll; it’s just that so many people are i) congenital liars and b) out to get him.
One can only wonder what those persons testified-to that prompts ‘Dan’s bit about their trying to “charge [him] for the many crimes of their imagination”.
Obviously, they may well have “showed no remorse” since they had told the truth under oath. But, of course, that is a possibility precluded by the tenets of the Dan-dogma.
No. Your catholic cult is filled with "congenital liars", you being a prime example.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1125AM:
He then gets rather tendentious, apparently trying to blame the priest on the TV show for not taking up ‘Dan’s favorite topics.
And we see again – and from what we have recently seen in his comments, the clinical point of view becomes not only relevant but necessary here – his personal fixation upon “pedophilia, child abuse or molestation”.
It's my "favorite topic" to expose the disgusting crimes of your cult of hypocrits, pedophiles, child abusers and molesters. You've forgot the other topics- Liars, deceivers, idolaters, perverts, criminals and creeps.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1125AM:
All of which rather dubious yet revealing material of ‘Dan’s thus leads into his summation and here he again – as Abuseniks so often love to do – puffs up his pinfeathers to declaim, denounce and rhetorically inquire whether “the church thinks we’re all as stupid as their brainwashed, dumb sheep”.
While ‘Dan’ has – no doubt unintentionally – revealed that ‘stupidity’ may well be a relevant axis of assessment here, I would say that his material now reveals clearly that there are far more important axes of assessment relevant to his material.
Just how “stupid” and “brainwashed” a “sheep” one would have to be to subscribe to the dogmas of the Dan-verse is something readers may consider as they will.
And another batch of short comments from ‘Dan’ trying to do some spin and damage control (not an easy job at this point).
On the 7th at 547PM he acknowledges that there are those who “avoid encountering” him. We can see the Dan-dogma explanation: “they hate to hear the truth about their cult”. There is also the possibility that people simply find his very presence uncomfortable and even disturbing and threatening – as is often the case with the more florid instances of – let us say – notable unwell-ness.
But then he goes on with it, revealingly: why, he plaints, “is it necessary that they falsely accuse me”? And again we see the deranged psychic economy of the Dan-verse. It must be, he can only conclude, because they want to “cause [him] hardship”. The alternative possibility, of course, is that they aren’t falsely accusing him and they are seeking to have him put someplace where he can be given clinical attention.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 547PM:
In his recitation of what he has never done to ‘them’, we see as if through a mirror the action that ‘they’ must have taken in regard to his actions and words: calling the police “for screaming obscenities and threatening”. And one begins to very clearly form a picture of ‘Dan’s actions and words when he is free-range and on the hoof.
And are we then to imagine that such behavior did not take place at that schoolyard fence?
And is “screaming obscenities and threatening” any sort of credible indicator of being “conformed to Christ” and being the “Chosen” of … fill-in-the-blank … ?
It is surely an indicator of other things.
And the liar keeps on mocking.
On the 7th at 557PM he will now ‘withdraw’ “his apology” and insist (although given the grammatical lack of a subject for the verb, not really) “Never been in a ‘mental institution’ on this earth”. And given the material in various comments I posted today, readers may consider the veracity and reliability of that claim as they may.
And he tries to nail it all down with more epithet.
On the 7th at 604PM he will now try to create some position I did not take in order to have any ground at all to stand on: I did not say that “Christians are perfect”; my entire position here has been that they are precisely not.
And again, this bit of his occurs in connection with his claim that it was merely a ‘mistake’ to use the term “mental institution”. But he didn’t simply (mistakenly?) write the phrase “mental institution”; rather, he made the completely formulated claims that he had been in one and that he had been in one “six” times.
Whatever we are dealing with here, it is most certainly not a mere slip of the hand in writing or mis-writing a single simple phrase.
And he concludes – as so often – with an epithet.
And on the 7th at 609PM – in regard, readers may recall – to the questions I put to him concerning his claim that the Church was only “started” some “300 years” after the composition of the Petrine Letters – what do we get?
Oh – well – … he has “decided not to respond to the rest of [my] nonsense”, i.e. to those questions.
And, having pretty much demonstrated just what we’re dealing with here, he then tries to finesse this clear demonstration with a play on “rats” and how I am actually “closer to a mouse”.
And the whole thing then topped off – yet again – with those queasy references to “little” and “peewee”, which – given the increasing clarity his material provides as to his condition – continue to assume increasing relevance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 627PM:
Here we get a potted, tuna-can version of history, which readers are advised to take with more than a grain or two of salt.
And – on top of avoiding the questions I had put to him to which he now “decides” not to respond – he commits another ignorant howler by referring to Constantine and “The Holy Roman Empire”, which was a political entity that did not come about until the Early Middle Ages, centuries after Constantine’s death (and lasted, readers may recall, until Napoleon abolished it in 1806).
And he concludes – as if it would somehow compensate for his general lack of knowledge – the instruction (scream caps omitted) to “read the Bible”. Which doesn’t seem to have done anything for his general knowledge at all.
And in his “P.S.”, he tries to recover a bit of his aura by mimicking competent assessment. He has – he declaims – “described their [whoever that may be, given the historical hash that he seems to think is his knowledge of things] failure to follow and obey the Word in previous posts”. And readers may certainly assess all of his stuff as they will.
I am very aware of the political entity called "The Holy Roman Empire" of the Middle Ages. I'm talking in regards to the pagan, idol worshipping, perverted, greedy, cruel belief system that existed before, during and after Christ. It was always a "Holy Roman Empire" that was hard to distinguish and separate from what morphed into the unholy roman catholic church. The pagan beliefs, idolatry and sexual lusts have not changed much to this day. Your cult has not followed Biblical principals from the start, and over the years, with their catechism, has become worse. I think the Roman Empire was just a hedonistic pagan belief system, where the catholic church has just added to that system a false belief in God, making their cult a pagan gathering of so-called religious, lying hypocrits. Read the Word and seek the truth. Open your eyes and look at it's history, you'll find evil incarnate. Nothing close or similar to the teachings or lifestyle of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. servant
I think it is sufficiently clear at this point a) that we are reaching the bottom of the barrel in the Dan-verse, as well as b) in any attribution of credibility to ‘Dan’s presentations and proffers here, as well as c) getting a clear vision of the types that were lured to the surface by the Stampede.
It remains only to be seen just how much further lack of credibility and integrity we are going to see demonstrated in his material.
Oh, and you represent the "credibility and integrity" of your wonderful church? You'll have to explain to us how lying, deceiving, excusing, mocking and enabling are attributes of "credibility and integrity". You are a perfect example, of a member of your cult of hypocrits.
Won a case against your lying cult of hypocrites the other day. Plaintiff side was led by a lying priest, a corrupt, lying, threatening, skinhead cop and a brainwashed, church groupie. Judge found no credible evidence of harassment. Finally an honest judge in a corrupt system. Prophesy arrived when I returned from court.
"I AM the one who will get you through the troubles in this world.
If they want to keep fighting against you, don't you realize, I AM with you in spirit.
I AM to be their judge.
I will be at your side to defend you and they will get everything they deserve in life.
You don't have to worry about being falsely accused.
I already know the truth, how they are unfair to a person.
They are going to see how unfair I will be to them on judgment day.
I also can see how unjust and how they lie about the truth.
Quit worrying how you should be handling them.
You don't have to stress over them, and I will make sure that they will not get away with anything.
So don't fret, I AM the one who can and will be handling everything."
Thus saith the Lord
We now get more bits from ‘Dan’ that certainly don’t work against my overall assessment of the 7th at 1142PM.
On the 8th at 909AM he quotes a point I made that was clear from his claim that his relative had elicted from the pastor that ‘Dan’ had not “raised overt sexual material” (he used the term “obscene”) with the children.
To which ‘Dan’ responds – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttt? – merely with epithet.
On the 8th at 928AM he now says that he has “never denied” that he had been jailed six times nor that he had “seen a judge” (which, of course, means that he was arrested and then had to go before a judge).
He repeats now his denial of his own material from the November, 2015 comment and now claims he doth “deny stays in ‘mental institutions’ (which “stays” are what he claimed to have undergone – and six times – in his comment of November of 2015).
Clearly we have here somebody for whom factuality and actuality (and – why not? – truth) are not operative, whether because of intention or incapacity.
But at least we are now told that the ‘schoolyard incident’ was separate from the six jailings and stays in mental institutions he revealed in his November, 2015 comment.
And we then get – in scream caps and with exclamation points – merely the epithet that anyone who thinks otherwise (and – apparently – credits his November 2015 comment as accurate) is “blind” and such persons “just don’t get that fact”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 928AM:
I would also remind him of his comment on this thread of the 7th at 313AM: he wrote in that comment that he “was never ‘convicted’ or ‘jailed’ or ‘saw a ‘judge’”. And readers may draw such conclusions as they may.
In his increasingly incoherent and self-contradictory efforts to extricate himself here, clearly ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ are becoming very fungible indeed. But actually, I think that in his case they have been very fungible from the get-go.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1034AM:
He now claims that he is “very aware” of The Holy Roman Empire as being a medieval political entity. But – doncha see? – in using that specific historical tem he had been actually thinking of something else.
And he now further demonstrates the plasticity and fungibility of any ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ in the Dan-verse by assigning – on his own authority – the term “Holy Roman Empire” to something else more congenial to his rants and riffs here.
And that simply lubricates his further riffs and rants in the remainder of the comment.
And on the 8th at 1100AM he will try to deploy the familiar Abusenik I’m Not/You Are gambit: dodging the now clear and serious questions as to his own “credibility and integrity” that have arisen from his self-contradictory and incoherent claims, he simply tries to change the subject.
Thus he shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than the Church. Which – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – is “lying, deceiving, excusing, mocking and enabling”.
We are getting to the bottom of a shallow and broken barrel indeed.
And on the 8th at 1157AM we get more familiar strangeness.
He opens, curiously but conveniently, with a subject-less verb (who “won”? – ‘Dan’?).
We have no reference and thus don’t know a) to what case he refers or b) whether his ‘report’ on the case is accurate.
But on the basis of this pile, he will then unload a pile of what are now doubt the key 3x5s on which he relies for consolation and to avoid the uncongenial realities inherent in the Dan-verse.
He even puts in quotation marks this passel of chummy (and for him, convenient and self-exculpatory) consolations he has cooked up for himself (or – if you wish – has received in his god-grams).
And then – but of course – tries to bolster this smarmy bit of (divine?) enabling with the bossy and brassy “Thus saith the Lord”. No, thus ‘Dan’ is trying to make a silk purse out of something that is actually quite something else.
And the P SMOKE BLOWS on and on and on and on and on and on …………..P and Malcolm will lie on and on and on and on…………
You can wish this was from 'Dan' and not from the Almighty. "Indeed, the very hairs on your head are all numbered." Luke 12:7 You think you'll get away with your vicious lies and manipulations, let alone your mocking of the Lord's Word, and the power of His Holy Spirit.
"I will be at your side to defend you and they will get everything they deserve in life."
"They are going to see how unfair I will be to them on judgment day"
Thus saith the Lord
P.S. To this I say, "Come Lord Jesus."
On the 8th at 320PM JR attempts to rescue ‘Dan’ – much in the manner of a rodeo clown scampering out to get the fallen rider out of a tight spot.
And ‘Dan’ is surely in a tight spot (about which see more below).
But JR’s not much of a rodeo clown. The best he can do is repeat ‘Dan’s bit about “lies”, although he proffers on example of any such “lie”. But – of course – in the Abusenik-verse, anything they don’t like is by definition a “lie”.
Meanwhile, ‘Dan’ (the 8th at 525PM) will simply ignore the serious problems with his claims and quotes and so forth and … what?
Try to wrap himself in the aura of God Himself, as usual.
And from that cartoon-bubble, will simply toss out unsupported epithetical accusations as to “vicious lies and manipulation” (another deployment of the familiar and juvenile Abusenik I’m Not/You Are gambit).
Although I don’t recall any Biblical pericopes that state any of the bits ‘Dan’ here puts in quotation marks.
But perhaps they are quotations not from Scripture but merely from his collection of god-grams.
Still, that “Thus saith the Lord” does remind us that ‘Dan’ seems to consider his own material to be the very Word and Thought and Will of God.
Ooooh, he says for all practical purposes, wait til my goddy gets here and then you’ll be sorry oooh yeah you will. We are indeed at the bottom of a shallow and damaged barrel.
Could it just be, most likely that Jim and many others recognize you as a habitual liar, although you have a problem facing that truth yourself. And I'm not ignoring any problems with my claims or quotes. Just ignoring you, because I'm fed up with explaining the truth to you, just so you can lie, manipulate and twist it to your sick fantasies. Prophesy is new truth from the Lord, that isn't necessarily the same as Scripture but can not go against the Word and God's Truth. So keep on mocking God and His Holy Spirit and we'll see how that works for you. You are a little, lying peewee, who thinks your bigger and tougher than God. Talk about a Napoleon complex. Since you have a problem with reading comp., I'll give you these lines again. You may have a serious eye problem.
"I AM to be their Judge."
"You don't have to worry about being falsely accused."
"They are going to see how unfair I will be to them on judgment day."
"I also can see how unjust and how they lie about the truth."
Thus saith the Lord
Wish I could take credit for writing this. Apparently the Almighty has your number, 666. Best to you, mocker and perverter of truth. servant of the Lord
On the 9th at 1104AM ‘Dan’ will once more try to get himself out from under the problem of credibility and integrity (and perhaps sanity) that he has created for himself with his many conflicting and mutually-contradictory claims about his various misadventures with the police and the courts and the psychiatric profession.
This time he borrows a ‘Dennis Ecker’ gambit and goes for insinuation: is it perhaps really the problem that “Jim and so many others recognize you as a habitual liar”? (italics mine)
That might seem a seriously odd stretch, given all of the problems with his own material.
And “so many others” … ? Referring to some of the Abuseniks, no doubt.
But – he quickly claims – he’s “not ignoring any problems with [his] claims or quotes”.
But then he quickly does precisely that – ignores them – and plows on with his scheduled insinuation gambit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1104AM:
And then tries this bit of self-exculpation: he’s not ignoring all the problems with his own material (and its ramifications for his credibility, integrity, and perhaps sanity). Nooo. Rather – doncha see? – he is simply “ignoring [me”. Which is about as pretty an example of a distinction-without-a-difference as one is likely to see.
And why is he “ignoring” me (and my questions as to the problems with his conflicting claims)?
“Because [he] is fed up with explaining the truth to [me]”. And which “truth” would that be? How are we to determine that, given the incoherent and mutually-contradictory claims he has made? He proffers on solution to that profound problem.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1104AM:
He will then engage in a bit of theologizing: “Prophesy [confusing the noun and the verb forms of that term here] is new truth from the Lord”. Thus, we are apparently to believe, what ‘Dan’ passes on is “new truth” (that only he, apparently, has received in his god-grams).
But there is a method in the madness here: his own material – doncha see? – can be put in quotation marks (thus: as if the direct Word of God) because such “new prophecy” (using the proper form of the term here) “isn’t necessarily the same as Scripture”. Thus that ‘Dan’s stuff is not necessarily actually Scriptural, but it has the same weight and validity and authority as Scripture.
As I said, we are reaching the bottom of a shallow but much-damaged barrel with all this stuff.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1104AM:
We then get, again, revenants of the child’s world that seems to so preoccupy him: I, apparently, am some sort of bully who “thinks your bigger and tougher than God” (sic).
No, I am a questioner who can see some very abyssal problems with ‘Dan’s stuff – which isn’t the same thing at all (except in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse imaginings).
Then more of the queasy “peewee” stuff, delivered as epithet.
And he tries to burnish his performance here by repeating his stuff in quotation marks – which, of course , we are to take as being the Word, Thought and Will of God. Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssse.
And then concludes by demurely acknowledging that he cannot take credit for these ‘quoted’ bits because – doncha see? – they indicate that “apparently the Almighty” is on to me (let’s just leave the tell-tale “666” bit to stay right up there where it was put).
Publiar says, " 'apparently the Almighty' is on to me (let's just leave the tell-tale '666' bit to stay right up where it was put)."
Most likely on your forehead, Mocker.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1104AM:
Most readers, especially Catholic readers, might not get the opportunity to encounter mentalities like this.
Some might encounter the fundamentalist stuff, although fewer would actually engage such types in sustained exchange.
But fewer still would encounter a person with ‘Dan’s level of – shall we say? – ‘issues’.
But they are out there in the world, and the Stampede provided an opportunity for them that can be – as we have seen here – an irresistible lure and platform.
P, Every post you place is a lie. Everything you write was created to deceive; to insult and to injure those all ready harmed.
That's some career for a grown up.
Your church is being destroyed, not from some imagined outside attack; but by you and your pretense that there is such an attack. Catholics don't feel they are really being attacked for something they didn't do. You and TMR and Tom Doyle and SNAP have created this attack. You've imagined it. Not by accident but on purpose. You invented this "attack" construct as the excuse for your attacking your own raped children and turning our real victimhood on it's head by declaring that the real victims are the church and it's rapists. Quite the miracle there!