Journalist Ralph Cipriano continues the fight for justice and the falsely accused
During a confidential deposition over two full days in May and June 2014, Dan Gallagher – the Philadelphia native whose varying and preposterous tales of abuse as an altar boy in the late 1990s landed three Catholic priests and a school teacher in prison – stated more than 130 times that he could not remember some very basic facts about his claims.
That is just one of the many eye-popping new details appearing in this week's issue of Newsweek uncovered by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano, who continues to doggedly pursue the cause for justice for the wrongfully incarcerated men. (For those who are new to the Philly story, we suggest background here and here.)
Simply unreal
According to Cipriano, Gallagher stated in his deposition that he could not remember telling his doctors and drug counselors in the past that he had been:
- sexually abused by a friend at age 6;
- sexually abused by a neighbor at 6;
- sexually abused by a teacher at age 7;
- sexually molested at 6 (or 8) by an unknown assailant;
- sexually molested at 8 (or 9) by a friend; and
- sexually abused at 9 by a 14-year-old boy.
And Gallagher admitted at the deposition that none of these prior allegations were true.
[Note: Graphic descriptions of abuse accusations follow]
Dan Gallagher celebrating
with a stogie
In addition, when Gallagher was asked about whether he remembered telling a drug counselor that his hands were tied during an alleged sexual assault by a priest, Gallagher simply replied, "I really don't remember what I told him."
"Were your hands ever tied up during any of the sexual assaults?" the questioner asked.
"No," Gallagher replied.
Remember that these admissions are in addition to many other facts that Cipriano has already uncovered, which call into question Gallagher's claims, such as:
- Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
- Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even move forward with the case;
- An alternate juror even came forward after the trial in which Gallagher put two priests and a teacher in prison with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
Scientific evidence
Yet in his deposition, the one story that Gallagher did obstinately stick to was his wild drama of being raped by two priests and a schoolteacher.
Oh, and Gallagher did admit to being a drug dealer and being arrested a half dozen times for drugs and retail theft. [Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record.]
And as far as the oft-heard claim from victim advocates and Church-suing lawyers that "memory lapses" from Gallagher stem from the trauma of his sexual abuse, Cipriano quotes Dr. James I. Hudson, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the director of the biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, who declares:
"There is no legitimate scientific evidence that psychological trauma can cause the massive amount of inconsistencies and contradictions that is exhibited by Mr. Gallagher's reports of the allegations of sexual abuse."
Q.E.D.
And the Philly Inky remains silent
After Cipriano's second article about the case appeared last week in Newsweek – his first article was in January – TheMediaReport.com wrote to Philadelphia Inquirer Editor-in-chief Bill Marimow and other editors at the Inky to ask if there were any plans to finally expose this fraud to its readers in Philadelphia.
It would seem to be the least they could do after running scores and scores of front-page articles promoting Gallagher's dubious claims and giving free publicity to publicity-hound D.A. Seth Williams, who organized the witch hunt against the three priests and Catholic school teacher.
Not surprisingly, we have received no response.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 654PM:
And – yet again – JR will piously rely on “the justice system” , but, slyly, only insofar as the trial court convicted, yet he utterly ignores the further actions of “the justice system”, especially the clear and remarkably forthright impugning by the Superior Court of the trial-court judge (and thus of the trial and conviction as well).
He then bleats – in a familiar trope – that he just doesn’t “know Billy’s case or the facts well enough to say I support them and him”. And we’ve been over this before. Suddenly the perennial font of so many sweeping assertions is so demurely and shyly hesitant to make any assertions or even form some tentative impressions or conclusions.
One is reminded of Churchill’s observation about the Nazis: “the Hun is either at your throat or at your feet”.
And he concludes this performance with the manipulative question: “Are we clear?”. Oblivious, apparently, to a) just how unclear his position is, especially taken in the context of all of his foregoing material and to b) just how clearly he has given his game away here.
I don't give a crap what an evil moron like you pretends to call thinking.
On the 29th at 1107PM ‘Dan’ can’t keep himself from tossing up something. As is his right.
He notes that I “always seem to add [him] into [my] negative comments about Jim”.
Actually, i) I don’t always do that but with ‘Dan’ there’s always some exaggeration that has to be factored in and ii) my comments deal with either somebody’s Method or their Content, and I’m not really concerned about merely conducting an aimless spontaneous field-trip into the commenter’s self.
The reason I sometimes include the one with the other – ‘Dan’ and “Jim” – is that, as I have said before, they are essentially two peas from the same pod: they both use basically the same Method in order to evade Content, i.e. they both rely on a) mere assertion that is b) buttressed by some aura of authority with which they have cloaked themselves.
Publyin' states with more falsehood, "I'm (not) really concerned about merely conducting an aimless spontaneous field-trip into the commenter's self." I could not have defined your motives and ignorance better, if I was to write that myself. Not only do you conduct "an aimless spontaneous field-trip into the commenter's self", you forgot that you also add your vicious lies and slander in order to demean your opponent. All I can say in regards to that is utter cowardice.
Oh, and your unwarranted assertions, better defined as blatant lies, you have absolutely no problem with. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 29th at 1107PM:
In JR’s case it is the (self-declared) Status of ‘victimhood’ and in ‘Dan’s case it is the (self-declared) Status of being somehow “the Chosen” of God who, on top of that, is so very “Chosen” that there is (in ‘Dan’s imagining of it) absolutely no daylight between what ‘Dan’ says and what God says.
JR deploys the usual victimist mantras and tropes as rhetorical chaff; ‘Dan’ deploys Scriptural quotations for the same purpose. And that purpose – as with all chaff – is to confuse the beam of inquiry and create all sorts of swirly, fuzzy stuff in the minds of anyone trying to actually sift through their stuff.
If we're the chaff then that would make you the manure. You surely aren't the wheat.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 29th at 1107PM:
As is demonstrated here in the first paragraph of ‘Dan’s comment where – beginning with the phrase “Problem is “ – he simply tosses up a string of mere assertions, the only support for which – in his mind anyway – is that as God’s “Chosen” he (or He) cannot lie and everything he (or He) says is true so if I disagree then anything I say must be un-true. Neato.
And then – marvelously – in his second paragraph ‘Dan’ will sniff and harrumph as to whether RC might demonstrate any “unfair bias”. And if there is any doubt as to what that phrase “unfair bias” might mean, one could perhaps peruse any of ‘Dan’s assertions, claims, and fever-visions about the Church, Catholicism, Catholics, and – but of course – anybody who disagrees with what he tosses up.
A bit of advice for anyone inclined to thus peruse: bring popcorn or whatever entertainment-snacks one might prefer.
Pretty interesting how much of your insults and mockery of God and myself, turns out much of the time to be a compliment to me (i.e. "absolutely no daylight between what 'Dan' says and what God says" b) "as God's 'Chosen' he (or He) cannot lie and everything he (or He) says is true, so if I disagree then anything I say must be un-true. Neato") And again, I couldn't have said this better if I was to say it myself. And I'll add with your immature, Neato. You must go to alot of cartoons. Does your mommy buy you a juic-y to wash down your pink popcorn and Gerber snacks.
As far as Ralph goes, he looks like a grown man and wouldn't need a child to answer for him. On my hit list of fever-visions, you forgot to mention my disdain for liars, pedophiles and perverts. Simular to your popes, bishops and priests, staying away from the subject unless they're cornered and failed when blaming the victims or the media. Mock on, loser.
I don't give a crap what an evil moron like you pretends to call thinking. I only insult those who'v
I don't give a crap what an evil moron like you pretends to call thinking. I only insult those who've insulted me. You are #1 on that list. If you include Malcolm, there's only you and he on that list. And Malcolm's a very minor character as far as insulting victims goes when compared to you P.
You are the reason TMR was created P. Dave throws up any old namby pamby whine about how the poor church is the real victim in all this. Ignoring the crimes the church has been caught out in. TMR was created so you can play "The Thinking Catholic" in this game. A game you've invented. A game where words like "Abuseniks" are made up and projected onto people who've only spoken the truth about what happened to them.. You and the right wing of the church are like the Emperor with his new clothes. Imagining things that really don't exist. You'll flip this all back on us victims saying it's us who've imagined our rapes for fraudulent reasons. It's what you always do. Just another one of the many lies; you've projected onto us.
I have some issues with Ralph because he so readily picked up your lying term and used it referrencing us. Something only you and Malcolm have done here.I can't quite figure out why he would use "Abuseniks"? It's an odd term to pick up and to use so easily and bitterly against people he doesn't know. If you have found out a fraudster; say his/her name and show your proof. No need to attack really harmed victims. If you feel a D.A. has jumped on case to make a name for himself. Call him that if you want. But real victims? To insult real victims? Why?
You use the word "bleats" mocking me. Exactly the same way SNAP uses the word "Blasted" when referencing it's own "attacks" on the church. When really all they do is re-mention just broken news stories regarding judicial issues about victims; and or clerical perpetrators being found out and criminally prosecuted. SNAP just doesn't criticize the church. Oh no! it "blasts" the church. You'd think the richest religion in the richest country on earth would look like a bombed out village in Syria or Palestine instead of being completely untouched. Both gifts from SNAP lies that are made up to make the church the out as the harmed, the victim.
That's what you do. I call you a name because you deserve to be named for what you are: an evil asshole who destroys dialog rather than one who enables conversation and healing. But if you must pretend all the time that we real victims aren't real victims, well that's a dictatorial position. Dictatorial because you, for very selfish reasons on your part, don't want to treat any opposition to your point of view here, as people. We are not even people to you. I say not people to you because no normal person treats other people the way you treat us, here.
P your whole purpose and TMR's whole purpose here is to make the church the victim and to make victims out to be the "real' oppressors. Your very purpose here is a lie. This entire site is built for your lies to their dirty work. This fraud of yours just never seems to take flight and soar. Even after 2 Newsweek stories. Pre computer 2 Newsweek features might have done the trick for you. But so far nothing. Again if these men are innocent and Ralph's right, of course I support justice for them. But They might have all ready received all the justice they were due. I wait for retrials as I'm sure they do.
On March 31st, JR says "you'd think that the richest religion in the richest country on earth would look like a bombed out village in Syria or Palestine, instead of being completely untouched" Well we do know that several diocese have been driven into bankruptcy by these claims. So hardly 'untouched'
Fundamental to all this is the old principle that "the punishment should fit the crime". JR has a fantastic vision of a completely gutted Church, after it has been forced to pay out to all self-described 'victims'. Problem is that most of the 'crimes' are invented by opportunists and extortionists.
Case in point … Danny Gallagher, who extorted his loot with the assistance of an ambitious D.A…. surfing a dark wave of bigotry.
What proof do you have that "most of the 'crimes' are invented by opportunists and extortionists". To make a blanket statement like that is despicable and unfair to all the "victims" of your disgusting, deceiving, pagan cult of hypocrites. You should be ashamed.
Prove what you say is true, Malcolm.
The church was closing down parishes long before this scandal hit the news in 2002. You believe the heirarchs, who lied to you about the safety of your children, when they say compensating victims have forced them to close churches. Why?
Looks like another whiney excuse for their crimes.
They pretend to be honest but they've lied again and again to the "People of God" and have been caught blatently lying. But those criminals you believe. The problem seems to lie in you and your willingness to trust criminals, above the people they have injured. F in morality for you.
"Several dioceses" say they've been forced into bankruptcy. The San Diego diocese was thrown out of bankruptcy court by the judge and fined for hiding assets that they might pay victims less.
If your church hadn't done what it did to it's own children. It wouldn't be libel for anything. You brought this on yourselves and when caught with our pants down, you say your the one being oppressed. One unproven "fraud" isn't going to save you. The Australian hearings on institutional sex abuse of minors have been held in depth for years. Pell isn't hiding in Rome for nothing along with cardinal Law and many criminally wanted but Vatican protected rapists as well.
You can blow smoke but you can't fool an informed public.
I will comment on the most recent batch in chronological order.
On the 30th at 1147PM JR asks “What then was ‘the Project’?”.
Regular long-time readers may recall that we have been all over this bit before. But for newer readers:
“The Project” would have been what Doyle proposed in his 1985 Proposal to the Bishops: fund an Office, staffed by himself and his two associates (a tort attorney and a psychologist), to put together a comprehensive and deep strategy for dealing with accusations and the priests who were the subject of them.
For reasons to which I am not privy – perhaps including some personal animus by some Bishops or staffers that Doyle was engaging in a bit of ‘empire-building’ – his Proposal was rejected.
The Proposal would be kept ‘confidential’ so that the Doyle team could conduct its work without the deranging pressures of publicity and also so as not to interfere with any possible formal tribunal inquiries and canonical trials or sanctions that might ensue. That aspect of it was both normal procedure in the organizational setting and also a measure to protect the integrity of the processes.
Of course, not being in a leadership position, Doyle would not have been so concerned as a Bishop would be about the bad publicity; and although the tort attorney seemed to have a sense of just how virulent things could get if standard tort-attorney praxis dealt itself in for a piece of the action, I don’t think anybody involved in 1985 envisioned what came to be (as I call it) the Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 1147PM:
Doyle then connected himself to the nascent SNAP organization, it would seem. But things didn’t go well and the organization was struggling financially. Then in that late-1980s meeting, Jeff Anderson had coffee with Barbara Blaine, made her an offer she chose not to refuse, and the SNAP that we now know was born: a front-organization to garner prospective clients and allegants for the torties.
JR at some point apparently got to working with SNAP, but was then – perhaps not surprisingly – shunted aside; possibly because he doesn’t work well with others, at least not unless he gets his own way.
Subsequently he put together a theory that would settle the hash of all of his targets in one swoop: the Church because it didn’t offer to pay him enough for his “rape” and SNAP because it moved him to the curb after he apparently tried to foment a little palace revolution there that would have put him in some sort of official position. Thus, SNAP (and just about any other organization or victim activist one might think of) was, in his theory, just a tool of the Church, which masterminded the whole set-up (including, later, even Jeff Anderson, the noted priest-abuse-case tortie-supreme).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 1147PM:
The late Thomas Economus at some point based his own theories on the Doyle Proposal of 1985, posting them on an amenable website that – as I recall – included Satan and the Vatican in its title. If he called the committee “secret” (and JR assures us that Economus “knew”, for whatever that assurance is worth), that characterization is not supported by the 1985 Doyle text. But there’s nothing like calling something “secret” to get everybody’s juices flowing.
And, it must be remembered, the Doyle Proposal was rejected by the Bishops anyway.
But then JR descends into genuine whackness by claiming that the Doyle text must have been “important” because why else did I “decide to repeat its rejection by the bishops as an important point?”.
I simply checked the various assertions of JR (working perhaps from the Economus material) with the text of the Proposal, and I did that only in response to the assertions and claims and characterizations that JR initially put up about it.
No, Pliar, Fr.Tom Economus was published on that weird web site postumously. He was published there with it's Satanist symbology to discount Economus and his truth . (The church has never stopped using the devil to scare people into submission and it did it on this occassion as well.) Discounting Economus was very important to Doyle and Co. So if you stick space ships and demon signs around the truth? you've made the truth appear to be crazy.
Fr. Economus had to be made irrelevent since it was he who passed out Doyle and co, secret paper to the bishops in the first place. I can only hope his honesty and morality did not cost him his life. It wouldn't be the first time a corporation killed people for profit.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 1147PM:
And it was “important” to do so since, regardless of even what Economus/JR say about the Proposal’s various sub-points, the Proposal was rejected, so whatever “secret committees” exist in the Economus/JR vision were not accepted anyway.
Thus JR’s insinuation at the end of his first paragraph – that I was “afraid of” something in the Doyle Proposal – fails utterly here. If the various Economus/JR bits were purportedly part of the Doyle Proposal, and yet the Doyle Proposal was rejected, then the Economus/JR bits are moot.
Moot shmoot! Why would the leading Canon lawyer in the U.S. fr. Tom Doyle O.P. (and still O.P. as we write)stationed at the Vatican Embassy in Washington D.C. even think about creating secret committees? Why would he even think of submitting that suggestion to the U.S. bishops conference? He would know would he not? What was appropriate (or not) to submit to bishops since he was their top Canon lawyer? His lack of morality outraged the moral bishops so? How did Doyle make such an incredable gaff? He would have known what to say to bishops since he helped pick bishops. Wouldn't he? He makes it to the top of the heap in the U.S. catholic church but screws up his entire career by asking the bishops (out of no where ) to create secret committees funded by the church but never ever to be known as such by the world?!?! That behavior makes absolutely no sense given Doyle's rise to power. Your lies won't fly P.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 1147PM:
JR will then try to create something more congenial and useful for himself: he will say The Project “was enacted” – even though the Doyle Proposal was rejected; go figure – and it was enacted by the erection of (the original) SNAP. But if that were accurate, then it has to be explained how SNAP wasn’t financially supported by the Church (despite its purportedly vital role in “controlling victims” and so on) and thus Blaine was open to accepting wily Jeff Anderson’s offer and it was only then that SNAP hit the big-time.
Of course, at this point, JR will try to evade the problems with his theory by simply insisting that Anderson too is himself a tool of the Church. And thus we are down the rabbit-hole again.
So JR can puff out his pinfeathers and “say” all he wants; but his theory has holes in it so big you could drive a truck through them.
If, P, you'd bothered to read Doyle's project; he said, a lawyer would be secretly chosen to fund these "committees" for the church. The funds would be controlled by 3 cardinals.
Just because the church says they rejected Doyle's propositions doesn't mean they really did. God knows the church has lied before for its' own benefit. That's what ot you all into this problem in the first place the church lying about abusive priests by sanctioning them that they might easily abuse again. Maybe not what the church wanted to happen but they used Catholic children as guinea pigs and we died ; and the church didn't give a shit or a damn.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 1147PM:
Thus then JR has opened himself up to a recoil from his own material as he claims I am “such a liar” since I “invent” what he says (no example provided) or “rephrase it to suit [my] purposes” (again, no example provided) and I “ignore” what he has said (again, no examples provided; and surely I don’t “ignore” his material – his biggest irritation is that I pay far too much attention to it).
If I am “blowing smoke” Ralph Cipriano is completely capable of detecting that. What JR is really on about here is that his effort to inveigle RC into the JR-verse has now, because of me, lost a bit of its shiny – if merely rhetorical – appearance. Not my problem.
And thus his self-burnishing bit about not needing “to make anything up” and not needing “to be afraid of any facts” can be compared to the record of his material on this site, including the facts surrounding his own claim of “rape”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 30th at 1147PM:
But then but then: JR says he is “playing along”. With whom and about what and in what way is he “playing along”? I can surely understand that he has been putting on this little ‘play’ of his to ‘make a play’ for RC’s professional interest and attention, but what else could this mean?
Nor do I care whether JR does or does not agree with my material. He can say what he likes in that regard, but I have seen little if anything to warrant my placing much confidence in his judgment, to say the least.
It takes me a while to deal with JR’s various bits because I want to give readers a chance to see how Abusenik material has to be handled, and should have been handled from the get-go decades ago. Abusenik material is not just deceptive; it is artfully deceptive and seeks to manipulate and incite while distracting from anything except the Cartoon they wish to put over on anyone and everyone they can manage.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 506PM:
There is nothing “aimless” or “spontaneous” about my assessment of ‘Dan’s material; it is based on what he himself has revealed.
And since we have here someone making vast and virulent claims about the Church and Catholicism and Catholics and priests and hierarchs / and that someone insists that his material is actually the Mind and Will and Word from God / and that someone insists that as God’s “Chosen” his claims and accusations and so forth need no further substantiation / and yet that someone has both a) revealed numerous misadventures with police, courts, and psychiatry and b) demonstrates in his own material indications of various noteworthy and relevant mental infelicities … then a consideration of the competence and integrity of that someone, based on material that someone has himself provided, is not only warranted but required.
And – again with utterly no concern for the recoil entrained by clinical projection – ‘Dan’ will describe himself rather succinctly: deploying “ignorance” and “vicious lies and slander in order to demean” his target, the Church and Catholicism and so forth.
His own “cowardice” is vividly demonstrated in his picking on grammar-school children to ‘deliver’ his “beautiful prophecy”. Or, in an alternative effort he has also claimed, did he just ‘wish them a nice day’?
Have I not said enough times that all accusations were vicious lies. Is it necessary to tattoo that on your brain, in order that you may comprehend it. Not everyone is a liar, like yourself, or are you just used to hanging with the liars of your church.
Publiar, you are such a jerk. It was a "beautiful prophecy" filled with the Lord's love for the children, and for you to twist that into something evil or label "cowardice" is absolutely demonic, and no better than the lies of your cult that sent me to the "police, courts or [psychos]", like yourself. Crawl back into your sleazy trench, Slimeball.
One more thing, if I was making false and slanderous claims against you or your church, then that would be absolutely wrong, as you and your cult have done towards me. Strange how you have no problem slandering me, but want me not to tell the truth about your despicable cult. This is why I truthfully call your church a wicked group plagued with lying hypocrites. Not all catholics, but I have run across many. Among my own family and catholic friends I find no obvious liars. I am not against catholics. I am against the deceiving, pedophile, child molesting, creepy ones. Servant "chosen" of the Lord, to lead the lost to Christ, not to 'Dan'..
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 509PM:
Not being a reader of books and perhaps thus a bit “ignorant”, ‘Dan’ has mistaken my use of the term “chaff”. I was referring not to Biblical chaff, but to radar chaff (my use of the word “beam” should have tipped him off to that, were he a reader).
But somehow even his mistaken Biblical presumption gets him from “chaff” (as in wheat) to the epithetical “manure” – and readers can consider it as they will.
Wow, for being the brilliant and well-read one, you sure seem to be falling back on the I"M NOT/YOU ARE stuff. Have you exhausted what little intellegence you have, repeating your same lies over and over again and are now resorting to using my material. Maybe you should rethink your reading of cartoons and comic books and move on to Harry Potter, you're not far from that weirdness and wackiness already. If that's a little above your infantile thinking, then maybe some Daffy Duck or Goofy might be a better stepping stone.
No, you're just one big pile of manure. If you prefer yourself to be considered space manure, that's alright with me. Manure by any other name is still a pile of sxxt.
I'm sooo sooorrrry! You being such a hypocrite, I thought for sure you finally understood something from the bible. "You hypocrite! First remove the 'beam' from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7: 5
Apparently you're the mistaken once again. You should ask your teacher to explain this 'pericope' to you, it would be good advice for you to take. Maybe she could read and show you the pictures in a child's Bible, so you might understand it. Happy to serve you.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 545PM:
Here he openly accepts the characterization that there is “absolutely no daylight between what ‘Dan’ says and what God says” and other similar bits by which I characterized his own claims. He is clearly rather pleased with the ‘accuracy’ of my characterizations.
He is right that he couldn’t have said it better himself. I do see through his issues and material.
The more interesting point is that he doesn’t.
Another “Prophet” was arrested a couple of days ago in Washington, D.C. Perhaps the next time ‘Dan’ has a misadventure that places him yet again in the vale of psychiatry, the examiners will consider more circumspectly the fact that his type of derangement, based as it is in a molten and unripe core, can turn physically violent all on its own. Perhaps the staff at the schoolyard fence realized that as well.
Charles Manson sports a catholic cross on his forehead, so the authorities might want to keep an eye out for other basket-case catholics, like yourself. Your level of "ignorance" is really getting ridiculous. If you knew what true Christians were like at all, then you would know that they totally frown on any form of violence. Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Matthew 26:52 We just don't read the Word, we actually live by the Word, unlike your deceiving cult. Are you aware that Christ said in the last days there shall be many false prophets, and your cult harbors a slew of them. Like previously stated, stop your "nonsense" and take a good look in your own backyard, it's overgrown with weeds. Servant of the Almighty, appointed by the Lord Himself, and I don't care what you think.
Boy you are a classic. Coupling me with some phony, church hypocrite, calling himself a "Prophet", who brandishes a gun and has previously tried to seduce some teenage girl. Sounds more like a member of your cult, if he can only turn his affections towards little boys and we'll crown him with a fish head and make him a great saint of the church. Love how you hypocrites try to accuse the innocent, slander their reputation, to put the focus on others, thinking that people won't look into your despicable "crimes" against humanity. Deceiver.
On then to JR’s of the 31st at 1106AM (another of those uncharacteristically long and reasonably well-formatted and spelled proffers, from wherever it came):
Here JR will try to evade the problems with his material by pooh-poohing “thinking”. I can see where he might have no other choice, but it does demonstrate that Abuseniks and the Stampede are not really a) good at it and b) don’t want anybody else to be doing too much of it.
And that’s why – as he reveals in his own projection about my “blowing smoke” – they blow so much smoke.
He then tries to excuse his own “abrasive” style by bleating that he doth “only insult those who’ve insulted me”. But as the long record here will show, all you need to do to “insult” him (or “attack” him) is to point out the problems with his proffered material.
Listen you 2 bit liar! When you continually cast doubt on my being abused sexually by clerics as if the worst thing in my life never really happened to me. I have to call you out for the liar you are. What's the need you have to make the truth out to be a lie and your lies out to be the truth? You are very damaged goods. If I didn't know you to be a cynical piece of shit around this subject. And knowing that you well know I'm telling the truth in all I've posted here I'd say you were mentally impaired but you know
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 1106AM:
And – after taking a sideways swipe at ‘Malcolm Harris’ – he will make another of his faulty assertions, to the effect that I am “the reason TMR was created”. Alas, TMR was around for quite a while before I came along.
And he goes on with his new theory, that I am ‘playing’ “The Thinking Catholic” – and we know what JR thinks about “thinking”. Or feels about it, anyway.
I haven’t seen any Abuseniks here yet who have persuasively “only spoken the truth about what happened to them”, and JR most certainly and surely isn’t a candidate for that encomium, after all we’ve seen and assessed here.
But readers will notice that JR (and/or his script-advisor) tries the old I’m Not/You Are bit by working in some grammatical form of clinical projection. It’s taken a while for this gambit to get trotted out, but I suppose it had to be expected.
Any examples of the “lies” I have “projected onto” Abuseniks? Not a one.
The very word Abuseniks is a lie, you big dope.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 1106AM:
And in the second paragraph, suddenly he shifts gears (or Wigs): JR has “some issues”. Yes.
And for his (self-serving) claim about “real victims” being ‘insulted’ here to work, we would first have to know we are dealing with “real victims” – and we surely don’t, and most certainly not from the stuff that has been proffered.
Thus the final bleat, so artfully designed (“But real victims? To insult real victims? Why?”), fails.
I would suggest he engage more competent help in the script-writing department.
Sorry, I don't have the financial backing of the Catholic church like you do,P. The church has hired many hands to complete it'self as the "real" victim fantasy. They've spent tens of millions of dollars at PR firms for good writers. I guess they bought you cheap.
On then to JR’s of the 31st at 1135AM:
Here, JR will borrow one of ‘Dan’s bits: by using the term ‘bleat’ I do “mock” him. Thus the Wig of Victimhood.
Curiously, he trips himself up by referring to “re-mention just broken news stories regarding judicial issues about victims”. While he himself has been going on about the genuinely old news about the Philadelphia conviction yet ignoring the more recent and very noteworthy “judicial issues” raised by the Superior Court’s forthright impugning of the trial that produced the (now-questionable) “conviction”.
And he riffs on for the rest of the first paragraph.
On then to JR’s of the 31st at 1135AM:
In the second paragraph, he tries to excuse himself (for all his name-calling and so forth) by simply declaring that I “deserve to be named for what [I am]”. Well, be that as he may wish it to be, but his own material deserves to be “named for what” it is; or, more accurately, deserves to be assessed and examined. And he doesn’t like it one bit. And one can easily see why.
And – again – “dialog” in the JR-verse simply means agreeing with him. Anything else is an “insult” and an “attack” and so on and so forth.
This bleat then leads to a further bleat-y riff about ‘enabling’ “conversation and healing”. We haven’t yet demonstrated that we have genuine victimization that requires “healing”. And we are here on this site to examine the Catholic Abuse Matter, not to conduct online therapeutic séances; there are sites where that can be done, but this isn’t one of them. Especially since ‘therapy’ is really best done in-person, as JR should know from his own experiences along that line.
But again: in the JR-verse, “healing” means being-agreed-with. Competent therapy would very possibly be ended as soon as JR was confronted by the therapy-provider in the effort to get him to face his “issues”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 1135AM:
And then he tosses this bit up: If I “pretend” that “we real victims aren’t real victims” … “well that’s a dictatorial position”. (And this highly uncharacteristic term is even spelled properly … one must wonder.)
First, I don’t “pretend” (and we’ve been over all this before); I have assessed the material proffered and it doesn’t hold up and surely doesn’t persuade.
Second, in what conceivable way would my (purported) ‘pretending’ be “dictatorial”? (Short answer: JR doesn’t know, but it was a new piece of plop he got from somewhere and it felt good tossing it.)
He then tries to explain “dictatorial”: I “don’t want to treat any opposition to [my] point of view here, as people”. In the JR-verse, one is either agreed-with or one is not being treated as “people”.
And that enables a further (self-serving, victim-y) riff that enables him to bring in by implication his old ‘sociopath’ bit: “no normal person treats other people the way” I do. Questioning assertions they make? Sustaining that questioning when the ‘answers’ raise more questions than they answer? (To JR and the Abuseniks, “normal” people don’t do that – which is the core sociopathy in the Stampede: presume upon the gullibility of busy people and toss story after story at them.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 1135AM:
JR will have a hard time coming up with an accurate quotation of mine that demonstrates that my “whole purpose here is to make the church the victim” (sic) – which is no doubt why he doesn’t provide one to back up his assertion.
I have been assessing the Stampede; and yet at no time have I claimed that the Church was utterly blameless.
Thus, the rest of his little construction of blocks in the rest of the riff fails.
I got an outside this forum spell check.Now I gets to be liter ut jest likes use.
Thank you, P for re-confirming yours and TMR's position in this. That is of being the apologist for SNAP and Doyle, as their being what they pretend to be to victims.( I hope they write you a thank you note or send a bottle of wine.) Good job on the authentication of two frauds. The stampede you've invented that doesn't exist; and SNAP and Doyle's fake "being for victims.". T But P, You defend SNAP as being real. Yet you attack victims, for us not being real. How does that happen?
( This should be a wake up call to the readership. If P's supporting them as legitimate when P never supports real victims for being such. That ought to tell the readership something is a bit odd. )
If I'm nuts, why even make an argument (and a lengthy one too) against me and the evidence I've offered regarding these false flagstersers? Quite the verbage to discount my analysis. What! Just saying I'm cukoo doesn't quite work for you any more? Are you losing confidence that your lies will be bought? Afraid Catholics might buy the truth over your and SNAP's and Doyle's fictions? Awwwww!
One day the truth of all this will be recognised. One day.
But thanks for your back up, P. it sheds light in dark corners.
On the 1st at 545PM readers will note that in his entire comment ‘Dan’ (slyly) does nothing to address the issue at hand, but simply indulges himself (or Himself) in a string of epithets.
On then to the 1st at 605PM:
Here he will try to weasel out of the main point of my comment by distracting us with the idea that Charles Manson, a Catholic, also thought himself some sort of divinely-inspired and divinely-warranted type.
My point had nothing to do with the faith-affiliation of any such “basket cases” (to use ‘Dan’s own, hardly inapt, term for those similarly afflicted). My point had to do with the fact that individuals – of any faith group – can become so deranged as to a) imagine and consider and believe themselves specially “Chosen” and enlightened by God, such that b) anything they say or do cannot be doubted, questioned, or in any way interfered-with.
Publyin' states, "My point-any faith group-can become so deranged as to a) imagine and consider and believe themselves specially 'Chosen' and enlightened by God, such that b) anything they say or do cannot be doubted, question ed, or in any way interfered-with."
What could describe a more deranged group of hypocrites, that would fit this statement, than your hierarchy and their claim that popes are infallible when "he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church". So pope john paul the great, with pope to be cardinal RAT-zinger, were without possibily of error, morally correct in harboring, hiding or excusing pedophile priests. Are they only infallible when laying rules on their brainwashed sheep, but don't think they have to practice what they preach. We're talking about the most deranged, hypocrite creeps to ever walk the earth.
For you to attempt to define me as such, would most definitely qualify yourself as one of those deranged, hypocrite creeps. I have never claimed my material to be without error, unless it was a Biblical quote or prophecy, and I would make that clear with a "Thus saith" or "This is the Word of the Lord". You're the one to say, that I think all my material is "God's Will and Word and Thought". Problem is I never made any such claim, but you've said that so much, that I have a feeling that you live in fear of this to be true. Later mocking, lying, coward.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 605PM:
Then, once again deploying his favorite bit about “ignorance”, he goes on about my not-knowing what “true Christians [are] like at all”. The unstated presumption, of course, is that ‘Dan’ doth know; and he doth know because – doncha see? – he (or He) is chiefest among the exemplars of ‘true Christianity’.
But he undermines himself (or Himself) here because he somehow (and this seems common to all the Abuseniks here as well) either forgets all of his prior material or else presumes that nobody else will remember his prior material: he employs “violence” quite regularly, even if only of the verbal kind (so far as we know). But, of course, his Cartoon explanation or self-excuse for that might be that since he (or He) is simply carrying out God’s Word and Will, then it isn’t really “violence” at all, at least not the kind he (or He) can be held responsible for.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 605PM:
And then and then: marvelously, he adverts to the pericope in which Christ refers to “false prophets”.
And then tries to ensure that the focus of that pericope would only be beamed onto Catholics, and – had you been waittttttttttttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttt? – not onto himself (or Himself).
Readers may consider it all as they will.
On then to the 1st at 643PM:
Here he will deploy the ‘bean in your own eye’ pericope, blissfully oblivious to its relevance to himself (or Himself).
And in any case, he has slyly deployed the pericope in such a way that he would wind up having merely “a speck” in his own eye. Readers may consider it all as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 656PM:
Once again we see here the whackness necessary to sustain ‘Dan’s personal Cartoon: he attempts to dismiss all my points by simply relying on his own oft-repeated personal assertions (“Have I not said enough times that all accusations were vicious lies?”).
Alas, on the one hand we have ‘Dan’s oft-repeated personal assertions; on the other hand we have the facts of his assorted misadventures as he has related them / and his subsequent twisty and queasy efforts to explain-away the incoherences so as not to appear to be going the Billy-Doe route of multiple and conflicting stories / and his numerous assorted comments aimed at anyone who doesn’t buy his line.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1045PM:
Ditto as he simply repeats his own (self-serving) spin on whatever happened at the schoolyard fence (and let’s not even wonder about the other six instances that resulted in court and psychiatric misadventures).
And the fact that he somehow connects “the Lord’s love for the children” with his own choice of going up to the fence and starting up a chat with them … bears even more harbingers of ‘issues’.
But I will here proffer my own opinion, not as an assertion of divinely-authorized fact but as a conclusion I have reached from considering it all: his (or His) actions may not have been “demonic”, but they were certainly characterizable as deranged.
But, also, we see here a similarity to JR’s general strategy: if you don’t agree with his personal spin on things, then you are – you must be – also in on the conspiracy against him and his truthiness. The seed dynamics of paranoia become visible here.
And as if ‘Dan’ didn’t trust his own material to do the job, he tosses in – whether on his own authority or God’s – the assorted epithetical bits.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1125PM:
Here we merely – and again – see the dynamics of his (or His) Cartoon: if you disagree with him (or Him) then you are slandering; but when he (or He) goes on about Catholicism, the Church, and Catholics and so on then that’s just – had you been waitttttingggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “the truth”.
And he (or He) lards in that extra “truthfully” just for added effect.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1259AM:
One really does have to wonder – and perhaps even smile a bit – at his obliviousness to his own Cartoon: he harrumphs about my “coupling” him with “some phony, church hypocrite, calling himself a “Prophet”.
I think that in his own mind what keeps him (or Him) from being included in that fake-Prophet number is that slyly included “church” bit: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – isn’t affiliated with any church, but rather ‘Dan’ is his (or His) own church (of which he is – by default and by self-appointment – pope and so forth and so on).
Thus – doncha see? – since ‘Dan’ isn’t affiliated with any church polity, then he can’t – by the workings of his (or His) Cartoon definitions – be “a hypocrite”.
I wouldn’t be so much concerned with the “hypocrite” bit as I would be about – to use his apt term – the “basket-case” aspect. The gentleman “calling himself a Prophet” in Washington was most relevantly not a “hypocrite” but a “basket-case”. But we see here that ‘Dan’ has slyly avoided that whole aspect of the reality involved here.
And he then tries to move us away from further consideration as quickly as possible with the further riff that concludes the comment.
This is to cover your last nine posts. I have no desire to break down all the BS that spouts from your mouth. You are beyond a doubt the biggest lying hypocrite I've run across, among the many deceivers in your cult. Using your false reasoning, you think my material to not make sense, in your opinion. If there is any incoherence, it's only from the vicious lies you've consistantly added to the facts, along the way. If there is any violence in my responses to you or your cult, they were only brought on by the false accusations, manipulations and lies by the both of you, and you deserve everything you get. The things you've said against me and those you've compared me to, can only be spawned from some dark, demonic mind that is willing to say absolutely anything to demean and destroy a person's reputation. You and your father the devil must receive a great deal of evil pride from the work you accomplish together. Maybe someday you'll stand before him to be crowned as one of the great saints of your phony, lying cult. God shall be my witness. Servant to the Almighty
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 706PM:
This comment is larded with a number of ‘Dan’s juvenile gambits, but no surprise there.
He opens with a sarcastic ‘thank-you’ as might ‘Dan’. If any reader can suss out (since JR has provided neither explication nor accurate quotation of mine) where I ‘confirmed’ my and TMR’s “position in this” they are welcome to share it here.
In what conceivable way has anything I have put up here demonstrated that I am “the apologist for SNAP and Doyle”? In what way has anything I said indicated that “SNAP and Doyle … are “being for victims”? As I said, the SNAP we know today is – as best I can figure it – a front-organization for the torties. (But that would break up the nice economy of JR’s fever-vision whereby he wants to get back at all his targets in one convenient ‘theory’: Church and SNAP.)
Where does JR come up with this? (Short answer: if it doesn’t go along with JR’s preferred spin, then it has to be something bad and he will do whatever he has to in order to keep his own Cartoon going, for himself and for the readership).
? "As best (you) can figure it"? Why shucks farmer P.! Gosh and a golly.!Yuk ! Yuk!. Yuk!
You down to earth buckeroo. Cowpie P headin' off the "stampede" of his own invention.
Torties kiss SNAP's ass for referrals. SNAP poses as a front for our lawyers when it ,in fact, SNAP has picked the front lawyer in the U.S. and elsewhere, Jeff Anderson.
Why recommend Anderson? Why, if you supported victims' interests, wouldn't SNAP say to lawyers come and bid for our clients and give our victims a better price for your representation. If SNAP are a sell outs to the lawyers. Why would A) They be "loved" by victims and or B. be considered moral when they are so easily bought? according to you. Victims would have donated far more to SNAP than Anderson has.
But this is all a facade; a fraud; a fake. Doyle's secret committees, of which SNAP is first and foremost, were emplaced and empowered as a control FOR the church's financial and PR benefit. Not as a representative for victims' justice seeking.
How can you even pretend to think SNAP works for victims when it never mentions compensation or our needs and damages? All of which would be mentioned over and over again by a real victims' union.
But No! SNAP only mentions "Protect Catholic children" now. It Never says: "Help the already injured now" as it should and would if it really worked for us.. How exactly does that tact help victims? Particularly when the church jest loves to talk about how it so "righteously" protects Catholic kids NOW? Why would you push the same failed tactical line for 25 years as SNAP has? Surely tort lawyers would go for the jugular if they commanded SNAP? Not , instead,support SNAP's not mentioning victims" damages, or victims' needs or the church's failure to reach out to and compensate the people it's harmed.
Please P defend that odd behavior by the only people you take at face value here. SNAP.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 706PM:
In what way do I “defend SNAP as being real”? And we still don’t know whether, if at all, we have encountered any “real” “victims” here (and JR’s own claims about his own victimization demonstrate this problem ).
That’s how “that” happens, then: we don’t know if we have encountered any genuine victims here; and SNAP had two incarnations, as I said above on this thread.
Thus JR’s “wake up call to the readership” fails, since I am not at all “supporting [SNAP] as legitimate”.
But – to borrow JR’s bit here – “that ought to tell the readership that something is a bit odd” with JR’s whole gambit here.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 706PM:
And then JR tries another bit that ‘Dan’ has recently tried: if he is “nuts” then “why even make an argument” against him?
To which I respond: for the same reason I take so much time and effort with ‘Dan’s stuff: it is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to readers the assorted whackeries and worse in the various Abusenik gambits.
Once again, JR attempts to console himself with the thought that if I am taking so much time to deal with his stuff, then he must be putting up some seriously heavy-duty and substantive stuff indeed. No; and as I have said before on this site, it is simply that the artful deceptions the Abuseniks bring to the site provide an excellent opportunity to look carefully at the Stampede.
And then the two concluding sentences echo ‘Dan’ (with some extra rhetorical oomph provided from somewhere): the vatic “One day” bit and the juvenile sarcasm (“thanks for your back up”).
Not only with ‘Dan’ are we reaching the bottom of a barrel.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 713PM: he apparently ‘knows’ how much the Church has spent for PR firms (but don’t postpone your next meal until he can back that up).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 542PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to somehow turn the no doubt uncongenial false-prophet material away from himself (or Himself) and against the Church.
But while he more or less accurately describes the doctrine of papal infallibility, he then takes it all off the rails by somehow conflating infallible statements with “harboring, hiding or excusing pedophile priests” – which fails rather spectacularly since at no time in any way has any Pope – JP2 included – ever declared any such thing under the rubric of infallibility.
But it’s all he had in the card pile, apparently, besides – of course – the usual string of richly vituperative epithets that then conclude the second paragraph.
And in the process of larding on the epithets, he also slyly tries to spin the Popes or hierarchy as being “deranged” and “creeps”. A pretty example of projection indeed.
All my material "fails rather spectacularly" or it's "all off the rails", because your unable to comprehend anything that doesn't line up with your illusion of your pure, infallible church of hypocrites. Since according to your claim, no pope has ever "declared", the "harboring, hiding or excusing pedophile priests", to fall "under the rubric of infallibility", so no harm, no foul. In other words, as long as they don't talk about their immorality or declare their perversions as such, then they can be as immoral as they wish. They've succeeded. This is why I claim they don't "practice what they preach". They are truly the "immoral authority" and have no right to claim anything they say or do as infallible. This is why your cult is considered a phony, idolatrous, pagan religion, still practicing human sacrifice, only now the sacrifice has morphed into that of innocent children, preferably little boys. Despicable and sick. No excuses necessary, from you or any of your other enablers (popes, bishops, etc.).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 524PM:
And in the third paragraph he gets on with his usual I’m Not/You Are gambit: he asserts that by my noting his assorted and various mental infelicities (as they have demonstrated themselves in his material) then that would “definitely qualify” me as being another of “those deranged, hypocrite creeps”. Yet I am neither hierarch nor – need it be said? – Pope.
But it’s all he’s got and he tosses it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 524PM:
Then another sly bit: Attempting to distinguish himself (or Himself) from Popes and hierarchs, he piously bleats that he (or He) has “never claimed [his] material to be without error, unless it was a Biblical quote or prophecy”. Tah-dahhhhhh. (Italics mine)
In regard to his Biblical quotations: the problem, as I have often said, is not in his spelling the quotations properly but rather in his application of them to his personal bugbears.
In regard to his “prophecy”: these are nothing more than ‘Dan’s own personal eructations and yet he (or He) does include them among those bits of his (or His) that are indeed “without error”. And it is here that the whole bit goes down the rabbit-hole.
And if we subtract the Biblical quotations and that broad spectrum of eructations ‘Dan’ calls “prophecy”, then we are left with almost nothing else except the constantly mutating claims and denials and all the rest of the contortions into which he has queasily twisted his material in order to evade the realities inherent in that very material.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 524PM:
And then his further bleat to the effect that he takes great care to mark the “without error” stuff with a Bible-ish “Thus saith” or “This is the Word of the Lord”: what’s the point? Since almost everything ‘Dan’ tosses up apparently qualifies as either a Bible quotation or his own personal “prophecy” eructations, then we still wind up with most of his stuff being “without error”, then why bother?
(And are all the queasy and sleazy evasive contortions also “without error”?)
And that’s pretty much “all” of his material, which is why I said as much.
Need anyone be detained by ‘Dan’s stab at insinuation by sharing the “feeling” that he doth “have”? I certainly have put myself on record here as not being impressed with any demonstrations of ‘Dan’s truthiness or – not to put too fine a point on it – sanity. And I have explained why at length and in detail.
Do I live “in fear of” his truthiness? When I come across some, I’ll let him (or Him) know.
You say, "we still wind up with most of his stuff being "without error". then why bother?" Thanks for the compliment and my question is, Why do you bother? and why do you insist on bothering me with your lies?
You say, "I certainly have put myself on record here as not being impressed with any demonstrations of 'Dan's truthiness". Why would a "blatant, habitual liar" be impressed with someone who tells the truth. "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with wickedness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14 Still think these bible quotes are inappropriate or irrelevant? Have you ever come to realize that it just might be you who's inappropriate or irrelevant? No better time to realize that than now. Good to see you still mocking, with ignorance. servant
"The bottom of a barrel?. People who are victims of sex abuse as children are the "bottom of a barrel"?
What does that make our rapists then? Le creme de la creme?
If I were you I wouldn't be talking about anyone being at "barrel bottoms" It might give the readership ideas about you.
Please! P Don't waste "your" time (our time really). You are too generous!
You debate Dan over religion. What that has to do with compensating victims who deserve compensation? I don't know. Unless it's to blow smoke over real problems by presenting false "problems" to distract.
On the 4th 'Dan' says… "that is why your cult is seen as a phony, adulterous, and pagan religion" Well I am reminded of something Blaise Pascal said…."Our faith provides enough light for those who want to believe, and enough shadow to blind those who don't"
'Dan' fails to see the strong criminal connection in these abuse cases. Danny Gallagher was in prison when he made his formal accusation against the priests. A well-known scam amongs the criminal classes is to accuse the Church….. a sure-fire winner. A lawyer in the U.K. actually advertised in a prison newsletter for any former students of Catholic schools or youth training institutions. Telling the inmates to contact him, because they might have a claim. I'm personally convinced that a significant proportion of all alleged victims are either criminals and/or substance abusers.
'Dan' can't see this because of those shadows.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1051PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will deploy a new evasive technique: the scattergun or shotgun approach, i.e. he won’t (and, really, can’t) deal with all the points I’ve raised so he will just issue a blanket denunciation, comprised of the usual tissue of mere (self-serving and self-exculpatory) assertions and nothing more.
In the process he claims to have discovered “false reasoning” in my material. No quoted examples, of course, provided or explained. Rather, merely the blanket claim that I have “consistently added” “vicious lies” “to the facts”. (Short-form explanation here: I have found problems in his material, pointed them out and explained the problems they raise, and in the ‘Dan’-verse that qualifies – must qualify – as the aforementioned “vicious lies”.)
But there is a method to the madness here: on the basis of that whackulent presumption, he can then slyly evade the “violence” in his material: much like JR, he is justified in using “violence” simply because such instances of his (or His) “violence” “were brought on by the false” material I put up and so on and so forth. And thus I “deserve everything [I] get”. Had you been waitttttingggggg forrrrr ittttttttt? It was only a matter of time before we saw this bit from ‘Dan’.