NY Times National Catholic Abuse Correspondent Laurie Goodstein
Her gig may finally be up. It has now come to the point that every sentient being now agrees that Laurie Goodstein at the New York Times is something less than an objective reporter when it comes to reporting about decades-old episodes of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
A recent Times podcast by Goodstein asks the question, "Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church: Why Is It Still a Story?" Goodstein then disingenuously claims, "The answer lies with the victims."
However, it has become crystal clear that Goodstein is really only concerned about victims of one institution, the Catholic Church. As we have repeatedly chronicled, Goodstein has written nearly 100 articles this decade about sex abuse in the Catholic Church, but she has written exactly zero articles about sex abuse in any other religious institution.
Say what, Laurie?
So we were surprised when a reader of this site passed on an email exchange he had with Goodstein in which Goodstein made the following claim:
"I have written about sexual abuse among Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Scientologists and Hare Krishnas."
Really, Laurie? We scoured the archives at the Times searching desperately for these alleged articles about sex abuse "among Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Scientologists and Hare Krishnas." Here is what we found:
- Goodstein wrote a single article 11 years ago about sex abuse in the silly 1970s "Children of God" cult.
- She wrote another single article 15 years ago about sex abuse in the "United Church of Christ" in Massachusetts.
- Goodstein wrote another single article about sex abuse among Hare Krishnas 18 years ago.
- She wrote a couple of articles about sex abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses (1, 2) 14 years ago.
- In 2010, Goodstein wrote another single article about "abuse" in the Church of Scientology, but she made no mention of sexual abuse at all, only of an alleged "abusive environment" (social/emotional/mental).
- The closest Goodstein came to writing about abuse in the Jewish community was "contributing" to a 2012 article, "Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rally to Discuss Risks of Internet."
Notice that not one of these articles was even written in this decade, while Goodstein has penned nearly 100 articles about sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
And as we have repeatedly reported, Goodstein has been radio silent on abuse among Protestant groups. An eye-popping 2002 article in the Christian Science Monitor stunningly reported that in Protestant churches "the pace of child-abuse allegations against American churches has averaged 70 a week."
70 abuse allegations in Protestant churches … per … week.
Yet Goodstein has written exactly nothing about this. Nada. Zilch.
"All the news that's fit to print"? Not even close.
I had a series of comments that were ready to post about 1030AM on the 10th. The first two (1037AM and 1038AM) went up the usual way. But then I got that error message and had to send the remainder (now time-stamped 717PM to 727PM) to DP so that he could bypass the error machinery and put them up.
This is of interest, I would say, only because it would appear that JR – seeing only my two comments of 1037AM and 1038AM, which did not directly address his accusations – must have thought he had something going for himself and thus we get more of the same from JR on the 10th at 136PM and 139PM.
Well, actually, not quite just more of the same, since – perhaps a bit high on the thought that he had hit upon a way to blow-smoke over his own recent difficulty – lards it all on a bit more thickly.
On the 10th at 136PM he simply refers to me as “a child molester like Publion” (and no “groupie” or “wanna be” about it).
But there is a method to the madness in it: he’s going for the idea that since I am – he would very much like everyone to presume that he has proven – “a child molester”, then DP should name me if I don’t name myself. Regular longtime readers will recognize this as one of the abiding bits on JR’s bucket list.
In the alternative – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – JR proposes that DP not let me post comments at all.
People who get in JR’s way can expect such treatment – perhaps like that Brother/teacher who was giving him an unsatisfactory grade.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 136PM:
To repeat yet again: it was clear to me from the get-go that Abuseniks – like so many of their predecessors in the agitprop game – relied upon a) avoiding, evading, and distracting-from the issues by b) attacking personally anyone who got in their way. It was for that reason that I decided to use a screen-name, in order to deprive them of any such opportunity and to keep them facing the issues in the Stampede.
And it’s going to stay that way. Even now, it has evoked in a clear and vivid and overt way exactly the type of gambit that has always lain just below the surface of Abusenik performances.
It's so strange, how when you describe what you consider the attributes of who you rudely label "Abuseniks", those qualities so better describe you, to a tee. Are you sure you're not reading your own nonsense, and in your confusion think your talking about others. Think they have a drug for that, but maybe you're already on too many drugs and they're conflicting with each other and causing your mentation problems, peewee. And by the way, "peewee" is not meant only to be "queasy", as it is to describe your mental capacities.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 136PM:
In his second paragraph, JR then tries to spin for his own convenience my position.
But he has to fabricate that position in order to have something congenial to work with. I do not say that ‘rapists aren’t rapists’; I simply seek to question in order to ensure that alleged rapists actually are rapists. And – as was recently demonstrated so clearly here – in one longtime claim of child-rape, it turns out indubitably that the accused was no such thing.
And then he resorts to that favorite old Victimist saw about ‘blaming the victims’. But – of course – we don’t actually know if “the victims” were actually victims at all.
Which then provides the pretext for once again asserting and declaring that I am “a child molester” and in that way seeking to see what he might turn up for his agitprop purposes.
I’ll leave him to it.
On then to JR’s of the 10th at 149PM, where JR continues on what he apparently thinks is a successful roll.
I am supposed to have to “prove” that I am “not a child rapist” (tit-for-tat in his universe, since I demonstrated that he was not child-raped).
And he then tries to bolster that bit with the sly bit to the effect that “of course, a molester would come up with the arguments that [I] make here”. Really? Does JR have a list of demonstrable molesters (I am now demoted from “rapist”) who have made my arguments here?
I’m going to say he doesn’t have such a list or any such knowledge as he asserts about what arguments such persons would make. He is, of course, welcome to prove me wrong – in fact, he can add this point to the list of points about which he has yet to prove me wrong.
I had not mentioned his comment of the 10th at 141PM about the Crucifixion.
Moving beyond his silly bit trying to tie in ‘Crucifixion’ and ‘fiction’, we see his effort to go for the point that since Catholics “act” like that historical event 2000 years ago “was today”, then they really can’t be making a fuss over stuff alleged to have happened a mere 35 years ago.
The Crucifixion, not being the subject of legal action, is a matter of religious faith. Allegations about abuse, being both the subject of legal action and material presented to the public as being veracious, are matters of law and evidence.
Conflating the two and trying to equate them is basically like trying to equate apples and rocks.
On then to the comment from “Abused” on the 10th at 810AM:
We see here once again a number of familiar bits.
The “laws” against which the Church (and other groups) lobbies are actually the revocation or suspension of the Statutes of Limitation (SOLs). The SOLs have long been in place as a logical result of the fact that evidence degrades over time and becomes unreliable as a basis on which the Sovereign Coercive Authority of the government can be deployed against an accused.
Thus there is no small chance that whatever legal action or process might result from such a revocation/suspension of the SOLs is not going to be based-on, or result-in, legally reliable and legitimate judgments, one way or the other. And may well not “expose the truth” but rather simply create more dubious assertions and allegations.
Continuing with my comment on the comment from “Abused” on the 10th at 810AM:
It is also curious that proposals or demands for the SOLs to be revoked/suspended are not dealt with by legislators by simply doing away with all SOLs in all legal matters. They know what a tremendous danger such a move would pose not only to the integrity of the legal process but also to its very legitimacy.
And the entire position that ‘Abused’ holds here requires the prior presumption that the guilt is already there, which itself constitutes a lethal danger to American and Western justice.
Continuing with my comment on the comment from “Abused” on the 10th at 810AM:
I don’t know where the “70 abuses per week” number comes from; I have never come across it.
Whether Protestant or any other religious polities are (quietly or overtly) joining in objections to revocation/suspension is also something that is not, perhaps cannot, be known. Surely, though, if such demands for revocation/suspension are limited (a telltale sign of Stampede dynamics in itself) to only the Catholic Church, then they might be tempted to thank God and keep quiet and hope they can avoid a Stampede against them.
It must be difficult to be so often wrong. (While pretending to be so right).You are fucking hateful! You're
It must be difficult to be so often wrong. (While pretending to be so right).You are fucking hateful! You're a child molester/rapist. Show yourself, you hidden filth! Name yourself . Why won't you? Why the need to hide, who you are, if you've nothing to hide?
HE'S A COWARD. COWARDS HIDE BEHIND MASKS or FAKE NAMES.
Pub, post more! the light of your molester intellect enhances the world so.
We get a further demonstration of what JR’s signature bit will be from now on in the comment of the 11th at 1010AM: With his own creds rather shot, he’ll be trying to go after me, for lack of anything better to try.
I haven’t asked for his psychiatric records (he strikes me as more a candidate for having a hefty psych file than a police file; his formerly-signature “sociopath” epithet, I think, would stem from there) since – as I have always said here – it’s the issues that matter.
And in regard to “nothing to hide”: it is precisely the issues that the agitprop/Abusenik strategy seeks to “hide”, creating whatever distraction they can come up with to do so.
It’s clear that my approach isn’t at all congenial to Abuseniks and the old agitprop attack-people/evade-issues strategy.
It is what it is and – as I said – I’ll just leave him to it then.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 11th at 1010AM:
But he doesn’t simply finish his comment with that flat-out declaration that I am “a child abuser” (not just a “groupie” or “wanna be” and not a “child rapist”).
Instead he goes off on that Mr. Risdale, whose primary significance for JR is as an irritant for being more in the public eye as some sort of “spokesman for survivors” – which is a role, status, and title that JR rather fancies for himself.
And he then lards on a series of what amount to nothing more than insinuations.
Does the Church ‘own’ ABC (just as it ‘owns’ half the land under the city of Chicago)? That sort of thing.
But as I have been saying, it’s all JR’s got now. As he demonstrates when just an hour or so later (the 11th at 1119AM) he can’t keep himself from going at it again. Although – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – he lards on the epithet this time. No cake from JR without, sooner or later, a lardy load of epithetical frosting.
Thus I am re-promoted to “child molester/rapist” and instructed (by the never-before-seen Wig of Exorcism) “Show yourself, you hidden filth!”. It would do a lot more for the performance if he could intone the rest of the bit (i.e. “The power of Christ compels you!”) but he’s dealt himself out of that deck so he’ll just have to rely on his own authority, such as it may be. But without the invocation of the divine, the script here loses a great deal of that compelling quality that makes for really gripping exorcism scenes.
Continuing with my comment of JR’s on the 11th at 1119AM:
Perhaps he might solve his public-eye problem not by competing with others to be “spokesman for victims” but rather by setting up shop as Exorcist-General of Imagined Abusers, or some such. He’s got the Wig for it now; what more does he need?
I have nothing to hide. But JR most certainly needs to hide the reality of his own recent un-masking. What’s really gotten him going is not that I am “hidden” but rather that he no longer is.
And then ‘Dan’ gives it a try on the 11th at 128PM:
With all the things about himself (or Himself) and his (or His) numerous misadventures that ‘Dan’ might legitimately find “so strange”, yet instead ‘Dan’ merely tries – yet again – to run the old I’m Not/You Are bit.
And, as always, without any actual (and accurately quoted) examples of his claims about my material.
And he riffs on that for the rest of the comment, with nothing that we haven’t seen before.
Your right, I've been through "numerous misadventures" based on the lies of your deceiving, wicked cult, but none worse or more ignorant than dealing with the lies from your disgusting mouth. You are ridiculous with your continuous nonsense, excuses and false accusations and fit in perfectly as an apologetic of your pagan cult. Capitalizing words to indicate myself as a self-ordained god or claiming my "Chosen-ness", further shows your ignorance and childish mocking. If anyone accepts your lies as God's truth, then I feel sorry for them, for your attempt to manipulate and deceive, is so much more obvious and despicable than the way your cult kept secret the crimes of their pedophiles and perverts. We have to question the moral fiber of anyone making excuses for seriously sick and disgusting perverts.
Peewee wimpers again, that I don't give any examples in regards to his weak material. I'll leave it to readers to look over your garbage and pick any post. All your comments fit precisely what your accusing others of: "a) avoiding, evading, and distracting-from the issues by b) attacking personally anyone who got in ther way." 1) Right in this post, referring to your opponent as Abuseniks, when your cult of perverts are the biggest ABUSERS of the innocent on this planet. 2) All the lies and exaggerations nauseatingly repeated attacking what really happened to myself on public property, outside of the schoolyard. Now are you happy, you got 2 examples of which there are hundreds, but most are just repeats of your same old stuff (i.e. I'm Not/You Are bit). There you go, there's 3. peewee happy now, and might stop crying?
People, who can't step out into the light and let themselves be known?, Have something to hide 2 possibilities Your a child rapist and or your a priest. Why else would you need to keep hidden? You're a child raping abusing kiddie screwer, father Fiasco.
If you have nothing to hide, Dearie, why hide? Only 2 possible reasons. I bet your name is all ready on Bishop Accountability's list.
Come out oh innocent one. You have my name; Dennis's name, and Dan's name you even looked up his records (and interpreted them in your own malefecent way.) So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Step up. Since you are so obsessed with the legal definition of rape let's peruse your records. You have to hide. Other wise no one would take any of your lies seriously.
As a 16 year old child I came out about what was happening to me to the authorities but they protected themselves not me.
Just as your hiding and sniping protects you and solves no problems. Your fraudulent analysis of the scandal isn't being bought here or anywhere. Maybe if you didn't have a record and came out publicly ( as the living turd you are) you might be taken seriously as a person with a stupid opinion. But since you hide so tenaciously; it's very obvious why you have a need to hide. Fr. Porter II.
Are you already in the Vatican or on your way?
Dennis Ecker, on the 11th, tells us that "cowards hide behind masks, and fake names". Really?. Does that description also apply to those thousands of "John Does", who have accused others, safe behind their anonymous masks?. Incidentally most accusers are now middle-aged adults. You would hope that they would have the courage of their convictions?. And legal protections were originally intended to protect children, not full-grown adults. So are they also cowards?…Dennis Ecker.
Things will apparently be somewhat repetitive. ‘Dan’ can do nothing but claim everything he doesn’t want to hear is “lies” and JR has nothing left but to try to keep working his bucket-list angle.
Thus ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 110AM is just a string of the usual epithets.
Although – and yet again – ‘Dan’ proffers no quotations from me demonstrating how I am “making excuses”.
And his bit about “seriously sick and disgusting perverts” again suggests the nature of the original Big Bang that created the ‘Dan’-verse in the beginning.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1055AM:
Here, ‘Dan’ absolves himself (or Himself) of the responsibility for providing any (accurate) quotations of mine to demonstrate the veracity of his assorted epithets: He’ll just “leave it to readers” to look over my “garbage” and – had you been waitttttingggg forrrr ittttt? – “pick any post”. In other words: ‘Dan’ is so very right that it would be persnickety to require him to provide just one single example.
And then he’s off on one of his familiar I’m Not/You Are riffs, bereft of any quotations from my material since he has just absolved himself of the responsibility to do so.
He will, however – in an impressively sly manner – try to distract from this little gambit of his by trying to say that in reminding him of his responsibility to provide relevant and accurate quotations I am merely “whimpering” and “crying”. Demonstrating their claims and epithets is something neither Abuseniks nor fundies really feel required to do.
Are you absolutely brain dead. You think playing dumb will make readers believe you know it all, so you can stretch the truth and lie as you often do, and everyone should feel sorry for you because of your stupidity? On 5/13/16 @ 1:10AM, I put in quotes, "Chosen-ness", and mentioned "self-ordained" as you've referred to me, though did'nt put it in quotes. On 5/13/16 @ 10:55am, I numbered your nonsense, like baby building blocks, just for peewee, starting with- 1) "referring to your opponents as 'Abuseniks', when your cult of perverts are the biggest ABUSERS of the innocent on this planet." 2) "All the lies and exaggerations nauseatingly repeated" ( I thought you repeated the lies so often that you would know what I was referring to, and forgot I've got to take you by the hand and feed you your Gerber baby food.– quotes for peewee; "Dan 'accosted' and 'harangued' were just a few of your false accusations you've wrongly labeled me with.) 3) Your "I'm Not/You Are" bit, repeatedly claimed when you're the one that uses that more than anyone (i.e. 'mirror' bit). And I'll now add a forth to your BS– 4) " 'Dan' can do nothing but claim everything he doesn't want to hear is 'lies'." This would be another of your "lies", because much of what you claim is your assessment of 'Dan', is lies and not based on any fact from the material I have given you. So please stop your ignorance and maybe someone will respect you instead of looking at you as a "fool'. I also notice, you continue to be a mocking troll and here are your quotes, peewee; " 'Dan'-verse" and "Here, 'Dan' absolves himself (or Himself) of the responsibility for providing any (accurate) quotations of mine". Did I do good, little peewee? Now take a big spoonful of your Gerber reality food. If you think I have the time to waste, to go back into your material to find all your "lies and excuses", you must be crazy. Get a life, loser, I have trouble wanting to respond to your nonsense we have to deal with on a daily basis. Please stop "whimpering" and "crying", and mommy will buy you a big sucker pacifier. servant
As for JR’s series (the 13th at 501PM, 515PM, and 516PM) we get riffing of a somewhat different sort: here he will simply allow his imagination to concoct whatever scenarios come to his mind, or bubble up from the bottom of it.
I will say, however, that I have looked up nobody’s “name”, let alone their “records”. What I have gleaned is simply based on the material that they themselves have provided. This claim of his represents nothing more than a sly effort to make it seem as if since I had looked up other commenters’ “records” then JR has a right to – as it were – look up mine.
But I have done no such thing, nor would I want to since there is no need to; the content of the material commenters put up, and the ideas involved in the Catholic Abuse Matter, are all that count.
Where would JR even get the idea that I have looked up anybody’s “records”? (As if police and psychiatric records are available to anybody by going online.) Is my surmise about JR’s probably having a more hefty psychiatric file than a police file accurate? Are my surmises as to ‘Dan’s assorted ‘issues’ accurate? (And the only name I have for ‘Dan’ is – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’; does JR seriously imagine that I entered merely the first name ‘Dan’ into a search engine and got useful results?)
So – to repeat yet again – my ‘knowledge’ stems not from any review of “records”, except for the ‘record’ that commenters themselves create and provide here on this site in their comments.
Thus, the Abuseniks and ‘Dan’ and for that matter any commenters are “known” by his/her comments, by the material they put up, the mentation they display, and even the personal characteristics that might reveal themselves in that material.
But that “light” isn’t at all what agitprop seeks; that “light” reveals too much that its practitioners don’t want seen, that they want to keep ‘hidden’.
I have said all this before, and on this thread. But in order to keep his last-ditch scam going, JR can’t accept that it is commenters’ material that is key, and that anything else is simply an effort at distraction. Thus again he repeats his mantra: “why else would [I] need to keep hidden”.
In what relevant way am I ‘hidden’? My material is the key. For some years on this site we had JR’s name and his so-very-often repeated claim … and yet how reliable has any of all that been shown to be? JR’s actual reality had been “hidden” and it had been “hidden” in plain sight, as it were.
I'd like to tell you why you're so disrespected on this forum. You make these outlandish claims that you can assess someone by their "material" and "mentation they display" or "the personal characteristics that might reveal themselves in that material". Then you proceed to add your false accusations and lies, but claim these assessments to be based on facts, when all you're doing is haphazardly guessing what you might add to your poor assumptions, in order to destroy a person's character. This is absolutely unacceptable and atrocious.
With further audacity, quoting you, "that 'light' reveals too much that its practitioners don't want seen, that they want to keep hidden". 1) This quote couldn't better define what your church has done to conceal the crimes of it's pedophiles and perverts. 2) You're falling back on your "I'm Not/You Are" bit and taking from the Bible quote, "What's done in the darkness, shall be brought out into the light." This only backfires, to perfectly define your cult of hypocrites, excusers and deceivers.
I also notice from the movie "Spotlight", that you all dispute little facts and accuse media members, while unable to dispute the silencing of lawyers and victims in regards to the secret payouts, or the length of the list of pedophiles and perverts and their often ridiculously repeated child abuse against children. Unrepentant and Despicable, as charged!! And how many perverted priests are out their, unknown because of secret settlements, if there was 87 in Boston, alone? Numbers have to range in the tens of thousands, if not much more. Ridiculous to make any excuses. servant
And now I am demoted from being “a nun” and I’m “either a child rapist or a priest” … or something else or whatever. JR needs something, anything, to distract from the fact that his own material has exposed the untruthfulness of his primary claim.
Anything to evade the content of the material and the ideas contained and explicated in the material.
Thus in the comment of the 13th at 515PM we get his deployment of that queasy gender-bendy “Dearie”, always a sign with him that he’s up to something that needs some distracting epithet because its actual content is weak.
And then a further demonstration of his “logic”, to the effect that there are “only 2 possible reasons” (as he piles up his chosen blocks just so) why I don’t get into the name-game that would serve the agitprop agenda. Actually there are more than JR’s preferred “2 possibilities” and I have repeated them many times, including just now in this sequence of my comments.
But those reasons don’t serve the plop-tossy distracting purposes of agitprop, and JR can’t use them. So he ignores them. Not my problem.
Instead he tries to make it seem as if I have already looked-up “records”, and on that basis he can bleat with a simulacrum of logical authority that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. But the “goose” didn’t do it, so the “gander” doesn’t get to do it either.
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
And then he will try to claim that I am merely “obsessed with the legal definition of rape”. The legal definition of rape is the basis of the claims and accusations JR made repeatedly and thus a sustained focus on that definition is absolutely essential. What he’s really trying to say here – but doesn’t dare – is that for his purposes “the legal definition” doesn’t matter. Although he has made quite a bit off the story he lodged as a claim at law.
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
And he then manages to think he’s actually connected “the legal definition of rape” and my “records” is anybody’s guess. I looked over his own material, checked the statutes, and that’s all there is to it. If I have made any claims about which he can do the same, then he’s welcome to do so and always has been.
But “records” – except for the ‘record’ any commenter compiles through his/her comments – didn’t enter into any of it on my part. If JR wants to do the same as I did and thus examine my material, then he is welcome to do so and let readers judge his assessments and conclusions. That’s the way it’s always been here and that’s how it’s going to stay as far as I am concerned.
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
But there is method in all this madness he’s put up here: what he’s going for is that if I don’t use my name then “otherwise no one would take any of my lies seriously”. Whether readers take my material seriously and have done so over the past years is something I will leave to the readers.
And is JR really in a position at this point to be accusing others of “lies”?
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
And then another sly bit as he bleats “As a 16 year old child …”. A 16 year-old is not a “child” under the applicable statutory definition of ‘child rape’, upon which his entire claim was based.
Other than that, there are many perspectives from which to define “child”: the prefrontal capacities of the human brain don’t really reach basic maturity until about the age of 25 so one might from that point of view consider anyone under 25 as being in that way still a “child”.
In some states a 16 year-old could – in the early ‘60s – get a permit, if not a full license, to operate a motor vehicle. Would we say that ‘children’ were allowed to drive cars?
In some states they could have firearms.
By 17 they could – with parental permission – sign an enlistment contract with the military, to take effect on their 18th birthday.
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
And as we saw in the very document cache released about JR’s own case, proffered here by him, the school authorities heard his story (“child rape”, was it not?) and decided it was not so. Were they wrong? And – knowing him personally in a way nobody here can know him – the staff opined that he was quite possibly simply getting back at a teacher who was giving him a bad grade. Could anyone here – from assessing JR’s material on this site – consider that theory to be utterly off-base?
Thus to accept the assertion that “they protected themselves not me” one has to first presume that JR’s claim of “child rape” was veracious to begin-with.
Did I use the words, child & rape when reporting what happened to me at the time it was happening? I did not. I wasn't a lawyer then and I'm not a lawyer now.
If I choose to use the word rape to describe the shock of being sexually violated as a kid that's my choice. I'm on no witness stand nor am I an officer of any court. I describe what it felt like.
As far as the authorities at my school deciding I wasn't telling the truth? That's horse shit. (as usual from you)
The "authorities" at my school , I now realize, were terrified that I might tell my parents.
I thought the priest I told was and would, of course, be on my side. I see, in hindsight, I was wrong. He, Fr. Clemons, told me if I "wanted" to talk to a psychiatrist any time in the future, to tell him and that was it, from the man whose job it was to protect me. Never a follow-up meeting. Clemons relied on my own shame around the abuse to keep it secret. It worked.
the "authorities" were terrified that I might tell my parents and, thereby, have adults making decisions around my horror who would be on my side and not so easily succumb to the church's wishes as my very traumatized sixteen-year-old self was.
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
And he finally tries to wrap it all up and bring it home with a slyly manipulative bit: my “hiding and sniping” … my ideas are not ‘hiding’ here and my assessments are not “sniping” – they are assessing. And I have explained every assessment I have made.
Then that “my hiding and sniping … solves no problems”. I would say we have solved one rather significant problem indeed: we have discovered that one very sustained claim of “child rape” made against a cleric is not and never was accurate and veracious and could certainly be considered as “fraudulent”. That’s no small problem to solve.
Then a mere epithet that my “analysis of the scandal” is “fraudulent”. In what way?
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
But he then goes further into the swampy depths of illogic by then trying to claim that if I let my “record” come out (and we’ve been over that bit already above) then I “might be taken seriously as a person with a stupid opinion”.
In other words: he wants to get some sort of plop to toss / but he doesn’t want to expose that basic bit of his agenda / yet he also can’t bring himself to admit that I might in any event be taken “seriously” / because for his purposes I can only be assessed to have “a stupid opinion” (and included in that “stupid opinion” – by amazing coincidence – would be the exposure of his claim of “child rape”).
Oh, and I’m a “turd” – in case anyone might have been under the impression that JR was merely pursuing a matter of disinterested logic here.
Neato.
When a talking turd starts complaining about being called a talking turd? It's awfully hard to give a shit. :^)
Continuing specifically with JR’s comment of the 13th at 515PM:
I retain my screen-name “so tenaciously” because I know – and knew from almost the get-go – what JR was up to. He is an agitprop plop-tosser working an old scam of an agenda that has itself compiled quite a record in history.
But like so many who think their Wigs are fool-proof and perfectly convincing and utterly impenetrable, he cannot understand how obvious his agenda could be to anyone familiar with the history of agitprop as it has been deployed by so many before him.
The Stampede relied greatly on such types. It invited them. And they are here.
I guess I made dip shit angry.
You are a turd; and a child rapist; and a priest; and a liar, and a monolog-istic fear spreader. Only 15%, at best, of your church's victims, compensated.
If you need any more insights into your bizarre and damaged personality, I'll be glad to point them out. DEARIE!
You are, one large; sniping, piece of shit.
Why would revealing your hidden identity interfere with what you write here?
It doesn't for me or Malcolm or Dennis Ecker.
You'd hide who you are; because you are already on Meagan's List. Police records are unneeded to find out about perverts like you.
I rarely bother to read your or Dan's post because your 2-bit tour of the Reformation is dull beyond belief.
Also, It's so obvious how both you and Malcolm search for any personal info we, your opposition post and then twist maliciously it into what you call: "the truth". You sleaze bag!
Jim, I've yet to understand your including me in your insults to p, and also would be very surprised for an atheist to be excited with hearing issues of God. So I have no problem with your ignoring what I post and would appreciate your not mentioning me in the same sentence with the publyin'. If anything, I was under the false impression that I was a benefit to your cause by exposing their secret crimes and would like to see them come clean. Maybe you're more interested in seeing them prosper, so they'll pay out more money? I don't think there is enough money in the world to compensate one victim for their filthy deeds. They think they can buy their way out of sin. I would love to see them cleansed, but don't believe that's possible until Judgment Day.
Dan,I include you (and just barely) because your contribution to the situation here only blurs the issues imho. Debating on the tenants of the Catholic faith has absolutely nothing to do with child rape.
It is a debate that makes victims look like we ar
Dan,I include you (and just barely) because your contribution to the situation here only blurs the issues imho. Debating on the tenants of the Catholic faith has absolutely nothing to do with child rape.
It is a debate that makes victims look like we ar anti-Catholic when we are not. We are only anti-child rape and it's cover up in the church and anywhere else.And the church's lack of respect and care for victims. I was injured by Catholics so I talk about what I know.. The relationships Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, or any other virgin, has nothing to do with me victims or our problems here.
I have to say after dealing with the false flagged SNAP and everyone else I've met as a victim I trust no one who says they share my experience. None of the victims I've met have any political balls at all; when it comes to facing and challenging their/ our oppressor. That amazes me!
Everyone I've met on line has had their own bizarre agendas that have either nothing to do with the issues at hand.( Like a debate over matters of faith) or they obscure the problems victims face; that have never been dealt with properly by the corporate church..
All of which have nothing to do with religion yet religion is all you talk about. This is why I distrust you Dan. How do I know who you are? Like P you might be a part of the coverup. How would I know?
We continue to see the various ways JR will try to keep his own ball rolling.
On the 15th at 1058AM JR tries the old I’m Not/You Are bit: he guesses that he made me (epithetically described) “angry”. No quote or explication as to where in my material I demonstrate anger, of course. Because all he’s doing here is trying whatever spin he can.
Then he repeats a bunch of his epithets and assertions – and readers can consider as they may how reliable his assertions have proven to be.
And a quick look-back to the familiar 3×5 about only 15 percent “compensated” (and do we not know of at least one ‘compensation’ that may well have been un-veraciously claimed?).
And – for lack of anything else – a shouted repetition of his gender-bendy bit. While proposing that he could provide “more insights” into my “bizarre and damaged personality” – with no explication as to what material of mine might qualify me for that claim. Just another try at the I’m Not/You Are bit.
On then to JR’s of the 15th at 1113AM, where perhaps he will proffer some explication as to my “bizarre and damaged personality”.
But … no. Just a string of epithets (leading one to consider the possibility that for JR epithets are the same as assessments).
And then merely a repetition of the only gambit he really has left, and the only one he has ever had: ignoring my explanation as to why ‘names’ are not only not the issue but are also distractions from the issues, he simply repeats his question again. This could become tedious, but I expect it will continue.
As for JR and Dennis Ecker, their names haven’t interfered with their material; the material interferes with itself … and has undermined them. They would be as undermined, and they would be revealed to be what they are, by their own material, regardless of whatever names or screen-names they might have chosen to use.
And need it be pointed out to JR that since he is so sure that he doesn’t need “police records”, then he doesn’t need my name at all for his purposes … ? Since he is so sure I am what he insists that I am.
In your case P, My "epithets" are the only assessment of you that manage to capture your very essence. Which is smoke and shit.
P,Say who you are.
Let's see if your name appears on Bishop Accountability.(The most Orwellian name ever!). Why hide? What's the need to disguise yourself?
Could you even ans
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1113AM:
Then – and rather anticlimactically, I would say – he tosses up the old 3×5 about “the Reformation” (as if that covers all the points in my comments about ‘Dan’s material) and how he doth find it all so very “dull beyond belief”. Ideas, as I have often noted on this site, will do that to some types.
And – in a charmingly revealing conclusion – he too falls back on the pose and Wig that ‘Dan’ has made a fundament of his own performances, here and no doubt everywhere else: I “twist maliciously” their material into lies (or what I “call ‘the truth’”).
And – he doth go on – I (and “Malcolm) “search for any personal info” in order to do so.
The “personal info” – provided certainly by JR in his own case – did not need to be ‘searched’; it was repeated and repeated and thrown at us here. I simply looked closely at it. It is that last part that Abuseniks don’t expect, and surely don’t welcome. And I think it is now clear why.
I don't care what "type" one is. A debate over religious tenants is boring because it's completely inappropriate here.
But boring seems to be (next to sniping) your "happy place". The place where you feel most at home.
No one gives a rat's ass what a child raping priest thinks. No one except a child raping priest.
On then to JR’s of the 15th at 1132AM:
Readers may consider as they may JR’s further claims as to what he did and did not say as to what did and did not happen back then.
The only notable bit is his pious bleat that he “wasn’t a lawyer then and [he’s] not a lawyer now”.
For somebody who has for so long – on this site, certainly – tossed up dismissive epithets and harrumphs as to the validity of my and others’ legal points, he now bleats that he isn’t and never was “a lawyer”.
For somebody who on numerous occasions here claimed that he was a victim of “child rape”, he now would have us accept that he really isn’t and never has been really very familiar with the law and legal matters. Even in the matter of his own claim, about which some serious strategizing with an attorney would have been necessary and which formed the basis for his “compensation”, and a pretty chunk of change it was.
I WAS RAPED AS A CHILD> DEAL WITH IT> I'VE HAD TO> GET OFF MY FUCKING BACK.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1132AM:
But having just conceded that he isn’t really up to speed on legal stuff and never has been, he then immediately goes on to claim that his use of the words “child & rape” were (merely) the words he did “choose to use” … and thus … what?
Are we not now through the looking-glass, in Humpty-Dumpty land, where that big egg declaims that “when I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean” … ? Who then has been “obfuscating” and “blowing smoke” here? And how does one distinguish this gambit of his from – not to put too fine a point on it – lying?
And thus – here on this site, at least – JR claims that he can use words any way he wants to.
Which is true enough. And readers may then judge just how reliable any of his words really are or have been all along. He is, of course, welcome to his feelings; but his feelings aren’t the same as the facts.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1132AM:
He then dismisses the opinion of the school staff as just being horse-plop … “as usual from [me]”. That’s JR’s feeling about the subject; it’s not necessarily fact. As I said, there is at least one alternative characterization of their assessment, and from what we know of JR through his performances here, it’s hardly implausible.
JR’s parents are once again deployed: first it was that he didn’t tell them, now it’s that the school authorities were “terrified” that JR might tell them. Readers may consider it all as they will.
And then further bits are added to the story, which never seems to stop growing. And it always grows around the vine of Victimist scripting and doctrine. Which is then further demonstrated in his follow-up of 1138AM.
Moving on then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1134AM:
From attempting to showcase my “brilliance” I am now – as per ‘Dan’s convenience in the present comment – “playing dumb”. Which – in a further demonstration of his ‘logic’ – “will make readers believe [I] know it all”. Which – in a further demonstration of his ‘logic’ – will make readers “feel sorry for [me] because of [my] stupidity”. Readers are welcome to try to follow the bouncing ball of ‘Dan’s logic and mentation here.
But there’s a method in the madness: it’s all supposed to lead to an undermining of all the “truth” that I “stretch” and how I “lie”.
I'm so sorry, publyin'. I forgot that I have to spoon-feed you. When I said you're "playing dumb", I'm referring to the fact that when someone gives you "material" or evidence to your stupidity, you act as though they didn't or you don't see it (i.e. my list of quotes of your ignorance). Which you have now, once again ignored and I'll add some more untruths for you, because apparently you forgot about those. When I was falsely accused at the schoolyard, I did not "plead guilty", did not "go to jail", nor did I "see" or "go before a judge". All proof of your ridiculous "lies" and am I tired of repeating this to you. So if you're not "playing dumb", than excuse me if I was wrong and you really are dumb. Dumb enough to mock God or His servant, so maybe dumb enough to continue lying about others to show how smart you think you are. Despicable.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1134AM:
He then achieves nothing by merely listing some bits he has selected to stand-in for explanation and argument, larding the list with nothing – as usual – but epithets.
And dismisses it all since the only reason ‘Dan’ characterizes everything I say as “lies” is because – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr itttttt? – just about everything I say about his stuff is “lies” and no “fact” from his material could possibly be used to reach the conclusions I have reached (and explained at great length).
Readers may consider that stew as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1134AM:
So, in response to his question: No, he did not “do good” with his pile tossed up here. He merely repeated all his usual stuff.
And “get a life, loser” is no doubt an epithet he’s heard many many times before. Although perhaps in more genteel diction from a judge or two.
You're right again. I have heard "get a life, loser", directed "from a judge" towards the lying priest a few weeks ago, when I won the last false case against me. And you would also be included with the liars of your cult and should be proud to be among the heathens, which apparently, you obviously are. So if the shoe fits, wear it, lying loser. Darn, if the lying priest was here, I'd have to ask him for forgiveness, because the judge did'nt call him that in so many words, but he did toss him and his case out of court. Justice served, finally. servant
P.S. If I was to make a lying loser's "stew", you would be the first ingredient. Oh, I'm sorry, did I use another "epithet"? I'll go confess that to one of your pedophile priests. Bunch of hypocrites.
On the 16th at 10.31 am, Publion says, "Readers are free to try to follow the bouncing ball of Dan's logic and mentation here". Yes, it's quite a challenge to figure out where Dan's coming from. He's also, apparently, an authority on scripture, so perhaps he can assist with this question. Jesus said that He was the true vine, and his disciples were the branches, and they could bear fruit only if they lived on in him. Separated from Him they were like dead wood, fit only for the rubbish heap. So can Dan explain how the Church has managed to survive for 2000 years, if it is no more than some "wicked cult'? Wouldn't Jesus have spotted this "wicked cult"…. and cut them off, long ago?.
To answer your last question, "No, not necessarily. Look at Matthew 13: 24-30, The Parable of the Weeds, and that should answer your question. The enemy (Satan), came and sowed weeds (the wicked) among the wheat (disciples). The disciples (His servants) asked, "Do you want us to go and gather them? Meaning, to be thrown into the fire and destroyed. Jesus answers, "No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let them both grow together until the harvest (Judgment Day), and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned (Hell), but gather the wheat into my barn (Heaven).
I appreciate the complement, but don't consider myself or anyone else a so-called "authority on scripture". I do love to read the Book, try to understand it and most importantly, live what it teaches. The catholic church was not started 2000 years ago and that is another of their lies. They don't teach or follow important Bible principles, as previously pointed out in the 1st or 2nd commandment, Matthew 23, Romans 1, Ephesians, etc.etc., and if they truly were God's true religion, then they would in no way hurt His children in the manner they do. They would worship God through Jesus, the only Mediator, and would discontinue their idolatry, greed and horrific sexual immorality. These reasons are why they can not be considered God's True Church. Absolutely not. Trust in the Lord's Word. He has all the answers.
"Separated from Him they are like dead wood." This is why they have these freaky Skeleton Rooms, "Queen of Heaven" parades and visions, and statue worship because they are dead and worship the dead and death. It's all written in God's Word.
Well since Jesus never existed and therefore had no magical powers, I'd guess one would have to say that Catholicism became the religion of Empire. Several Empires in fact.
And Empire uses religion to control the masses. Religions condition their followers to obey and to never disagree. That kind of thinking only serves the state. Because the state that becomes an Empire only wants obedience.
That is why state and religion are always found side by side in their fraud. they shore each other up.; and always at the expense of he people.
And, by the way, you're under the impression that the pile you repetitively toss up is always fresh and interesting. Boy are you delusional and stuck on yourself..
Addendum- You're the one, with your nonsense, that keeps making me repeat the things you find so hard to comprehend.