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’m going to respond to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1221AM first, although it is the last in the series of his most recent comments.
In the matter of his ‘repeating’, he now claims – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttt? – that it is I who “keeps making [him] repeat”. (As always, these types are inevitably the ‘victim’ of something or other and nothing is their fault or responsibility.)
‘Dan’s basic working plan is this: he has his pre-formed speaking-points / when confronted with questions arising from the problems with the material in those points, he merely repeats those speaking-points / while simultaneously complaining that he now has to repeat what he considers to have been his ‘answers’ – but which are actually merely repetitions of those (problematic) pre-formed speaking points.
And, of course, there is the ever-present larding of his repetitions with more epithets to a) try to distract readers from the lack of substance in his speaking-points and to b) try to spin me as this, that, or the other thing.
But it is not only the repetitions, but the overt illogic that he displays when he actually has to try to explain his material (claims, assertions, and various bits put forward assertively as ‘fact’).
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 724PM:
Once again – and with epithet – he demonstrates that he considers his mere repetitions to have been answers.
Readers may consider his claim about my “stupidity” as they will.
He then tries to run another old and familiar bit: he claims that the schoolyard incident (queasy and disturbing as it is all on its own) was not one of those six incidents that did result in police, court, and psychiatric evaluation. Did I assert on this thread that it was? We had established a while ago that it was an additional incident, whatever its particular outcome.
Thus the schoolyard incident is no “proof of [my] ridiculous ‘lies’. And thus too his Victim-y bleat of frustration at having to ‘repeat’ his stuff remains un-grounded in any material I have put up on this thread.
And he tries to bring it all home for this performance with the usual bit about ‘mocking’ “God or his servant” and back to the sun-porch he goes.
In regards to your posts on 5/17 @ 12:21 & 12:22. Yes, just what we needed, an in-depth study highlighting your repetitive ignorance and nonsense. Brilliant!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 745PM:
He now claims that while he has heard (in court, clearly) the phrase “get a life, loser”, it was “from a judge towards the lying priests a few weeks ago”.
Where to begin with this sudden report of his ‘victory’ in a court-case involving priests?
First, we have the courtroom scenario.
Second, it appears to be recent (“a few weeks ago”).
Third, it involves priests, so ‘Dan’ is still up to his old tricks out there.
Fourth, readers may consider the veracity of ‘Dan’s claim that the judge directed his/her comment to “the lying priests” and not to ‘Dan’. And here one must also consider that if ‘Dan’ is truthful here, then the judge addressed the plural “priests” with the singular “loser”; whereas one might consider in the alternative that the judge was not grammatically-deficient and addressed the singular “loser” comment to the singular defendant, ‘Dan’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 745PM:
Fifth, and similarly, readers may consider the veracity of ‘Dan’s assertion that he “won the last false case against [him]”.
Which indicates that there are/were several cases “against” him, and six of which resulted – as he reported here on this site – in the six arrests and the six court-ordered stays for psychiatric evaluation. (All of which – readers may recall – led to ‘Dan’s deployment of the ‘666’ bit.)
Then more epithetical larding.
And suddenly ‘Dan’ is praising that same diabolic (“666”) legal system.
And suddenly we go from plural “priests” to singular “priest” (i.e. “the lying priest”).
We have utterly no corroborative evidence to support his claims here. Nor, I imagine, would a docket-number be of much use since I doubt the case is available online.
And then we are told that actually the judge actually “didn’t call him [i.e. “the lying priest”] that in so many words”, i.e. ‘Get a life, loser’.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
In regards to your posts on 5/17 @ 12:23 & 12:24. This is a perfect example of your lack of reading comprehension. In my post on 5.17 @ 7:45pm, I twice wrote "lying priest", singular, and yet you carry on with a lengthy example of your ignorance and nonsense. "Dan is still up to his old tricks out there." More like your lying cult of hypocrite priests (plural) are still up to there 'old tricks' of falsely accusing the innocent. And added to their "lies" are, of course, more of your lying and ridiculous assessments, displaying your ignorance. Readers may consider as they will. You can slither back under the sun porch. Apparently the heat of the truth is scorching your brain cells. And that would be plural and not singular.
Publyin', Are you such an unbeliever and liar that you think that facts people give to you are nothing but lies. If I say something, then it is true, unless I make a mistake as I did saying I was in "mental institutions", when unfairly placed in hospitals. I really have no reason to lie and don't feel right if I did. An example is the very fact that I corrected what the judge said in court, and didn't leave readers believing something I was joking about . All the other facts are true, the case was dismissed. I have absolutely nothing to hide, as you've witnessed in the personal things I've let you know about myself. Your added, so called assessments of myself are plagued with accusations that are untrue. I've also seen you do this to others, so I've gotten to expect it.
And then (the 17th at 1216AM) – again creating something I never said for the convenience of his own plop-tossing here – ‘Dan’ will use his divine-tea-leaves set to claim that I am “under the impression that the pile [I] repetitively toss up is always fresh and interesting”.
I am under no such impression. I have often said that things can get repetitive because the Abuseniks and ‘Dan’ keep tossing up the same old speaking-point stuff.
But, as I have said before, their stuff was never intended to be looked-at carefully. The script was supposed to be: toss up claims and assertions and stories / receive sympathetic clucks from approving audience / epithetically disparage any questioning and questioners.
And we finish with your repetitive mocking and stupidity.
Dave Pierre. It's obvious to me by now that TMR was created so P could do his dirty work. Since he hides behind his screen name to do his sniping. I say he's a child rapist and demand he says who he is so we can check his records. If you defend rapists what does that make you? If P say our rapes didn't happen because he is a rapist and wants to defend himself as well as his brotherhood? Then he must hide his identity.
I demand that this creep identify himself to prove he's not on Meagan's list. This is important. It's important because your readership needs to know who's defending who. Is it the rapers call the raped liars. We deserve that consideration.
I know, P. I know I wasn't raped. They just gave me compensation for nothing. Asshole!
It should read above: " Is it the rapists calling the raped: liars?"
There are some useful and interesting bits in the most recent crop of comments from the various parties.
From the formerly-child-raped JR on the 17th at 158PM we get the familiar bit that JR’s epithets are not his fault because – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr itttttt? – they “are the only assessment of [me] that manage to capture [my] very essence”. The poor thing has no choice but to use epithets – doncha see? – because of my very essence. My essence makes him do it; he’s a victim; it’s not his fault.
And that essence “is smoke and sxxt” – this from the formerly-child-raped. Go figure.
On then to the 17th at 201PM, where JR doth pronounce and declaim that “a debate over religious tenants [‘tenets’, surely] is boring” (to him, anyway).
But – doncha see? – he’s not bored because he has no mind for ideas or interest in them unless they serve his purposes. Rather he’s bored only because – doncha see? –such a debate over religious tenets is “completely inappropriate here”.
Readers may consider JR’s accumulated comments here to entertain the prospect of JR being any authority on what is or is not appropriate and inappropriate.
And how often has JR here denounced the lack of Christianity and it’s “religious tenants” on the part of those who didn’t buy his story and claims and so forth?
I'm bored because you and Dan bore me. You are dull; uninteresting. Your debates over "people" who never exsist
Now to the screamy comment of the 17th at 203PM:
It would appear that I have made him angry. That’s as may be, but it wasn’t my purpose. My purpose was simply to examine the story so often thrown at us here and see what it actually contained.
Thus his again-repeated claim fails in regard to the elements of a) raped and b) child.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 203PM:
For quite some time readers here were bethumped with the claim that a Catholic religious Brother had raped him as a child. Has it not occurred to him that those readers deserve to discover that such was not factually the case at all?
If – as he claimed here on the 15th at 1132AM – he was just using those terms and words to express the depth of his feelings, then readers can consider that separate and distinct possibility as they may.
And thus – having been on the Church’s back, so to speak, for so very long – it is somewhat one-sided to now claim that he wants everyone to get off his back in regard to the problems now clear in his claim.
In ‘Dan’s comment to ‘Malcolm Harris’ (the 17th at 150PM) we need only consider the question ‘Dan’ would like us to avoid: in the Parable of the Weeds, just who fills the role of the ‘weed’?
He then goes on to piously and humbly bleat that he doth not “consider [himself, or Himself] an ‘authority on scripture’. Readers may consider the incompatibility of that self-description with the many authoritative denunciations he (or He) has issued in regard to ideas about Scripture with which he (or He) does not at all agree.
Of course, he (or He) doesn’t consider anyone else to be an authority on Scripture either. In which case, who – then – can speak of Scripture except as expressing nothing more than personal bits? (Short answer: whoever might be equipped with the proper machine to receive the Divine blast-faxes.)
And then more of the historical declaration that “the catholic church was not started 2000 years ago and that is another of their lies”. Who, then, determined the canon of the compilation we now call the Bible (or “the Lord’s Word”)?
And after riffing on his usual bits about the Church, he tries to finish with an upbeat bit: “Trust in the Lord’s Word” because “He has all the answers”. Of course, if one doesn’t have a machine to receive the Divine blast-faxes, one must then trust in … ‘Dan’. Neato. Although he (or He) doth not consider himself (or Himself) any special “authority” on the subject.
Back then to JR (the 17th at 221PM):
Here, slyly building on ‘Dan’s eructations, JR will try to run one of his old familiar 3x5s again: “since Jesus never existed” and so on, then JR would “guess” that Catholicism merely became “the religion of Empire” or “several Empires in fact”.
But in the first place that would require accepting ‘Dan’s historical claims about the Church, which certainly are open to discussion, to say the least.
And in the second place, the history of the Church’s relationship to “Empire” is far too rocky to consider the Church as being somehow indentured to “Empire”. The Roman Catholic Church struggled with the Roman Empire, the Byzantine, the Holy Roman Empire, the French and Spanish and Portugese ‘empires’ in their heyday, the Napoleonic Empire, the Wilhelmine Empire, the Soviet colossus, and any other Empire on offer.
Yea, the Catholic church struggled with Empire. All the way to the bank.
But now for something completely different – or maybe not so much.
On the 17th at 213PM JR will try yet again to come up with a pretext for my using my name rather than my screen-name (and, yes, we’re back to it again).
He opens by claiming – ahem! – that “it’s clear to me” … which should set any whiskers twitching right off the bat.
And what is so very “clear” to him? Why, the same thing from a while back: that “TMR was created so [I] could do [my] dirty work”. But – to repeat from a while back – TMR existed long before I came along to it, as a review of the TMR archives will clearly demonstrate.
And the “dirty work” – by amazing coincidence – just happens to include my exploration of JR’s own signature claim and its results.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 231PM:
But there’s a (now familiar) method to the madness here: on the basis of what seems so “clear” to JR, he doth thus “demand” that I use my name so that “we can check his records”. What “records”? Has it not been established that whatever “records” might theoretically exist are not available for public review? And had he not already said on this thread that there was no need for such “records”?
So this whole gambit here simply gives JR another shot at puffing up his pinfeathers and trying to distract from the matters at hand.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 231PM:
I could as easily assert that JR is a sociopath whose words must be given the closest scrutiny since he is manipulative and cares not a whit for truth; and on that basis “demand” to see his “records”. I don’t and I never have and I never will, since his material as proffered here is all that matters.
But JR hasn’t had much luck with his own material, and so he has to try for something in the agitprop line. That’s a very old trick and it won’t work on me.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 231PM:
Nor do I “defend rapists” – and JR has never put up any accurate quotation from my work that will support that assertion. And he hasn’t because he can’t because no such quotations exist.
And even if I were to have ‘defended rapists’, then it is the clearest illogic to insist that if one ‘defends’ some X, then one is X oneself.
I have pointed out the general probability of some significant problems that have to be kept in mind when assessing any Stampede rape claims. And in JR’s specific case, I have pointed out the specific problems from the material that JR himself provided. And that’s all I’ve done.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 231PM:
Thus too his effort to connect me to some fancied “rapist brotherhood” fails for the same reasons.
I use a screen-name to deprive the agitprop Abuseniks of one of their most predictable distracting gambits. And JR doesn’t like it one bit. Because neither his material nor any Stampede/Abusenik material can withstand actual assessment. As I have demonstrated all along, and at length.
Nor – it apparently has to be pointed out yet again – can JR factually deploy the term “our rapes”. That phrase can only be, in his case, a figurative usage to perhaps convey the depth of his personal opinion as to his alleged experience (which in any case did not factually rise to the actuality of rape or child-rape).
Nor thus is it true that the readership “needs to know who’s defending who[m]” since I am not “defending” anyone. I am, and always have been, pointing out the problems with the Stampede in many of its core dynamics.
And how we "agitprop Abuseniks" enjoy the humor in your choosing the "screen name", publyin'. How appropriate for a lying excuser. So in other words, you go with a fake name, unlike we "Abuseniks", so you can run "your most predictable distracting gambits" while proceeding to "plop toss" your false "assessments". You make the perfect follower and excuser for your phony pagan cult. See also that you continue to mock God's Holy Spirit (i.e. "Divine blast-faxes). And I recommended readers to, "Trust in the Lord's Word" and never said "one must then trust in… 'Dan', unlike your cult telling brainwashed sheep to trust in their false catechism of the catholic church. Manipulating liar. servant
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 231PM:
And – in another familiar gambit – he then tries to imply that he had to have been raped or otherwise he would not have received a settlement in the 500-plus plaintiff Los Angeles lawsuit of a decade ago.
We have been over all of this bit before on this site, and at great length. Aside from the fact that very few of the allegations and claims, especially in so large a lawsuit and with claims extending into the way-back, would have been carefully examined, there remains the fact that not all, perhaps not most or even many, of the settlement monies were paid out for actual ‘rape’ claims.
And surely no competent California attorney(s) would have lodged the story JR tells as a ‘child rape’ claim; to have done so would have opened an attorney to malfeasance and malpractice issues. As I have said, JR’s story rises – at best – to ‘lewd acts’, and that’s presuming its veracity in the first place.
And what I have just said in the immediately preceding paragraph ‘defends’ nobody; if it defends anything, it is defending only the truth.
The "problems" being that the church was caught out. Not in the fact that it had sex abusers, all professions have those, but that it protected those abusers. Hid them. Cosseted them. Supported them; and aided them in their escapes from the law. The church-corporate enabled those rapists to rape Catholic children and other children again and again worldwide by their behaviors.
You lie when you pretend that you "assess" this scandal objectively. You never do. You never have. You never will. Why? Because you are a child raping priest.
You rapists defend each other by pretending that we, the real victims in all this, weren't raped;abused; molested; attacked.
I concede to you P, fucking rapist priest that you are, that the legal word raped does not apply to my case. But it felt like rape. I know feelings are a mystery to sociopathic child rapists like you P; but to normal human beings, feelings matter.
Jim, You may want to figure out, sooner or later who your real enemies are. You sometime ago claimed I was persecuting the church, when truly they along with publyin', were and have persecuted me. Now it's apparent that you, not being "anti-catholic", feel it fine to join in their persecution. From what I've heard from you, you just about hate everyone who isn't just like you or in agreement with the crap you spew in this forum. If you have yet to figure out the connection between a wicked cult that is in opposition to God's Truth, as the reason they did the things they did to all victims, then I'd have to say I feel sorry for you, because apparently you're just another of their brainwashed sheep. Add to that the facts that they are obvious idolators, greedy and anti-Christ, makes your hatred and disbelief in God a perfect fit for a follower. You've done your share of mocking God, yet I hesitated to confront you, for the fact of what you consider your "child rape". If your church shows a "lack of respect and care for victims", this is absolute proof of their not being God's true church. The issues I bring up from the Bible further prove that point. I guess you haven't figured out yet, because of your own agenda, that I'm on the side of anyone who has been wronged. No, I wasn't harmed like yourself, but maybe you need to experience the six times in jail and six times in psycho wards, based on lies because I stepped forward, protesting the crimes of the church in regards to children that obviously were hurt much worse than you. Again, it might be time you reassess who exactly is your enemy, because I agree that you are one messed up dude. servant of God and Jesus Christ – And unbeknownst to you, they both are real, and the evil I've witnessed on this forum, further helps me realize there's a God of greater good.
Jim says on 5/17/16 @ 2:21pm, "Well since Jesus never existed and therefore had no magical powers." Do you have proof He never existed, when history even has proven He did exist. Christ didn't have magical powers, but could do miracles by the power of His Father. Everyone wants to put God in a little box of their making, and if they don't get the miracle, then they won't believe without some proof. God who created the universe does not have to dumb Himself down to fit into the little box of your liking. He's angry when people come to Him only when they need Him, in a disaster or a trial they can't handle. The rest of the time they think He's the one to blame for all the troubles in the world, or they just flat out take Him for granted. True belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with religion, Jim, and I believe that one fact has you very confused. Religions are political, greedy, evil, money grabbing organizations that have nothing to do with the One True God, and that's where your problem lies. All I hear from you and publyin', are people who think they're bigger and smarter than God.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 853AM: he dismisses it all as just “repetitive ignorance and nonsense”. That attempt to evade it all is not “brilliant”.
Then (the 18th at 922AM) ‘Dan’ raises a point which is accurate: I did misread his comment of the 16th at 745PM: there was no plural ‘lying priests’; it was indeed a consistent singular “lying priest”.
That leaves just the other points: that the judge actually never said “get a life, loser” to the priest in the first place; that we only have ‘Dan’s word for it that this case ever took place at all; and we don’t actually even know (presuming the cases’ actual existence) what the case was all about in the first place. And, for that matter, we don’t know the grounds for the judge’s dismissal of the case (again, presuming that it took place at all).
At very best, this would be the first of at least six appearances before a judge that has not worked out against ‘Dan’.
On then to JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
JR will try to shift the focus from his own case and its problems to something more general: “the ‘problems’ being that the church was caught out”.
But that’s not what I was referring to. On the 18th at 302AM I wrote “I am, and always have been, pointing out the problems with the Stampede in many of its core dynamics”. What I was referring to was the core-dynamics of the Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
And that is not an instance of my changing the subject, because if the Stampede dynamics have been working in the ways I have often described here at length, then the subject itself is cast in some serious and substantive doubt.
That is to say: As I have said several times on this site, I have no doubt that there were some priests who committed some acts along the spectrum from ‘molestation’ to ‘abuse’ and even ‘rape’ and even ‘child rape’.
But that is not the Stampede vision, which claims that a) so many priests did such things that it should be presumed that any allegations and claims are veracious and accurate and that b) a substantial number of priests – now and going back to the distant past – did such things, to the extent that a “culture of rape” should be presumed to have been operative, perhaps even the primary operative dynamic, of the Church, now and going back to the distant past.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
And it is here that we also see the dove-tailing of two different streams: the Victimist/Abusenik Stampede stream and the older fundie anti-Catholicism we see displayed in ‘Dan’s material (although ‘Dan’, while making use of some familiar old fundie bits, is actually not so much himself (or Himself) a fundie as he (or He) is for all practical purposes setting up shop as a religion all on his own).
Again we're treated to another one of your poor assessment jobs. First off- I'm only "anti-Catholicism" because I am anti-pervert and anti-pedophile and refuse to be evenly yoked with "anti-Christs". I'm not a "fundie" and care not for anything close to religion, especially those with all their man-made laws and rules. I am a true Christian and far from being "on [my] own", and that is the reason you attempt to dispute and lie about me, Satan's child.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
Then JR tries a new tack: while admitting now that “all professions have those”, he then tries to carve out a special opprobrium for the Church by blithely passing-off as a fact that only the Church “protected those abusers”.
I would say this: Let us presume that there were some abusive priests (that “some” admittedly being open to serious analysis as to just how many there genuinely and actually were) / Having done so let us then consider how many other professions have … what? Required some form of whatever treatment was considered state-of-the-art at the time? Winnowed their ranks and published names and set up rigorous preventive protocols?
What professions or professional organizations would those be? Education? Medicine? Law? Law-enforcement? Politics? Media? Other religious polities?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
And we would also have to establish the difference between i) caution for the rights of any accused and ii) “protecting those abusers”, especially since that distinction is precisely one that the Stampede tries to obliterate.
And all of this presumes that the veracity and validity of accusations are sufficiently reliable (and here we might look to Philadelphia’s Doe cases and – closer to home – certain accusations and claims recently established to be something else altogether).
And – most surely – the accusation to the effect that the Church “aided in their escapes from the law” has to be considered with more than a grain of salt, as we considered this point quite some time ago: sending someone to an out-of-state facility in this era of interconnected police networks surely doesn’t make for an ‘escape’ and I have not heard of any case where police gave up simply because an accused priest was not presently in this or that specific police jurisdiction at the moment.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
Thus, as to whether I “lie when [I] pretend that I ‘assess’ this scandal objectively”: I have assessed the dynamics of the Stampede at great length here / I have helped establish that there are demonstrable cases where some of those dynamics were clearly involved in the lodging of hugely dubious and very probably or even certainly false accusations.
In doing so I have explained the elements of my assessment at every step and demonstrated the facts and events that support my assessment. I have not tried to manipulate readers, nor bethump them with epithets if they proffered credible alternative explanations or counter-proposals.
What I did not “pretend” nor agree to “pretend” was that every story and accusation that was pushed our way was presumptively and prima facie accurate and veracious.
With the results that are now in the record here.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 211PM:
And, really, how much of a reliable authority on “child raping” can JR possibly claim to be at this point?
And on the 18th at 218PM JR will merely toss more epithet (“you rapists”) and simply repeat his ‘defending’ bit.
While now slyly including himself as being part of that group that now includes not only “raped” but also “abused; molested; attacked”. Which is quite a change – a come-down, even – but still requires that we accept the veraciousness and accuracy of his actual and original story in the first place.
Readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 218PM:
Moving beyond his scatological epithet in the second paragraph, then, JR doth “concede” that “the legal word raped does not apply to [his] case” and – or but – that to him it “felt like rape”.
That’s quite a difference, he does not seem to notice – or at least would not like anyone else to notice.
And if he has substituted his ‘feelings’ for facts in this instance of his own claim – upon which he had based so much of his position and so many of his assertions and accusations here over the years – then it is hardly impossible (or perhaps improbable) that he has done other such ‘substituting’ in order to further his agenda.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 218PM:
And he concludes slyly – very slyly – with an effort to make me out to be the “sociopathic” party here by bleating that he doth “know” I am one of those “sociopathic child rapists” and thus not like “normal human beings” (that is to say, himself) for whom – cue the violin – “feelings matter”.
In JR’s case, I would say that his own “feelings” “matter” far more than any quibbling over truth and veracity and accuracy and that in the service of satisfying those “feelings” he will manipulate and prey upon – and has here tried to manipulate and prey upon – the decent sympathies of readers for his own purposes, while convincing himself that in so doing he is some sort of heroic truthy truth-teller.
And that is genuine sociopathy. Although I don’t claim here to be telling him anything new or anything he hasn’t heard before.
You know publyin', your sarcastic and nasty little "eructations" you lay on those you rudely label "Abuseniks", are the very reason why others return with the words we enjoy calling you. Your "heroic truthy truth-teller" and other similar childish phrases you have repetitively laid on myself and others, warrants you the title of "Queen of Pathological Liars". Wear it well. I can think of no one more deserving. servant
P.S. Do you even know the difference between the truth and lies, or are those lines just a blur?
And on the 18th at 244PM JR will now try to find a way to explain his “boredom” without the problematic element of his not really being interested in ideas that don’t serve his purposes.
And his solution to this little conundrum is – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? –that he is a victim. He is a victim of boring and “dull” and “uninteresting” commenters, doncha see?
Otherwise – we are to infer – he is the very soul of eager excitement and avid interest when it comes to ideas and the interplay and exchange of ideas. Or at least as long as they don’t lead anywhere he doesn’t like.
Dan makes an interesting comment, on the 19th, regarding JR. Saying something about JR being a "messed up dude". Gee…sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. But not sure I agree that JR is entirely messed up, because I can easily imagine JR smiling happily, as he walked into the bank with his gold. Like a joyful prospector who had just struck the mother lode?. And what is the mother lode?. You guessed it….our own Catholic Church.
Malcolm MYOB, Apparently you don't know what that means so let me spell it out for you. How 'bout you Mind Your Own Business. You're becoming more and more, one of the catholic coal-mine creeps, claiming the "pot calling the kettle black". Or maybe you've just been a publyin' creep wanna be, all along. Me and Jim can handle ourselves without your assistance, so time you figure out, you might be better off spending your time working on your cult's problem, and keep your nose out of other's business.
And by the way, your poor "catholic church" deserves to pay everything and then some, and that still wouldn't be enough for the sick crimes of your cult's disgusting malfeasance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
His gambit here is to try to spin my approach to this: I am “such an unbeliever and liar” that I “think that facts people give to you are nothing but lies”.
Where to begin?
First, he conflates a) matters that are proper subjects of ‘belief’ and b) matters that require persuasive evidence. This is a personal and unique gambit of his; we have often seen Abuseniks also try to claim that their stories, accusations and assertions are not ‘believed’ although readers here might ‘believe’ in God and religion and so forth.
But matters in category (a) deal with the Beyond, where ultimately the human capacity for ‘belief’ (albeit rationally supported) must be involved. Whereas matters in category (b) are assertions about allegedly historical events and thus require evidence or at least rationally persuasive argument from demonstrable facts.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
Second, I have proffered the proposal that – given the dynamics of the Stampede and the nature of the internet – assertions and stories and claims must be given what might be called in legal terms “heightened scrutiny”.
Third, I have pointed out that given agitprop praxis and policy (one might take a look once more at Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals or its predecessor doctrines demonstrated in Leninist and Gramscian theory or in that one useful chapter of Mein Kampf, the fifth which deals with Propaganda methods) one can legitimately presume that some forms of manipulation can be expected among those who lodge such claims and stories and assertions, especially given the very nature of tort-attorney praxis and ‘law office history’ and the abidingly convenient assumption that if one is telling a story in a cause one has decided is ‘good’, then – as is so often said – “facts don’t matter”.
Also, see you often reference "Mein Kampf" and seem to agree with that philosophy. Is that where Nazis like yourself learn to mock the Creator, because you think your some demigod of the Third Reich. Well done, Hitler wanna be. First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, and you still think there is no connection to your Holy Roman catholic cult of crouts, (AKA – Sour Krauts). Heil Holy Queen, Mother of Demigods and Pedophiles.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
The term ‘law office history’ is used in the legal realm to describe an attorney’s or prosecutor’s effort to put his/her case in the best possible light by selectively compiling a ‘history’ of the case and applicable statute and case law in order to give the case an aura of solidly-grounded and inevitable rightness, while purposely excluding other elements of statue and case law that might militate against the case.
It should come as no surprise that so much of the Abusenik/Stampede position reflects this approach, seeking to ground its assertions and claims in such highly-selective (and thus manipulative) fashion.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
And in a very real sense, grand-jury proceedings are based on just such an approach: alone with the grand jury, the prosecutor presents his/her theory of the case, buttressed by ‘law office history’ and such events as the prosecutor claims are relevant and real, in the hopes (infrequently disappointed) that the grand jurors will agree that there is enough that meets their eye to warrant further legal proceedings.
It is not for nothing that the old saw exists: a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
What ‘Dan’ then tries to go for in this comment is that “if [he doth] say something, then it is true”.
In other words, he insists that he must be presumptively considered to be accurate and veracious in whatever he claims. I would say that such an insistence must be considered as utterly untenable and incredible i) in light of everything I have said above in this sequence of comments and ii) in light of his own clearly and often demonstrated difficulties with accuracy and veracity and even with rationality and perhaps sanity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
Which difficulty – to put it nicely – he then instantly demonstrates by now claiming that when he wrote “mental institutions” (as if he hadn’t also already discussed his mental –institution stays and misadventures) it was just “a mistake”.
And readers may consider what condition a person might have to be in in order to make such “a mistake” as to admit that he was (several times) in a “mental institution” when he actually (as he now claims) wasn’t.
Rather, this paragon of accuracy and veracity would now here have us believe, he was merely “unfairly placed in hospitals”. By whom was he so “placed”? And for what reasons … was he having trouble with his appendix or his cholesterol levels or a broken bone such that a judge “placed” him in a medical facility?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
And he then lards onto that whopper another one: he “really [has] no reason to lie”. Willy Tango Foxtrot? He has every possible reason for doing so: a) personally, he has to – as has apparently been the case for quite some time with him – protect his personal cartoon that he is most surely ‘normal’ and sane and that it is everyone who doesn’t think so who “lies” and so forth; and in furtherance of that agenda, he has to constitute himself as not only normal but divinely-informed in a way so unique as to command utter and complete respect (and doubters will commit nothing less than ‘mockery of God’).
And b) religiously so that his assiduously-constructed anti-religion cartoon can be thrown up in the face of anyone he can manage (including children on recess in a schoolyard).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
As to whether he “wouldn’t feel right” if he did lie: I have serious doubts about his capacity to separate truth from (self-serving) illusion to an extent sufficient to distinguish between the two. Because if he could actually distinguish between the two, then the actuality or reality end of that bipole would shatter the illusory cartoon he has constructed for himself to begin with.
And he then tries to demonstrate that by pointing out that he “corrected what the judge said in court”. No, he merely corrected my own mistake in quoting what he claims to have happened in court. Nothing more.
And as for the rest about that claimed case, we have nothing on which to rely but the claims of ‘Dan’. And where does that leave us, really?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
Then – and so very slyly – he tries to piggy-back his problem here onto the ongoing JR bit about me ‘hiding’: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – has “absolutely nothing to hide”.
‘Dan’ has a very great deal to hide, which is why he constructed his personal cartoon in the first place; it is precisely those aspects of himself which he has to hide – from himself far more than even from others – that constitutes the big-bang that created the ‘Dan’-verse to begin with.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1137AM:
And he then reverts in conclusion to mere epithet to the effect that all my assessments of him – derived, I repeat, from his own material here – are “plagued with accusations that are untrue”. I would say not. ‘Dan’s material has yielded the conclusions I have drawn, and I have explained how I reached those conclusions – based on ‘Dan’s material – every step of the way. He himself provides the demonstrations.
That this appears to be (unwelcome) news to him merely demonstrates further how sunk into the illusory world of his personal cartoon he actually is. But yet he retains the capacity for slyness and tactical manipulation.
Dan says, "all my assessments of him" are "plagued with accusations that are untrue". One instance as proof, capitalized so even the blind could see. NO "ACCOSTING", NO "HARANGUING", NO "PLEA BARGAIN", NO "JAIL TIME, NO "JUDGE". Five, lying assessments, dreamed up by your failed "conclusions- based on 'Dan's material", of which there are several more from that instance alone. You like little children's stories, so check out Aesop's fable, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", or is that the story of your childhood, LIAR.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 824PM:
Here he will try to get in on JR’s last-ditch gambit in regard to my screen-name and so on.
He opens with merely and epithetical riff on my screen-name – or, actually, not on my screen-name but instead on his own (self-serving) distortion of it. No surprises there.
Might I point out that unlike some Abuseniks, ‘Dan’ himself doesn’t give his full name? Why not even JR could look up ‘Dan’s “records”, if – for whatever purposes – JR might want to do so. For that matter, is ‘Dan’ even ‘Dan’s real first name? Who can say? And – really – what difference does it make?
Dan is my real name. Only lying creeps that have something to hide, have to give a fictitious name. I'd have no problem giving my full name to Jim, but see no need to give it to someone who consistently defends his fellow creeps and perverts, while claiming he's not defending anyone, while making excuses, twisting facts or just outright lying.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 824PM:
He doesn’t like my characterization of his claimed special-channel to God (or ‘Dan’s version of God) as “divine blast-faxes”. Too bad. I think it captures the reality (and perhaps also the illusion) of ‘Dan’s claims rather nicely.
The rest is ‘Dan’s effort at the old I’m Not/You Are gambit and the usual epithets against the Church and so on.
But also –and ever so slyly – he now tries to impugn the Catechism of the Catholic Church to which he himself (or Himself) had once, if rather incompletely and self-servingly, referred as a reference that – he had intended – would bolster his claim of Mary-as-Goddess-of-All-Gods. How would the Corleones put it … Diva di tutti divi … ?
And maybe you would care to inform us, how my being a catholic altar boy in my childhood was "self-servingly" done. Oh, I see. Just another one of your ignorant assessments on something you know nothing about. You are the poster child of stupidity. Stop the nonsense!
And on the 20th at 728PM a queasy and yet nicely silly performance from ‘Dan’, apparently channeling the schoolyard bully and going after ‘Malcolm Harris’ – as if bullies were manly and normal and reely reely kewl.
And the whole bit is pretexted upon MH making a comment about one of those little just-entre-nous ‘private chats’ we have so often seen from Abuseniks and such.
Yez wanna peece-a dis, Harris? Kuz dat’s what yez’ll get if yez don’t keep ya noze where it belongs.
It’s always a performance of some sort in the ‘Dan’-verse.
In regards to your last pile of assessment "plop", all I hear is a bunch of unintelligible noise, somewhat like Blah, Blah, Blah. Boy do you like to hear yourself carry on with your poor assessments, littered with your "lies and manipulations". What really scares me is your obsession with cartoons, when your cartoon has been stuck on ignorance and stupidity for months, and could use what little sense you might muster to assess yourself. As further demonstrated in this last post, your preoccupation with immature, childish statements might lead someone to think that Jim just might be right about your "queasiness". Far be it from me to make such assessments of you, so I just prefer to consider you a mocking creep. And had you been "waitiiiiiiiiing forrr iiitttttt!"? Austin Powers comes to the rescue of Mini-Me, as if that wasn't totally predictable, "channeling the schoolyard bully" as you've done towards the victims of your nasty little cult of lying perverts and pedophiles. The show must go on, but for now you may just want to retreat and slither back under the sun porch.