Working tirelessly together against the Catholic Church: SNAP director David Clohessy (l),
Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory (c), and BishopAccountability's Terry McKiernan (r)
The Boston Globe simply will not give up.
The newly released annual audit report by United States bishops about abuse in the Catholic Church amplifies the rampancy of false accusations, unprovable allegations against dead priests, dubious decades-old claims, and the determination of Church-suing tort lawyers and their allies to drain the Church's coffers.
Yet in an article by staffer Matt Rocheleau, the Boston Globe continues to try to convince the public that abuse is somehow still a current problem in the Catholic Church.
The facts the Globe is hiding
Taken straight from the data in this year's audit report, here are the simple facts about the Catholic Church abuse story you will never, ever see in the Boston Globe and which once again only underscore that the abuse story is a Globe obsession borne of animus for an institution which it so abhors:
- 93% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from at least 21 years ago;
- 41% of all identified priests who were accused in 2015 were already long deceased;
- 80% of all identified priests who were accused in 2015 were either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
- less than 14% of all allegations last year were even deemed "substantiated," while nearly three quarters of the accusations were deemed either "unsubstantiated," "unable to be proven," or still under review.
In other words, the story of abuse in the Catholic Church is less "news" and more of an attempt to extend a story line that croaked many years ago.
And the only real reason why lawsuits and accusations are still flying against the Catholic Church is that a number of states have enacted "window legislation" which enables anonymous accusers to make decades-old allegations against now-deceased priests. Naturally, this important aspect of the story was completely left out of the Globe's reporting.
Turning to lawyer-funded haters
In yet another example of the Globe throwing all perspective and objectivity out the window, Rocheleau turns to lawyer-funded "advocates" David Clohessy, from SNAP, and Terry McKiernan, from BishopAccountability, two reliably anti-Catholic sources for the Globe's fodder. (Apparently, Rocheleau was unable to reach the Ku Klux Klan for comment.)
Even though Clohessy and McKiernan did not provide a single shred of documentation to support their wild claims, Rocheleau uncritically relayed the pair's assertions that the Church's annual independent audit reports are somehow "flawed," "deceptive," and that "holes still remain."
But if there are any "holes" in anything, it is in the Boston Globe's reporting. As we reported earlier this year, when Boston station WCVB determined that "in recent years, on average, the licenses of 15 Massachusetts educators are suspended or revoked each year for sexual misconduct," the Globe did not find this the least bit interesting enough to report or even explore further.
Of course not. Because the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the "protection of children" or the tragic abuse of kids. It has everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for and earning kudos from others – such as those in Hollywood – who also detest the Church.
————————————-
See also:
1. Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com)
2. 'Spotlight' Exposed: The definitive 'Spotlight' review.
None of it ever happened. it's all nonsense, and fraud is being committed against the church according to you.
Well where oh where are the countersuits? Where are the proven fraudulent cases that we are supposed to all be so worried about? Where are they? WHERE ARE THEY?
Where are the numbers from the church of what they paid and who they paid victim wise John Doe or no.
None of it ever happened. it's all nonsense, and fraud is being committed against the church according to you.
Well where oh where are the countersuits? Where are the proven fraudulent cases that we are supposed to all be so worried about? Where are they? WHERE ARE THEY?
Where are the numbers from the church of what they paid and who they paid victim wise John Doe or no. What were the claims about that they paid out on? What were they afraid for juries to see? The mere facts of our abuse? They settled.
You don't think they should have? You take it up with your Princes of the church.
Funny how all roads lead to Rome in this horror show aint it? They caused the scandal and know that they did and then, to your horror they refuse to fight us "frauds" because they know what they and what their abusing priests did.
Why else the need to keep it all secret? Like the claims made against your clerics by their victims.
The church doesn't want you to know the truth of their callousness. Oh No! The church wants the flock to think that if the big bad media hadn't pushed us, "fraudsters" forward. the church would be fine. Sorry but not true. We , your victims, came forward individually and long before in some cases the 2002 scandal broke. Why did the press have to be the one to tell you about the rapists in your church? Why did'nt your leaders tell you? They knew. They'd even set up "recovery" centers an entire order (the Paracletes) was created, not for the victims mind you; but for the rapists. "Curing" and then transferring the newly "healed" to new and virgin fields of Catholic children. That's what the media told the world. That's the truth of what was done.That's what you hate.
Also Malcolm, how are the Austrialian government hearings going? 2 years of hearings now. Do you blame the media and govt. there where you live as much as you blame the lax U.S. media, for your self created problems? How many cases of fraud have been exposed there Malcolm? Give us your examples, please.
On the 27th at 1105PM ‘Dan’ will now attempt to treat as mere “entertainment” my mention of the New York City “prophet” who chose school and school-children as the target audience for his ‘prophecies’ (rather than some adult venue where his ‘prophecies – he considers himself a “prophet of God” – might be more suitably addressed.).
And the rest of the paragraph descends into epithet – though without actually addressing what are surely notable similarities: a self-declared prophet and adult / possessed of ‘prophecies’ / who chooses a school and school-children rather than an adult venue.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1105PM:
The fact that the New York case involves screaming and shrieking … is something we don’t really know is or is not a similarity. What we do know is that ‘Dan’s behavior (and perhaps words) ignited the concern of school-staffers and regular readers are familiar with that story. Although we don’t know what ‘Dan’ did in the other six instances he mentioned either.
Possibly the New York “prophet” is just a bit further down a road that ‘Dan’ is already traveling. Or perhaps ‘Dan’ has not been entirely forthcoming in his stories about his misadventures and there is even more similarity involved here than we presently know.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1105PM:
Thus too readers may consider as they will the validity of ‘Dan’s being “surprized” and leave it at that.
He then seems to lose control of his thoughts, somehow trying to stuff an exoneration of himself and then a reference to “Jim Jones” and his usual attempt to characterize the Church as a “religious cult” … all into one sentence and clearly he isn’t up to the task.
But that bit does give him an opportunity to distract us from the possibilities arising from a comparison of the New York individual and ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself); thus he will now happily riff from whatever 3x5s are lying around – “Kool-Aid” (correction supplied) and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1105PM:
And the usual old bit about my ‘defending’ and ‘making excuses for’ and so forth, and – as always – no particular quotation of mine that would actually ground the “question” which he would very much like to distract readers with.
And finally, we are left – if ‘Dan’ be believed – with six or seven instances of altercation, with school and students and staff and police and judges and courts and psychiatric observation and who-knows-who-else involved, and yet – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – ‘Dan’ never did nuffin’ wrong and it was all a conspiracy of “lies” from “liars”. What can it possibly be, do you think, about ‘Dan’ that – as he recently claimed – makes adult citizens exercise their power of citizens-arrest?
As to the recoil possibilities of “creepy” (scream-caps omitted) and – so marvelously – “grow up” and “lying little dweeb troll” … readers may entertain themselves with such considerations. ‘Dan’ most surely has a thing for “little” and youth (“grow up”) and “creep” and “creepy”, nor can we forget the seriously revelatory “peewee”.
On then to JR’s 28th at 624PM of the 28th:
He here tries to make it seem that a lie-detector test in either the past or the present would be equally valid, since “what happened to” him remains the same (except, of course, that it wasn’t ‘child rape’, as he has already said). But that’s all distracting speculation since when he might have had the chance he didn’t take one and at this point it’s a moot issue since nobody is going to make him take one now.
And then we are treated to the sententious Wig of Sententiousness: “the truth remains the same”. Yes, it does, although the ‘story’ and the ‘truth’ are two different things, as even JR admitted with his sly distinction between objective truth (i.e. what actually happened) and his ‘personal truth’ (i.e. what it felt like to him). Thus too, while “the past is unchangeable”, the ‘story’ is not – as we have seen over the years here.
And that all still leaves us with the core question: what actually did happen back in that past?
Thus: just who is and has been “blowing smoke” here remains a far more open question than JR would like anyone to imagine.
No one could have "made" me take it then if I didn't want to. I was never asked to take such a test.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s 28th at 624PM of the 28th:
And if I understand his final bits correctly, he is going for the idea that exposing his child-rape claim has simply been a way of trying to “hide what [the Church has] been up to. I would say, rather, that is has been a way of exposing what the Stampede has been up to.
But that bit then gives him the platform on which to puff up his pinfeathers and declaim about “corruption at its most despicable”. Of course, you are expected to attach “corruption” to the Church, and not to the Stampede.
On the 29th at 724PM ‘Dan’ gives us a nice demonstration of the Abusenik game: sex crimes against children do not leave evidence / potential perpetrators are aware of that / few cases are “reported in a timely fashion” (but, of course, only because of the (presumed) “unfair guilt and shame” of the (presumed) victim) / or because “creeps threaten their prey” (that’s a new one) / and therefore … what?
And therefore all the accused are guilty … ? Because no-evidence is – in the Victimist universe – a form of evidence … ?
This is the type of ‘logic’ that sustains the Stampede.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 724PM:
It is at least equally possible (if not also more probable) to follow this thread of reasoning: adults so inclined realize that they can make a claim with no evidence required / because any allegation or accusation is considered a ‘report’ and presumptively veracious and accurate / for which with the help of willing torties substantial sums can be gained / while the media will bestow the status of ‘victim’ / so that one might get the money while also being congratulated for one’s heroic and truthy courage in ‘coming forward’ / and under the influence of Victimism neither the legal system nor public opinion will hold any allegant responsible for any false claims / while the presumption of the guilt of any accused results in any attempt at defending oneself being dismissed as merely ‘denial’ (of the already-presumed true ‘report’ and allegation).
We see the same template being deployed now in collegiate date-rape and similar issues.
If this is the case, then I'll be patient, waiting for Judgment Day, when all truth will be exposed, and all liars and those who loved the lie, will definitely be treated as they well deserve. Equal justice for any involved in fraud, both pedophiles, perverts and any lying 'victims'. I'd stake my salvation on the fact that your cult's perverts and liars will by far outnumber any fraudulant victims. Don't get any idea that your lyin' BS will be overlooked, publyin'. That also includes myself, and I have no problem with that, because I refuse to lie, and can't stand lying and liars. servant
And in a follow-on comment (the 29th at 901PM) ‘Dan’ also tosses in the Victimist sleight-of-hand to the effect that an allegation is a report is a fact.
And while ‘Dan’ then quickly tries to stop the music while he still has a chair (that “Period.”), his gambit here is and must be not the end of the discussion but rather the beginning of the careful analysis.
On then to JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
Nicely enough, he derails this entire lengthy (and uncharacteristically competently-structured) comment at the very outset.
He does this by building the comment on something I have never said (which may be why he proffers on accurate quotations from my material): I have never said that no abuse “ever happened” and indeed I have more than once here stated my conclusion that some abuse did indeed happen.
Also, I have always worked toward establishing the possibility or probability of fraud, without actually denouncing any specific claim as positively being fraudulent.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
And that includes JR’s stuff, since I am going to imagine that the claim actually made under oath in the Complaint was not of ‘child rape’ but most likely some variant of ‘lewd acts’; his years-long bethumping of readers here with his claim of ‘child rape’ may perhaps have been a fraud perpetrated on the readership, but does not rise to a criminal fraud perpetrated under oath in a court filing.
Although – that having been said – there still remains the question as to whether even the lewd-acts actually ever took place and readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
But there was a method to the madness: we suddenly find ourselves back in the pile of 3x5s with issues from the way-back here.
Specifically, JR will now try to run-again his bit to the effect that since there are no countersuits then … what? Then that proves that the allegations weren’t fraudulent … ?
This is rich: having benefitted precisely from the Stampede element that has so strongly influenced (or – if you will – deranged) public opinion that even batteries of competent Church and Insurer attorneys have advised settlement since there is little chance of prevailing at trial, the Abusenik bit is then to claim that the very lack of countersuits is somehow proof that the originally evidence-less accusations were veracious and accurate.
But JR figures he’s on to something here, and thus that histrionic scream-capped “Where are they?” as his version of spiking the ball and doing a little dance after making a touch-down.
And regular readers here will recognize that we have been all through this before over the years.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
And there’s some riffing on Cardinals and Rome and he again trots out the Church-demanded “secrecy” bit.
I personally would have liked to see the Church contest more of these Stampede allegations, but then the whole purpose of a Stampede is to proactively undermine any effort at self-defense (only the guilty defend themselves, as the Victimist mantra might put it).
And the comment riffs on, rather grandiosely – reminding me not at all of JR’s usual style but rather of some other commenter’s style.
And is the formerly-child-raped not in some way a “fraudster”? To have bethumped readers here for so very long with a claim that was not factually and objectively accurate … seems to indicate a propensity toward fraudulence, and not only deploying fraudulence but even enjoying it.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
Regular readers may also recognize more bits from the 3×5 file:
The presumption that if somebody lodged an accusation before 2002 then – since the media Stampede phase hadn’t yet begun – … what? The accusation is thus somehow demonstrated to be veracious and accurate … ?
Even in JR’s case, there was clearly more than enough justification for the staff (who knew JR personally in a way nobody here can know him) to consider that this was just a form of revenge for an undesirable grade.
And since – as ‘Dan’ has already pointed out in his handy compendium in a recent comment on this thread – there is no evidence in many or most of these instances, then how can one blame a Bishop for being hesitant in simply acquiescing to the accusation? Was a Bishop to simply write a check every time somebody came to the door with an accusation?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
And the bit about the Church setting up treatment centers is certainly a classic example of damned if you did and damned if you didn’t.
The Church set up priest-treatment centers for alcoholism and other addictive problems, which was extended to sexual issues, deploying the best treatments of the era. And given that public hospitals and facilities of the day might well have classified non-rape issues (now referred to as ‘abuse’ or ‘molestation’ issues) as being rather low on their list or priorities, then treatment centers that were not distracted by the overt or florid psychiatric phenomena faced by public facilities would have been far more effective.
Oh! Yeah! your "priest-treatment centers" were "far more effective". "Far more effective" in hiding your creepy priests from public facilities, so your cult could keep them from the public eye, and you could find a scapegoat in your private psych-o-iatrists, and the perverts and pedos could be placed back among children so they could continue what they do best. And your cult of hypocrites could play dumb and claim they weren't aware that pedophiles couldn't be cured. Boy, do you idiots not know anything about judging the creeps that are rampant among your ranks. God will hold you responsible. Proof in the word:
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." Ephesians 5: 3
Well apparently since your cult is full of all three and then some, I would guess that would mean, strike three and you're out. Babylon the Great (Rome), Queen of Heaven, "THE MOTHER OF EVERY IMMORAL AND FILTHY THING ON EARTH", on her way down and out.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
The same damned if you do and damned if you don’t ploy is involved – as we have been all over it before – in regard to setting up treatment centers for victims. How determine who is a genuine victim? Would a genuine victim want to entrust him/herself to a Church-run facility? (Even JR once said that such an option was not acceptable.) Would a non-genuine allegant want to risk being exposed by encountering psychiatric or psychological examination?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 258PM:
And JR tries to wrap it up by tacking on a whack at ‘Malcolm Harris’: the Australian hearings have been going on for two years now.
And why have they gone on so long? What have they to show for all that investigation? For two years of a full-scale Commission inquiry what results have we actually seen?
Or rather: after two years of all that, what have we not seen? We haven’t seen a Stampede ignited in Australia as it was here.
It would be interesting to consider why that might be.
But JR doesn’t want readers thinking along those lines. Rather, he wants to manipulate readers back to his initial point about there being no proven cases of “fraud” (on the part of allegants, it has to be presumed).
This Bible version taken from UCCSB website- Acts 7:46-52 – David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob, [notice David asked- God didn't]. But Solomon built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses, [other versions-temples, santuaries or buildings], made by human hands. As the prophet says: "The heavens are my throne, the earth is my footstool. What kind of house can you build for me? says the Lord, or what is to be my resting place? Did not my hand make all these things? Conclusion - "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in the heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They put to death those who foretold the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.
Does this help you naysayers and liars who think I'm just a catholic hater. God does not dwell in your churches, he dwells in the heart, soul and mind of those who believe in Him, those who obey the Word and not those who think they can ignore His Word or dispute it. Those who mock Him, His Spirit, His servants or prophets, most definitely fit the bold print in this post. Thankfully, it's difficult to murder someone over the internet, but I've surely witnessed a slew of betrayers of God, both in this forum and from your hierarchy of hypocrites and thugs.
On the 30th at 1252PM ‘Dan’ announces that in light of the possibilities (probabilities?) I proposed he will simply “be patient, waiting for Judgment Day”.
Which assertion – and who at this point can be surprised? – sounds nice until you look at the comment and realize that the assertion fails on at least two levels.
First, ‘Dan’ is not being “patient” at all, in the sense of there being some questions that cannot (even, apparently, by his god-grams) be answered, so that the best and indeed only option is to ‘wait’ for more sufficient material upon which to legitimately base a rational conclusion, even “until Judgment Day”.
He will continue to spout his stuff – that hash of claims, assertions, epithets, and so forth – regardless of whether there is sufficient material upon which to legitimately base rational conclusions or even his type of conclusions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1252PM:
Because – as was inevitable given the nature of his agenda and his personal cartoon – he is not “patient” at all: rather, he requires his presumptions to be accepted.
In the practice of rational (scientific, if you wish) analysis, if one doesn’t have enough evidence then one refrains from coming to any conclusions and making assertions based on such conclusions.
But you can’t run a stampede on that basis; the core dynamic of a stampede is that a) you come up with a gripping vision (and the more genuine evidence you lack, then the more emotionally gripping the vision must be); then b) you simply keep hammering home your vision, excluding any uncongenial counter-evidence or doubtful material and instead pushing your own conclusion and vision; and whenever necessary, you try to distract-from or evade counterevidence or material that raises doubts about your (stampede) vision by whatever means necessary.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1252PM:
And also, in this comment of the 30th at 1252PM, ‘Dan’ tries to substitute for his own lack of legitimate evidence or persuasive argument by going for the rhetorical – if not also somewhat histrionic – pronouncement that he will “stake [his] salvation” on the fact that he will be proven right on the Last Day.
This is merely what I call the Wimpy Argument: the postulator will gladly prove to you on some ultimate “Tuesday” for your credence in the vision today. Thus he will take the ‘hamburger’ of your credence today and guarantees ‘payment’ by proof at the end of Time.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1252PM:
Although, in the stampede business, what you really expect and manipulate-toward is that people over time will simply forget the original dubious basis of your vision and come to accept your presumptions and your vision as just something that ‘everybody knows’.
What this site has enabled is the continuation of analysis and questioning, which – to the unending irritation of the stampedeniks – effectively keeps shining a light on the dubious basis of their preferred and presumptive vision.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1252PM:
And ‘Dan’ will then conclude his matinee performance here by pronouncing that he doth – tah dahhhhh! – “refuse to lie, and can’t stand lying and liars”.
Readers may look back over the record of the ever-bouncing ball of ‘Dan’s thoughts and claims here to judge the reliability of that pronouncement.
On the 30th at 1133PM ‘Dan’ will then try to simply toss up another distracting and irrelevant pericope.
The take-away he would insist readers get is that if you don’t believe his stuff then you are a “stiff-necked people” and so on and so forth.
And on that basis of that chunk of pericope ‘Dan’ will try to do a victory-spike by asking if this doesn’t dissolve the sense some readers may have formed that he is “just a catholic hater”. I can’t see how it does or how it possibly could.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 30th at 1133PM:
And he follows that bit with some of his personal theology to the effect that “God does not swell in your churches, he dwells in the heart”. Which – again – sounds nice until you look at it more closely.
Given the tendency of the human heart – especially if deranged by damaged emotions or insufficient or deranged thought – to go off on its own tangents and pursue its own excitements, human religions seek to provide a very necessary axis around which individual belief must somehow arrange itself and to which axis individual belief must somehow conform itself. Otherwise, every whackjob with a scare-vision – especially if strongly held – can set up his/her own ‘religion’.
And have we not seen this age-old human wisdom demonstrated so vividly and precisely here by the example of ‘Dan’?
And he concludes with his never-convincing effort to whistle past the graveyard of his own problems by trying to paint all those people who found his behavior so disturbing as being merely “hypocrites and thugs”.
publyin', You are so full of horse manure you could bag that stuff and make a fortune. Maybe you could donate the proceeds to the church, and pay off the other 85% that Jim says haven't been compensated. And I do so appreciate the fact that you think I have "age-old wisdom demonstrated so vividly and precisely", but I owe that to God's wisdom poured out upon me and also things I've learned from what you rudely call [G]od-grams.
In regards to Bible quotations you wrongly claim "distracting and irrelevant", I'll explain why you are not only wrong but they describe your nonsense perfectly. First off, God is not "swell" in regards to your ridiculous man-made temples where He refuses to "dwell". 2) You've persecuted me with several lies and slander, and I've given you many examples, while you claim I never do. 3) You are a stiff-necked hypocrite, with a hardened heart and deaf ears, unless it's what you want to imagine and make excuses about, for your beautiful cult of perverts and pedophiles. 4) You are an absolute betrayer of God and all that is truth, liar. 5) I will continue to "paint all those people" who have lied and slandered me, including you, "hypocrites and thugs", only because that is the truth.
Finally, Your ridiculous claims of mocking me and not God: " 'Dan's god-grams, Divinely-Chosen spout of God, satrap of God, divine blast-faxes, etc. You still claim you're not mocking God. Then you must be the most stupid catholic I've ever known. For all these reasons the "pericope describes you and your obstinate cult to a tee. Quit lying. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 247AM:
As evidenced even from ‘Dan’s own self-reports here (to the extent they are to be considered accurate and credible in the first place), sending troubled people to “public facilities” can quite easily result in genuine but relatively low-grade derangements (compared to full-blown psychotics and such) being too easily dismissed with insufficient treatment. As I said in a recent comment on this thread.
And – as in ‘Dan’s case(s) – this is even so case when it is a judge’s authority that has sent them there in the first place. And yet he is soon and yet again released into society with no effective therapeutic intervention.
And while it is presently the best-practices clinical consensus that “pedophiles can’t be cured”, yet few priests have actually clinically assessed to be actual “pedophiles” (although part of the Stampede scare-vision has been precisely to get public opinion to presume that the term “pedophile” can be generally applied to behaviors beyond the parameters of the clinical definition.
And then – marvelously – ‘Dan’ sarcastically brays that we “idiots” do “not know anything about judging … creeps”. I rather think we do, which is precisely what so enrages ‘Dan’ whose personal cartoon is all about evading his own – not to put too fine a point on it and since it is a term he seems perennially drawn to – creepiness.
But yet again he will try to bolster his braying by dragging God into his personal cartoon bits, as always.
And for good measure – or lack of anything better – he also goes on about Babylon and somehow Mary as “Queen of Heaven”. We’ve seen it all before.
Yawn! Has P finished typing? He's probably writing from prison, where he lives; where he's been put, for child rape.
The "People of God" seem to support child screwing. The people who let it all happen long, long after it could have been stopped are still held in esteem by you bad Caholics (There are multitudes of good Catholics but they still haven't booted these bastard bosses either; so on
JR, on the 31st, appears to be on some kind of automatic pilot… with his wild accusations.. Personally have found that in this world we can be on the side of the angels, or on the side of the opposing camp. But sadly we can sometimes find ourselves on the wrong side, without knowing it. But Jesus anticipated this problem and gave us a means of discernment. Saying things like "a tree is known by it's fruit" and also "by their fruits you will know them" Have to say that I find JR's fruit distasteful, particularly his baseless smearing of other contributors. Ditto goes for Dan's fruit. But Dan is apparently confident re the "Judgement Day". Well good luck Dan… but I hope God doesn't ask those angels whose camp he was in?
Malcolm, swell hearing about your imaginary friends and enemies.
Prove Publiar isn't a child molester. You don't need to hide here why does he?
Malcolm, And you're a good catholic boy? So that means you're an idolator, in favor of repeating prayers to false goddesses (unbiblical), call men who have no children, Father and Holy Father (also unbiblical), and also must be in agreement with the greed of the church and all the pomp and circumstance. I'll say "good luck" with that. When you have confidence in Judgment Day, you have no need for your "good luck". You think I'm "baseless[ly] smearing other contributors"? Talk about, "None so blind than those who refuse to see." And you believe you and peewee are in the right, defending perverts and pedophiles. Got a couple divine blast-faxes for the two of you.
"let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the LORD. Is not My word like fire? declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock? Jeremiah 23: 28-29
"Because you have spoken this word, Behold, I am making My words in your mouth fire and this people wood, and it will consume them." Jeremiah 5:14
God wants all to wake up, and will sometimes be tough in order to achieve His goals. We are made in His image, and as men, supposed to be strong when necessary, not running around dressed like women and calling ourselves mary. If you want to be coddled and told all the nastiness of your fellow catholic hypocrites is just fine in the Lord's eyes, than you'll have to drink from the Devil's well, apparently you're already sipping from the Kool-Aid. And I say, "Good luck with that! You're going to need it!" servant of God
I suggest any catholics to read Jeremiah chapter 5 and see the people He wants to destroy. Dishonest (liars), stubborn, obstinate, idolaters and the sexually immoral. Sound like any group of people you know?
On the 31st at 1022PM ‘Dan’ opens – either with deliberate sly manipulation or simply force of habit – with more mere epithet. And so on.
And it is so ‘rude’, he (or He) doth declaim, that I refer to those assorted allegedly divinely-inspired illuminations and eructations as “god-grams” (he – or He – prefers “God-grams”, in any case). When really, those assorted allegedly divinely-inspired illuminations and eructations are nothing less than “God’s wisdom poured out upon” ‘Dan’. Ovvv courssssssse.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1022PM:
In the second paragraph, he disputes that his pericopes are “distracting and irrelevant” (the one to which I had been referring was that bit about “stiff-necked people”) and he will now even “explain” why my characterization is “not only wrong but they describe [my] nonsense perfectly”.
This should be good. Let’s tune in and see.
First, I made a typo and put “swell” instead of “dwell”. Granted. The relevance being … ?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1022PM:
Second – and, yes, that was his first point of ‘proof’ that you just drove by – I have “persecuted” ‘Dan’ with “several lies and slander” (‘Dan’s own slanders and libels of the Church are – doncha see? – assorted allegedly divinely-inspired illuminations and eructations that are nothing less than “God’s wisdom poured out upon” ‘Dan’).
Do we get accurately-quoted examples of demonstrable “lies and slander” from my material? We do not.
All he does here is to claim that his even-more questionable and ever-more-contorted efforts to erase or evade his prior dubious bits are somehow ‘explanations’ and ‘examples’ of all the “lies and slander”.
Which – of course – would require that we presume the accuracy and veracity of ‘Dan’s bits in the first place. As I have said before, you have to hold your head at a very sharp angle for ‘Dan’s stuff to appear on-the-level.
You are so ridiculously stupid or your mental acuity has simply gone haywire. I have several times quoted examples of your "lies and slander". Is it necessary that I must repeat myself like parrot publyin', just because you're an annoying twit with a poor memory. Try to recall my quotes of "accosting and haranguing", to which you now have added another lie of "bethump[ing] children and others". You weren't there to witness any of the nonsense of your lying cohorts, and think you can add your play by play of "lies", and this becomes your truth. Add your mocking stupidity, and then wonder why someone calls you befitting names. You are a lying, mocking, dweeb, troll, peewee jackass, and contrary to anything you or Mini-Me Malcolm have to say, you both, and your cult deserve everything I've said about all of you, because you're a bunch of deceiving, excusing, lying hypocrite jerks. servant of ALMIGHTY GOD.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1022PM:
Third in this compendium of proofs we get – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – merely an epithet (I am “stiff-necked” and so on).
Fourth in this compendium of proofs we get – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr ittttt? – merely another epithet (I am “an absolute betrayer of God all that’s truth, liar”).
Fifth in this compendium of proofs we get merely an attempt to baptize his further eructations and excitements as being – we are to infer – nothing more or less than courageous and truthy truth-telling.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1022PM:
Leaving us thus still with a question: is it more probable to imagine a) that ‘Dan’ is just what he says he is and perfectly sane and normal and that he is merely by some highly improbable quirk of events surrounded by assorted “hypocrites” and “thugs” and “liars” (including school-staffers, police, judges, and a number of persons who were moved by ‘Dan’s presence and behavior to make “citizens arrests”)?
Or b) that ‘Dan’ is even more disturbing in person than he is in his writing, and that he has aggressively attempted on numerous occasions to bethump children and others with his assorted excitements, and that he has constructed a personal Cartoon religion to i) explain away his problems and justify them while also ii) making him a religion-of-one whose dreck – so disturbingly delivered – must be accepted as the Word and Thought of God under pain of “mocking God” (and, recently, ‘slandering’ him)?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1022PM:
And he concludes by merely demonstrating my point (b)(ii) immediately above by actually and again attempting to deploy his bit that in my assessment of ‘Dan’s eructations and excitements (and, by the way, slanders and libels of the Church and Catholics) I am indeed “mocking God”.
And that if I don’t realize that then – prepare for an epithet – I “must be the most stupid catholic [‘Dan’ has] ever known”. Oh my.
And further demonstrates his mentational infirmities by calling all of the above his “reasons”.
On the basis of which bit he then puffs up his pinfeathers and enjoins me to “quit lying”.
I would suggest he deliver that faux-papal injunction in a mirror, but – as I am also beginning to think with JR – we are dealing with people here who are not simply manipulative, deceptive, and truth-bendy, but are also in a far more fundamental way … not altogether well.
How do we know P isn't a child molester? We don't. He defends child molesters by saying we victims have no proof of the crimes committed against us. That's defending child molestation. Why would he be protecting/defending/enabling child molesters if he wasn't one himself?
Malcolm, I don't see you whine when P declares us victims as having no proof of our abuse.
No, you,only, cry out when P's called out as the kiddie fucker he is. Why's that. I assume since you say who you are; that you are probably not a rapist; but who knows? We have no proof you are not.
How do you like it when the shoe's on the other foot?
When did enabling Catholic children's being sexually violated become the "Side of the Angels"? Just because the church did it?
Here's how you get out of my accusations. You say who you are. You start treating all people decently who post here. When you start having a dialog about solving your problems fairly. Instead of attack and abusive snark. Then and only then, after we look into P's record and see who he really is, will this forum become a place of constructiveness rather than the cesspit of lies that it is. No angels or devils required.
As predicted, JR will continue trying to run the only play he has left.
Since, by analysis of his own material, I have – as the TMR site says – separated “fact from fiction” (or, if you wish, from ‘personal reality’) in the case of JR, he can only respond in a way that appears to be one of his most basic moves: he will make somebody pay for irritating him. As I said before, those faculty at the school half a century and more ago had quite possibly already detected this aspect of him.
And on the 1st at 107PM and again at 738PM and again at 748PM he will try to run this classic of Stampede logic: here is an accusation / prove you’re not.
Otherwise – he apparently consoles himself – I will not be able to “escape [his] accusation”.
As so often with Abuseniks and their preferred and desired spins, there are alternatives: in this case, I can simply leave these gambits up where they were tossed. After all, he has accused me of being a “nun” and a Nazi and a whole mess of other things over the years, so what’s new?
But this is all he has left, now that none of the Wigs will work.
So, then, on to the specifics of his gambit.
On the 1st at 738PM he tries to mimic reasoning and rationality, as if his accusation were logically derived from anything demonstrable.
His reasoning: since I have pointed out that he (casting himself as among “we victims”, a sly manipulation all on its own) “have no proof”, then I ipso facto “defend[s] child molesters”. Readers may consider how his premise logically doesn’t lead to his conclusion.
But the Stampede and agitprop gambit is this: You have to be either with us regardless of the problems with our position or else you are against us and probably are one of those against whom we have formulated our position / But you can’t study our position or assess it because that’s just quibbling over technicalities and obfuscating and blowing-smoke / And if we bend or stretch or do anything else to the objective reality and the truth, then that’s OK because we are doing it in a good cause / And if you doubt and question our stuff then you are surely what we are against.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 738PM:
But there’s a method to his madness here: having built that shaky foundation I just outlined above, he has thus created the opportunity to construct more of his ‘logic’: since he has equated i) ‘pointing out’ uncongenial but real problems with Stampede material with ii) “defending child molestation” – which is itself a doozy of a howler – he can then further mimic logic for his own purposes by then rhetorically stroking his chin and asking “Why would [I] be protecting/defending/enabling child molesters … ?”
And although that question is already undermined by the faulty logical foundation he has constructed with his little blocks, he can then conclude – again mimicking logic – that there is only one possible answer (to the faulty question he has constructed here): It can only be because – tah dahhhh! – I must “be one” myself.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 738PM:
But, of course, there is – as always – an alternative, although not as useful for either the general Abusenik strategms or JR’s personal little vendetta here: I am somebody who has seen and studied a number of agitprop stampedes – including now the Catholic Abuse Stampede – and I am repelled by them and consider them fundamentally hostile to truth and rationality and genuinely hostile to democracy and the rule of law.
And I have seen nothing from any Abuseniks here that demonstrates that the Catholic Abuse Stampede in its essential dynamics is any different from any of the other stampedes.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 738PM:
And why would “Malcolm” go and “whine” when I declare that “us victims” (that sly manipulation again) have “no proof of our abuse”?
Have any Abuseniks actually provided “proof”? Have I flown in the face of any demonstrated fact presented on this site?
If Abuseniks claim they have proof, but haven’t presented proof, then why would “Malcolm” go and “whine” if I pointed out that we have seen no proof?
If Abuseniks claim that they have no proof but they must be believed without proof, they why would “Malcolm” go and “whine” when I pointed out that without proof (or persuasive reasoning establishing at least probability) then their position and their demand presents substantial problems?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 738PM:
And then JR – marvelously – goes and pulls the same gambit on “Malcolm”: since “Malcolm” doesn’t “whine” when I point out the problems with the Abusenik material, then “who knows” about “Malcolm”? Is “Malcolm” too a “kiddie fucker” … ?
And then the agitprop cherry on the top: JR ominously intones that “We have no proof [he is] not.”
And JR wraps it up – and gives more of his game away – by snarking: “How do you like it when the shoe’s on the other foot?”.
But this bit fails. Because while JR has nothing but insinuation in regard to “Malcolm” and myself, we have clear and demonstrable proof that he was neither a child nor raped.
His effort here to recover his position by reducing “Malcolm” and myself to his own position is not based on the actual reality here: he is not nor ever has been a victim of “child rape”, and he has for years, in furtherance of his own purposes, attempted to pass himself off as one who has been.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 738PM:
And then – on the 1st at 741PM – having, he appears to think, caged me with his ‘logic’, he marvelously issues his demands.
I must tell him who I am (my ideas, clearly, are not of interest to him at all – which is basic agitprop 101).
And I must begin “treating all people decently who post here” (that translates to: not questioning the eminently questionable Abusenik bits).
And I must “start having a dialog” (which to Abuseniks means agreeing with them).
And – so very slyly – this “dialog” would be “about solving [my] problems fairly” (whatever that can possibly mean in actuality; and what “fairly” can we do about JR’s demonstrated non-child-rape … ?)
And – with a marvelous but by this point rather obvious effort at getting at least one Wig to work again – JR will try for some high-ground: “Then and only then”, he portentously declaims, “will this forum become a place of constructiveness” (a term which in the Abusenik dictionary means doing-it-their-way).
And just how my “record” (which JR already acknowledged isn’t necessary) could further that more than my ideas and concepts and questions and assessments … is anybody’s guess.
As to who is responsible for any aspects of a “cesspit of lies” on this site, readers may judge as they will.
You actually believe your "ideas and concepts and questions and assessments", better referred to as lies and manipulations and deceptions and excuses, really are of any benefit to your cause or your cult's agenda? As I've previously stated, you're surely a legend in your own mind. Excluding yourself, I don't understand why anyone else would think so. Your longwinded responses do nothing to prove your intellegence, especially when polluted with ignorance and false accusations. I'll assist readers, in case there is any doubt, you publyin' are responsible for a "cesspit of lies". Why keep them guessing?
Am sure the biased media will not miss the opportunity to throw it's support behind those legislative changes currently being considered by the Pennsylvania senate. Because the changes are aimed squarely at the Catholic Church. It is all about extending the statute of limitations, to permit criminal and civil claims of sexual abuse, to be brought beyond the present time limits. It will permit many more cases to be brought. And as the Billy Doe case has shown, no evidence is needed to send our priests to prison. Just a dramatic accusation… shouted out in this current witch-hunt climate. We should be mindful, however, of something that happened just last September. It was reported that a million souls attended the Pope's mass in Philladelphia. Well… if only 5% of those people were to demonstrate outside the State Capitol, then the legislators might have cause to think of their re-election. Because something has to be done. The civil rights of our priests are being thrown to the lions.
And to this I say, God's speed to the Pennsylvania Senate. My wish would be that we could open up the Statute of Limitations nation-wide. California's SB-131 was vetoed by jesuit seminarian, jerry brown-nosed catholic governor. This is not only against the cathoilc church, gov't entities and all private organizations will also be included. The reason why your cult is targeted and fighting the bill, is because they have the most to lose, seeing that they're filled with pedophile and pervert creeps and their enablers. I say open it up against all perverted childs abusers, and then your cult will have no excuses, but denying, deceiving, lying and excusing are some traits you creeps are great at. I'm surprised you haven't added them as sacraments, you add so many other man-made rules to the Bible, while not following the simple rules of the Lord, like love and truth. Hypocrites.
P.S. All perverted child abusers and pedophiles should be locked up for life, so as not to harm another child. Sad thing is you'd lose more than half of your priesthood. Correct that, maybe not so sad after all. Criminalize also their excusers and enablers. Bunch of creeps.
Your entire argument regarding us victims is: " You victims have no proof that anything happened to you." The rapists say the same thing. You hide your identity and have the same position as our violators. How do we know you haven't screwed children?
You know your decadent "ideas" will read the same with your real name at the top. You must have a reason to hide. Why else would you need to hide, you child rapist?
Questions! You ask questions? Not of me or any victim here. You put our veracity into question but never your own. You don't question any of us. You don't care or want to know about what we think or feel or know. How very Christian of you! You demand complete capitulation just like your owners. You need a millstone tied round your neck; according to Jesus.