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.
Let us not allow ourselves to be too long detained by the repetitious repetitions of the usual suspects.
On the 1st at 1057PM ‘Dan’ will simply open – yet again – with an epithetical riff, followed by the bleat that he has “several times quotes examples of [my] lies and slander”. No he has not. He may have a) quoted my material, but he did not b) demonstrate how it was either “slander” or a “lie” – unless he imagines that simply asserting that some bit is “slander” or “lie” somehow constitutes evidence, explanation, or rational explication.
But this howler of his then gives him the chance to puff up his pinfeathers and declaim how he is victimized and oppressed by my being “an annoying twit with poor memory”. I have no doubt I am irritating to those manipulators who are trying to pass of their own stuff as truth, but I also have enough memory to know that ‘Dan’s bouncing-ball explanations to cover shortcomings in his claims and stories cannot possibly be reconciled while kept with any parameters of truth.
And then he just lards on more epithet to try to burnish the appearance of a substantive response.
And concludes by tossing in “Almighty God” (scream-caps omitted) just to warn people that they shouldn’t be trying to examine the ‘truth’ of his stuff.
And how would one give "evidence, explanation or rational explication" when we're talking of lying hypocrites, filing a false citizen's arrest. You adding your lies to theirs, when I've exhaustingly told you that they are ridiculous "lies and slander". How do I know this? BECAUSE I WAS THERE, AND I KNOW WHAT TRANSPIRED. My sister called the pastor who confirmed nothing bad came from my mouth. So you can't accept that either, because you're used to the hierarchy at your church lying like yourself? I'll let you know that a couple weeks later, when I suppose they thought I would sue for slander, he changed his story and said he wasn't present. Then he became the typical catholic hypocrite lying priest that we're accustomed to. I presume this also will not be enough for you, only because habitual liars think everyone else can't be trusted either. I'll be waiting for you to add more "lies and slander", as we all have grown accustomed to. Maybe it's time you study the catholic hypocrite "Stampede agitp[l]op" of habitual liars, pedophiles and perverts of your cult. That should keep you busy for a lifetime and out of our hair. servant of GOD
Just happened to notice that in the Cartoon-time of a liar and his religion of lies and liars, the innocent slyly become your "usual suspects". Can you be more disingenuous? So in your twisting, manipulating and phony world of opposites, this must make your wicked cult of perverts, pedophiles, disgusting creeps and their excusers, considered by you deceivers to be innocent. Nothing but hypocrites. And as far as "repititous repetitions" from the redundant, I would say you win the title. But in your little peewee world of opposites, everyone else is wrong and at fault. The Cartoon-time continues, even as it's end draws near. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1144PM which is comprised merely of more epithetical riffs in which he tries to speak for the readership (as well as, of course, for ‘god’).
On, then, to JR’s of the 3rd at 1215PM: in regard to my opinion in regard to (“us”) “victims”, he offers in quotation marks a comment I never made.
However, it is certainly true that I have stated that I have seen no convincing or persuasive evidence offered here in support of specific Abusenik claims.
Does JR now claim that he does have such proof? He does not.
Instead, he tries a far more juvenile bit: since “rapists say the same thing” (i.e. that some allegiant or claimant has no proof), then … well, what, then? That since I point out a fact that some “rapists” try to use as an excuse then … what? Am I somehow logically demonstrated to be a “rapist”? That is – yes – what JR would like you to imagine, with this little bit of dreck that’s supposed to pass for logical thinking.
How do we know you're telling the truth? We don't. We only have the word of a man who hides.
I "derail" your denial of victims? Good.
Sustained analysis by who? a hiding child rapist?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1215PM:
Then – ever a warning sign that he is up to something – JR appears to lose control of either his material or at least the grammar by which it is expressed: What can it possibly mean that I “have the same position as our violators”? (And again, that sly “our” is revealed for what it has been all along.)
And what “position” is that? (Which still requires the presumption that the allegation as to ‘violation’ was true.)
The position of denial, you low I.Q'd deviate.
You hide because you must. Why must you? Because you molest children?
Would your posts be any different with your real name on them? No? So why hide? What does hiding do for you?
And on the 3rd at 1218PM JR will again try to – somehow – spin things his way: My ideas are “decadent” (meaning what, exactly?) and “will read the same with [my] real name at the top”.
And they will read the same with my real screen-name at the top. So what?
Again, agitprop seeks to avoid ideas and concepts and to instead derail or derange focus and discussion, because so very often its ideas and concepts cannot survive sustained analysis. Which is most certainly the case with JR’s stuff.
Now to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 537PM:
Not having kept up on the status of the question in regard to revising or revoking or suspending the Statutes of Limitations (SOLs), ‘Dan’ tries to make some points that have already been dealt with here.
First, we note that the CA SB-131 was vetoed by the Governor of CA. That would be Jerry Brown, who is a former – and very long former – Jesuit seminarian; he left the Order decades ago. Are we to infer that ‘Dan’ presumes that if a politician is a Catholic or has had at any point in his/her life any experience with a Catholic seminary or convent then that fact constitutes reliable evidence of … something?
An ex-seminarian who is still a catholic, who has the ability of becoming a high government official, can accomplish more in making political decisions that benefit a cult of perverts and creeps, than one who becomes a priest or even bishop. Don't act so ignorant or naive. With the swirl of a pen, hundreds or more hypocrites off the hook, no S of L.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 537PM:
Second, if the Bill seeks to somehow change the SOLs not only for the Church but for a broad swath of entities, public and private, religious and secular, then one can easily see why Brown – an astute pol if nothing else – vetoed it: would the CA teachers’ union or any of the CA universities or any other public or private institutions that carry weight in that State really want to have themselves exposed to the type of game that has been played against the Church? And would the taxpayers like to have billions in public monies distributed to allegants on the same type of flimsy presentations as we see in the Stampede?
Do those institutions or the taxpayers there really want to be turned into a piñata like the Church has become?
How about sending us a photo of yourself, so we can make a pinata of you. I guess a Bozo with a big head will suffice. To claim your church is picked on is ridiculous, and your cult deserves more scrutiny than it has received, seeing that they're plagued with lying deceivers, who will go to all extremes to keep their crimes hidden from society.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 537PM:
In opposing the Bill the Church merely joins a large swath of public and private institutions (including those run by the State itself) who realize the short-term and long-term and fundamental dangers that such toying around with the SOLs can create.
To repeat: none of them want to find themselves down-range from a Stampede, such has happened to the Church.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 537PM:
Of course, in order to suit his own agenda and personal Cartoon, ‘Dan’ can only allow one explanation for the veto: the Church – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – is “filed with pedophile and pervert creeps and their enablers” and, of course, liars and “hypocrites” and – nicely – “creeps”.
There are no doubt some “pedophile and pervert creeps” on the loose in that State and every State, perhaps even hiding themselves as being a “servant of God”. But that’s so obvious as to be almost a truism.
And then this Paragon/Servant of “love and truth” launches into another familiar riff against the Church.
And in regard to that the point made in the “P.S.”: clearly one or several judges had the same idea about at least one of those “perverts” and “creeps” being “locked up”, even if “love and truth” would thereby perhaps lose the services of one of its more excitable ‘servants’.
So we have now reached a new low in the Cartoon-Time of a publyin' hypocrite. For you to insinuate that I'm a pedophile, pervert or creep, is absolutely wicked and evil, Son of Satan. Slither your way back into the cesspool you've crawled from, you sick, hypocritical creep. What nerve, when you belong to the biggest gathering of pedophiles and perverts worldwide. Don't give me any of your weak excuses.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1043PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to stitch-together a simulacrum of a rational objection by inquiring – in the accents of a perplexed Goody-Two-Shoes – just how any allegant would “give ‘evidence, explanations, or rational explications’” when faced with “lying hypocrites, filing a false citizen’s arrest” … ?
First, we can’t really characterize those arrests as “false” since a) we have no corroboration or other information and must rely merely on the credibility, reliability, and truthiness of ‘Dan’ – and how far will that take us, really?
Second, his own material indicates that on the basis of the charges or claims proffered in support and explication of those arrests, the judge(s) saw fit to send ‘Dan’ for psychiatric observation and did so a number of times.
And here we go with more repititions of your same repititions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1043PM:
Third, and once again, it is clear from his material here that to ‘Dan’ merely asserting (however repetitively and “exhaustingly”) that something is nothing but “lies” somehow constitutes proving or demonstrating persuasively that the said something is indeed nothing but “lies”.
‘Dan’s rather serious misconception in this regard might however contain a method in the madness: his misconception/presumption here enables him to evade any actual consideration of his claims by merely donning the Wig of Exasperated Truthiness: I keep telling you – he would have us believe – that it’s all lies and what more do you need to know? Thus anyone who keeps asking for actual corroborative information can only be a) ignorant and stupid or b) evilly deceptive or c) both. Neato.
But it’s a bit clearly built on sand and nothing more.
You don't believe anything I've truthfully told you from the priest or my sister. And my sister did question why I was having these problems with your cult of liars. Once she received the priest's answer she's never questioned your hypocrite cronies again. If I was to send you "corroborative information", it would only be cases from lying priests, nuns, one youth pastor and lying witnesses of your cult of hypocrites. To add your evil lies and slander to the mix is terribly disingenuous, and that's why I consider you an ignorant, stupid creep. "Neato" peewee.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1043PM:
And he also then tries to run another old Abusenik scam: I was there / you weren’t / therefore I know and you don’t.
But first, the mere fact of ‘Dan’s word that his claim is veracious and accurate hardly constitutes corroborative evidence and proof.
And second, the very facts as ‘Dan’ has ‘reported’ them give more than ample basis for a far more probable explanation (i.e. he’s not altogether well and his presence and actions – especially around children – greatly disturb adults) than his preferred Cartoon explanation (i.e. he’s perfectly normal and sane and just happens to frequently keep running into liars and thugs and hypocrites who want to ruin his day for no good reason at all while he’s in the process of delivering a “beautiful prophecy”).
Readers may judge as they will.
Your last sentence after the word Cartoon is spot on and I must say you finally made one correct assessment. Only thing missing is you purposely left out "catholic" when mentioning "liars and thugs and hypocrites". I've learned these words are becoming synonymous with being catholic. Maybe your cult can add them to their other pagan titles of nothingness. servant of God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1043PM:
By the same token, we have nothing to corroborate the bit about his sister and her alleged phone conversation with the pastor. But even if it were true, then the mere fact that his sister felt compelled to call the pastor to ascertain if ‘Dan’ had said anything “bad” to the children is thought-provoking all on its own.
And if the pastor later acknowledged the reality that he wasn’t actually present at the schoolyard fence, then that would simply undermine the claim that ‘Dan’ had said “nothing bad”. And if the pastor weren’t actually present, then how would his acknowledgement of that fact somehow demonstrate that he “became the typical catholic hypocrite lying priest”?
I would venture that if ‘Dan’ entertained any thoughts of suing for slander, that gambit would not have gotten very far in the legal process or surely at trial.
I answered your "thought-provoking" insinuation at 8:49pm. Also let me add, my sister and family never questioned me ever again, once they heard that the priest was an outright liar, changing his story to protect your cult's 'spotless' reputation. I would love to have my sister corroborate evidence of the phone conversation, but I'd never subject my little sister near a lying creep like yourself, internet or not.
As to the pastor "simply undermin[ing] the claim", only proves him to be a liar, because when she called, he told her he witnessed what transpired. Stop acting so stupid, or is it just not an act. I had a great case if the pastor wasn't a liar, he would be a perfect witness, if only you could trust catholic hierarchy. With your added nonsense, I'm starting not to trust any of you, aside from my family and friends I personally know. See, you've accomplished something, Deceiver of the Devil.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1043PM:
So ‘Dan’ is correct in figuring that his asserted bits proffered here “will not be enough for” me.
But they are not “enough for” me because his own material either contradicts itself or contains within it more than enough material that establishes possible or probable explanations that differ from his own preferred explanations.
And so far ‘Dan’ has countered none of what he prefers (or needs) to characterize as my “lies and slanders”; he has merely repeated his unsupported assertions that they are “lies and slander”, when even his own material undermines those repeated and unsupported assertions, as I have pointed out whenever I assessed various bits of his material.
And maybe it’s time that ‘Dan’ buckles down to some serious study … of himself.
They're never "enough for" you, because you'll insist on lying to muddy the pool with your ignorance. You're "possible or probable explanations that differ from [my] own preferred explanations", are nothing but lies, and I do prefer the truth. What ever bits you bring to the table, to guess what you prefer to have happened are absolutely incorrect, and yet you continue on with your repetitive nonsense, as if it's become truth. There's not contradictions in my material, there's only contradictions to your lying assessments, which you insist on nauseatingly adding to, in order push the agenda of your creepy, perverted cult, to falsely accuse the innocent in order to keep eyes off of you weirdos. Well ain't that "Neato", little peewee. Maybe time you go back to studying your pagan cult of idolators and their lust for little boys, or possibly you've already experienced it first-hand.
And now to JR’s of the 3RD at 1225PM:
Donning the Wig of Outraged Innocence he has strung together a string of bits that don’t cohere.
I don’t ask questions of JR “or any victim here”?
And it is their own material that puts their “veracity into question”. Surely in regard to JR’s own material, it is the material itself that threw his veracity into question, with the results now in the record here.
How would I put my own veracity into question? If any Abusenik wanted to question my material as I question their material, then if I were unable to make sufficient response that would throw my veracity into question. The “veracity” is in the material or it is not.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1225PM:
And if this is somehow just another bit trying to get back to the ‘name’ thing, then I simply remind him that the way it works in Western law is this: X makes an accusation, then X has to prove that the accusation is accurate. The burden of proof is not on the accused (which is at best Stalinist legal praxis) but on the accuser.
Thus to say – as JR has recently – that ‘I say you are such and such/ prove you are not’ is a gambit not of the Western legal universe at all.
But it is a gambit very congenial-to and necessary-for Victimist law, which should have been from the get-go a clear warning that something alien and hostile to Western law had begun to infiltrate Western law.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1225PM:
I am most interested in what Abuseniks “know” and even what they “think” – if thinking it be; though I won’t be sidetracked by what they “feel”).
Readers may judge for themselves, however, whether Abusenik material seeks to impart “knowledge” or at least open credible avenues of inquiry into the Catholic Abuse Matter. Or whether it simply tries to manipulate to its own advantage by any means necessary.
As, for example, when JR concludes with an epithetical shot based on – had you been waittttinggg forrrr itttttt? – the sayings of Jesus (picked up, perhaps, from reading those ‘Dan’-grams).
Apparently, however, insisting on credible and persuasive material from Abuseniks is – as far as JR sees it – an insistence upon ‘complete capitulation”. Meaning, it would seem, that to provide credible and persuasive material is – to the Abusenik mind – a complete surrender and “capitulation”. And why would that be?
On the 4th at 901PM JR tries to cover his confusing stuff by epithet, specifically that if one can’t figure his stuff out, then one can only be – tah dahhhhhh! – a “low I.Q.’d deviate”. Ovvvvv coursssssse.
And then he tries again with the only shtick left: why do I “hide”? My ideas and thoughts and concepts are in the record here, and rather voluminously.
But as I said, JR – like all sly agitprop types – isn’t interested in ideas and thoughts and concepts at all, and perhaps wisely so, since their actual position is rather weak in that department. Not my problem.
Thus too, though, we see again the essential JR. But perhaps that’s no longer a surprise to many readers.
And as I have said (which JR chooses – and necessarily so, perhaps – to ignore): I keep the focus on issues and ideas and concepts because I realized early on that what we are dealing with in the Stampede is precisely the type of agitprop that seeks to evade issues and concepts and ideas by any means necessary. And also because if one frustrates Abuseniks in their little plots and plans, then sooner or later the victim-y, Goody-Two-Shoes façade is ripped aside as the snarling nasty (and genuinely sociopathic) agitprop core bursts out. And in this, surely, I have had some success.
On then to JR’s of the 4th at 906PM:
He tries a new tack, sort of: “How do we know you’re telling the truth?”.
Sly, but it fails. Because I make few assertions – if any at all – which readers must take on merely my ‘word’ or claim to be telling the truth. I have raised many questions, pointed out improbabilities and probabilities, all based on the material everyone can read here for themselves.
Nobody needs to consider whether I am “telling the truth” since I don’t make assertions and claims that would require their belief. My thoughts are explained, as are the conclusions I make and how I arrive at them. From that point, any reader may consider for him/herself if my logic and conclusions make sense and are persuasive or at least point at avenues for further thought.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 906PM:
JR’s present great agitation is the result of nothing more than examining an assertion he frequently and loudly asserted as truth / and from material he himself provided then discovering that his assertion could not be objectively true. I didn’t call him a liar; he gave his own game away.
And thus now we also see that the use of one’s name doesn’t do much at all to guarantee veracity and accuracy and reliability, viz. the case of the formerly-child-raped here.
The truth is in the material, not in the name.
And as we thus have seen in JR’s case, the truth most surely is not connected to the name.
On June 1st, JR says "Malcolm, it's swell hearing about your imaginary friends and enemies." He was being cynical. But will use my imagination to convey something about our human nature.
I imagine going back centuries, and see a mob of villagers dragging a screaming woman to a pond. I demand to know what is going on?. They say she is a witch, and must be drowned, to protect their kids."anybody who protects witches must be a witch themselves"…..they shout at me. Hence JR saying anybody who protects the civil rights of accused child molesters… must be themselves child molesters. It's sort of going backwards…. to rough justice.
Witches don't have magic powers. Witches were persecuted for no good reason because what ever damage was done and blamed on the witches was not true.
The consequences of clerical or any child abuse also has damages but our victims
Malcolm, are we comparing similar things. I'm not willing to say, "anybody who protects the civil rights of accused child molesters… must be themselves child molesters". But anyone who attempts to justify or make excuses for guilty child molesters, or try to claim some 'victims' are frauds, insinuating that most or all cases are frauds, is one disingenuous, deceiving, miserable creep. I can't understand why anyone would be so ignorant or stupid.
Witches don't have magic powers. Witches were persecuted for no good reason because what ever damage was done and blamed on the witches was not true.
The consequences of clerical or any child abuse also has damages but our victims damages aren't caused from an imaginary demon. they are caused by very real people who by sexualizing children for their needs harms that child for a lifetime.It's that the sex act is used like a weapon against the safety of that child's inner life The greatest pain for us is: the social dystopia caused by being selected against your will and the law to be a grownup's cum rag.
Imagine your childhood with that little gift added and who would you be? How would you look at life after that?
And on to ‘Dan’ most recent crop.
On the 4th at 1146PM we merely get a further demonstration of his usual gambit, a combination of a) I’m Not/You Are and b) mere epithets.
And c) no quotations from me to demonstrate his epithetical attempts to mimic explication or explanation. Thus his bit “considered by you deceivers to be innocent” is not supported with any quote of mine because I never said it.
What, then, is going on here? I would say: ‘Dan’ has to presume all this in order to keep his Cartoon going / his Cartoon is necessary to keep his Cartoon-universe together, especially the ‘self’ bits to the effect that he is merely i) a specially-chosen spout of God’s Thought and Word ii) who is only speaking “beautiful prophecy” and truth to whatever he has glommed onto as the repository of all evil / without his Cartoon he would have to face his actual issues / his actual issues are evidenced by the fact – visible throughout this crop of comments here – that he sees those issues everywhere except in himself, especially in the Church, which for him has become the living repository of all of those issues.
Everyone else is repetitious, yet you use "Cartoon" 4 times in one long sentence or one short paragraph. Notice when your stuff is weak and assessments nonsense, you revert back to your sad mockery of God, always going deeper into your cesspool. Publyin's Cartoon Time.
P.S. Quoted enough of your BS and lies. Go find the quotes yourself.
On the 5th at 803PM we see ‘Dan’s running of a gambit we’ve already seen from JR.
Readers may recall JR’s ‘logic’ to the effect that if the head of SNAP and Bishop-Accountability are still practicing Catholics then that (somehow) proves that SNAP and B-A are simply tools of the Church.
Here ‘Dan’ will run the same bit in regard to the Governor of CA, an ex-Jesuit seminarian from the long-ago: he was once (for a short while) a seminarian, so therefore … what? And even here ‘Dan’ gives it away with that “can” – a subjunctive which is congenial to insinuation but also limits Dan’s bit here to being merely another effort at insinuation.
But this gambit has another useful benny and creates some method in the madness: on the basis of his insinuation, ‘Dan’ can then insist that anyone who doesn’t ‘see’ what he ‘sees’ must clearly be “ignorant and naïve”.
Just as anyone who doesn’t buy a) ‘Dan’s self-presentation as special spout of God and b) all the rest of his assertions, stories, claims, accusations and epithets … must either be “ignorant and naïve” or else obstinately evil. Neato. But – to use the colloquial – also whacko.
Totally agree to your being "also whacko". Well stated, Mr. Mocker of anything good.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 803PM:
And we also see his insupportable bit about Statutes of Limitation being a) only of interest to the Church which b) requires the presumption that any newly-claimed allegations of abuse resulting from a weakening of the Statutes of Limitations would be reliable and veracious and accurate.
And I would also point out that anyone could at this point go to the media with an allegation/story, regardless of any Statute-of-Limitations strictures. The fact that the some media interests are plumping for a weakening of the Statutes of Limitations indicates that there is more going on behind the scenes: specifically, that i) the torties would like more Abuse cases since business is falling off in that area , and to bring the cases and lawsuits the torties need the Statutes of Limitations gotten out of the way; and that ii) the stories – absent the aura of veracity provided by an actual legal status (i.e. as a lawsuit) – might at this point receive more skeptical scrutiny that would – as we have seen on this site – expose them in all their dubious bits and weaknesses.
On the 5th at 813PM ‘Dan’ merely tries more epitheticals.
But he also claims that “to claim that your church is picked on is ridiculous”. On what basis does he dismiss the thought that the Church is specifically the focus of a campaign against a phenomenon that is otherwise rather universal?
He proffers no basis for his dismissal. And yet in the CA Bill, which actually opens up the SOL-weakening to cover a much broader range of institutions, public and private (rather than simply weakening the SOLs in specifically Church-related allegations), we see that the Governor of a large and generally ‘liberal’ State vetoes the Bill – for reasons about which I surmised a few comments back on this thread.
And as for “scrutiny”, we have seen just how certain types here respond when their own stuff is given some “heightened scrutiny”.
Let us define some simple catholic terms-
catholic truth – Lie and deceive whenever necessary for the good of our 'True' church.
"heightened scrutiny" – Pile on more lies and label it assessing, thinking that since our brain- washed sheep fall for it, so will the rest of the population.
catholic confession – Sin as much as you like, go to a pedophile or perverted priest to confess, and surely you'll be forgiven by him, for he thinks he's going to be forgiven for his disgusting sins. Then follow our lead, repeat the same sins even more and we'll guide you straight to catholic heaven, to feed the flames.
catholic salvation – Pray the rosary until the heathen repetitive prayers make your head go pop, and that big bang will propel you straight into mary's arms, "Queen of Heaven", as she morphs into Santa Muerte, "Queen of the Dead", who you worshipped all along.
In regard to ‘Dan’s huffy comment of the 5th at 825PM:
I have not ‘insinuated’ anything. I have pointed out the clear clinical possibilities – and even probabilities – that are raised by ‘Dan’s own sustained and global and totalizing focus on certain aspects which also appear in his own material, in regard to his obsessions, his own ways of casting and thinking and expressing his material, his actions and his history and his efforts to explain them away, and his epitheticals.
Readers may consider it all as they will. But I have not ‘insinuated’ anything. I have pointed out what lies not far beneath the surface in his own material.
You haven't pointed out anything except lies and slander against anyone exposing the truth in regards to your cult of sick perverts, pedophiles, deceivers and their excusers. Anyone believing publyin's garbage would have to be more ignorant and stupid than him. Tell me that's even possible. You're a lying creep and should stop your foolishness.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 849PM:
No, I don’t simply or merely “believe anything” that ‘Dan’ has told me “from the priest or [‘Dan’s] sister”.
First, after everything we’ve seen here there’s no way to presume credibility when it comes to ‘Dan’s stuff.
Second, even the story as he tells it contains problematic elements and I have pointed those out.
And once again, after the epithetical riff we get – marvelously – that queasy but self-revelatory “peewee” bit.
On the 5th at 907PM ‘Dan’ merely gives us another example of my point that his intense and totalizing focus on the Church indicates dynamics within himself: he actually points out that I omitted “catholic”, as if there are only “catholic” instances of “liars” and so forth.
No, it's just that catholics have the market cornered when it comes to "liars" and let's not forget creeps and thugs, "and so forth". You being the perfect example, although I think you're to cowardly to be a thug, maybe just a wanna-be.
On the 5th at 934PM ‘Dan’ will once again try to insist that he has indeed “answered” anything at all.
He put up his material, I put up my material, and readers may consider and judge as they will.
And then tries to bolster that by again – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – giving us more story bits about his sister and his family. After his numerous misadventures with courts and psychiatric observation, perhaps his family has given up on trying to deal with his issues; or perhaps he comes from a family where this type of behavior and its consequent misadventures are par for the course.
But in any case – even from the story as ‘Dan’ has related it here about the pastor and his sister – the pastor wasn’t there (one of ‘Dan’s favorite points) and thus what did he actually know? Any ‘testimony’ he gave would have been disqualified as hearsay.
And as for his ultimately epithetical bit about his sister coming onto this site: how would we know who was posting? It could as easily be ‘Dan’ using a female name and perhaps wearing a wig.
More stupidity? You criticized my spiritually gifted, disabled friend, my sister, mocked me and God, and now feel the need to mess with my family. Is this what your catholic cult teaches? You're nothing but a worm, a slimy, disgusting, dead one.
Continuing with Dan’s of the 5th at 934PM:
‘Dan’ now changes things and claims that the pastor not only answered the sister’s inquiry as to whether (this time?) ‘Dan’ had said anything “bad” to the children, but also told her that he indeed had been there. That point should have been easy enough to establish at the outset, since in the eidesis of the script that ‘Dan’ has constructed about the schoolyard incident he could have pointed that out quite a while ago here but never did and only changes his story now.
Which doesn’t do much for his credibility.
As to whether ‘Dan’ “had a great case” if only the pastor hadn’t … what? Claimed in court and under oath that he wasn’t there when he was, in front of witnesses?
And ‘Dan’ will now conclude by trying to run the old I’m Not/You Are bit: he is now “starting not to trust me”. On what basis? On the basis of my analysis of his ever-changing plastic stories?
More manipulating, more twisting, more stupidity, more publyin'.
The exact quote was, "I'm starting not to trust any of you." You, publyin', I have not trusted from the start. Habitual liars can never be trusted, and you have demonstrated nothing to the contrary. You're false accusations of my story changing is just more of the same, twisting and manipulating lies, something you seem proud to continue, aside from your insistent mocking.
The habitual liar is questioning my credibility. Oh! That's precious. Look back at 6/3 @ 10:43pm to see that the priest "changed his story and said he wasn't present". You and your hierarchy of liars are the only ones lacking any credibility.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1106PM:
He bleats that his stuff is “never ‘enough’” for me because – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – I will “insist on lying to muddy the pool with [my] ignorance”. And we’ve seen this bit so many times before.
And again he dismisses the problems I have pointed out by merely asserting – and we can take his word for it – that my points are “nothing but lies” (as the formerly-child-raped until recently used to say about my analysis of his allegation of child-rape).
As to the assertion that ‘Dan’ doth most surely “prefer the truth” … readers may judge as they will.
And publyin's "doth most surely 'prefer the [lie]' … readers may judge as they will." Guilty would be right.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1106PM:
And he continues along, merely proffering his repeated insistence that my points are “nonsense” because – doncha see? – “there’s not contradictions in [his] material” but only “contradictions” in my material (as in I’m Not/You Are).
Might ‘Dan actually proffer with an accurate quote any “contradictions” in my assessments? Nope, he doesn’t.
And again with the “peewee” bit and the rest of his sustained attraction to the terms such as “creepy”, “perverted” and “weirdos” and “lust for little boys”. And all this from somebody who has effectively made himself a religion (or “cult”) of one.
Concluding it all by borrowing a gambit from JR: “possibly [I’ve] experienced it first-hand”. When they’ve got nothing else, epithetical insinuation is what Abuseniks will ever reliably fall back on.
Everything I give you, you contradict with lies, that you label assessments. Your a rotten psychologist. if you think you are one. And I guess anyone dumb enough to mock the Creator, is stupid enough to think he can assess a person by twisting facts. You're some idiot, and I don't even know why I answer you back, aside from exposing your "nonsense".
And as far as my "sustained attraction to the terms such as "creepy", "perverted" and "weirdos", [and don't forget 'pedophiles'], and "lust for little boys", these are terms perfectly describing your cult of ungodly freaks. What do you prefer, that I lie about you creeps instead?
Publion is a child molester at worst; or a child molester enabler at best. So, Dan why even talk to him? We know what he is. If the people who read his posts don't know what he is? Then they are as evil as he.
In his reply (the 6th at 1148PM) to ‘Malcolm Harris’ ‘Dan’ gives us more examples of how he deceptively (and I would say deviously) appears to make a rational and logical statement while actually not doing so at all.
On the one hand a) ‘Dan’ piously asserts that he is “not willing to say” that anyone protecting the civil rights accused child molesters “must themselves be child molesters”. So far so good.
But on the other hand b) ‘Dan’ instantly then undermines that by claiming that “anyone who attempts to justify or make excuses for guilty child molesters, or try to claim some ‘victims’ are frauds, insinuating that most or all cases are frauds” … and the familiar epithets continue more baldly from there.
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1148PM:
Looking more specifically at the (b) quotation:
Who here would try or has tried to “justify” such “guilty child molesters”? ‘Dan’ doesn’t say, either because he can’t actually claim anyone here has or because he figures his sly attempt at insinuation here will do his dirty work for him.
For that matter, to which “guilty child molesters” does he refer? Or is this just a general blanket term deployed to pass-for some presumed fact?
Certainly we have discovered an actual case of fraudulent misstatement here recently, and surely ‘Dan’s ever-plastic claims provide the high probability of a second instance (or many multiple instances, if you wish).
Nor have I ‘insinuated’ that “all cases are frauds”. Rather I have pointed out a number of elements that lead to what I have said is a high-probability that fraud can exist, which is why such claims, stories and allegations require heightened-scrutiny from any reader.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1037PM:
This comment of his demonstrates a rather heavy-handed and obvious attempt at I’m Not/You Are: since I am discussing the characteristics of ‘Dan’s material (which rather consistently deploys merely the same old talking points) then it is I who am “repetitious”.
This is the equivalent of a patient with obsessive-compulsive disorder telling a doctor that the doctor’s discussion of the patient’s condition seems repetitiously obsessed with obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Or – to capture the characterological dynamics involved – an addict telling an addiction counselor that the counselor’s discussion of the addict’s condition seems rather obsessively repetitious in regard to addiction. (Which, neatly, might also imply that the addict isn’t really addicted at all, and instead that the addict is merely and by the workings of mere unfortunate happenstance confronted with an addiction-obsessed counselor.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1037PM:
But – as attentive readers may have already noted for themselves – the bottom line of the whole scam in this 1037PM comment is in the “P.S.”: ‘Dan’ preferreth not to provide any actual quotes from my material that would support his assertions and claims and I can – had you been waittttingggggggg forrrrrr ittttttt? – “go find the quotes [my]self”.
This bit reveals a long-standing (and probably essential) element of Abusenik and agitprop tactics: they are more than happy to go on and on riffing about their plop-tossy and vivid accusations and claims and assertions and epithets, but if you ask them for supporting or corroborative material they are suddenly too busy or too insulted to have to do other people’s homework for them.
If you don’t buy their stuff right off, then – doncha see? – by that very act of questioning you don’t deserve to have their proof and/or corroborative material in the first place. This is the old shell game.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1111PM:
‘Dan’ will here try to “define” terms. A very proper and vital step in any rational inquiry.
Except the scam here (and with ‘Dan’ there is always a sly scam) is that ‘Dan’ merely defines terms the way he wants to define them (in the Dictionary of the Dan-verse).
His abiding objective in all of these scams is to inveigle or manipulate or seduce readers into the bubble of the Dan-verse.
But he has to. Because he himself is trapped in that bubble; or rather he cannot leave the bubble that he has created for himself because if he did, and had to face actualities about himself, his head would explode. This is, as I have said before, the Big Bang that created the Dan-verse in the first place, long ago.
And the same dynamic operates for the Abuseniks and their Stampede-verse.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1120PM:
Thus, too, he will evade my points by merely wishing them away as nothing “except lies and slander against anyone exposing the truth in regard to” … and the usual epithets roll on from there.
In the script he has constructed for himself (or Himself) here – which is similar to Abusenik efforts – he (or He) becomes the heroic and truthy truth-teller (and Servant and Prophet and Chosen and what-have-you).
And thus – also very neatly and economically – that casts anyone who doubts the stuff as being … (fill in the blank with any selection of the usual epitheticals).
And the comment concludes, of course, with another epithetical riff.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1129PM:
I am now taken to task for impugning various entities or characters from his stories that – for all we know – are as real as the Easter Bunny.
The maxims of competent inquiry – especially in light of ‘Dan’s oft-and-continuing demonstrations of unreliability and non-veracity – require me to question his stories and stuff. He doesn’t like that. Not my problem.
And we note as well the abiding and sly effort to cast himself as the ‘victim’ of outrageous things.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1132PM:
Merely more efforts to evade and wish-away my material and points.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1142PM:
He heads for the victim-y high ground again by now trying to paint himself as having his ‘gifts’ (i.e. “everything I give you”) rejected (and – of course – he cawn’t think why … unless it be due to evil or ignorance and stupidity).
Readers may consider the quality of my psychological thoughts as they may. And since ‘Dan’ claims that he was rarely if ever examined by any clinical staffers in his six or so court-ordered stays in mental-health facilities, are we then to expect that ‘Dan’ somehow picked up some psychological or psychiatric chops while he was hanging around there? Or perhaps when he wrote a 50-page term paper on evolution in the eighth grade (as he once ‘gifted’ us by asserting here) he also whomped up a similar opus on clinical diagnostics.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1030AM:
Here he will now try a different evasive maneuver: he has never really “trusted” me “from the start” – because, apparently, he knew “from the start” that it was I who was the “habitual liar” around here.
I would say that “from the start” ‘Dan’ – necessarily a habitual liar in order to preserve the Cartoon of the Dan-verse – came primed to this site (as to any site) looking for any such “habitual liar” upon whom to project his own lack of veracity and his manipulative efforts to seduce anyone he could into the bubble of the Dan-verse.
Thus, if you question any of his stuff, then you must be a “habitual liar” and all the rest of the epithets.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 112PM:
Here he will simply try to evade the rather vivid problem of his relentlessly preferred terms of discourse, analysis, and epithet by merely claiming that his preferred terms “are terms perfectly describing” Catholicism. Rather than “perfectly describing” himself (or Himself).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 735PM:
He now affects the Wig of Bemused Amusement that I (having already been categorized as “the habitual liar”) “is questioning [‘Dan’s] credibility”.
And – marvelously – to do so he merely refers us back to one of the plastic elements in his ever-evolving schoolyard story as if that demonstrated … anything but the sly and queasy plasticity of his claims and stories and accusations.
And he never has gotten around to addressing the point I raised when discussing other instances of self-appointed “prophets of God” in the national news recently: why pick on school kids when one might deliver one’s “beautiful prophecies” to adults?
Perhaps because the school kids can’t make a citizens’ arrest or escape; or perhaps – and hardly implausibly – schools with their many kids are somehow a more attractive venue to such types.
Readers may ponder such things as they may.
Trying to talk sense to a habitual liar, I've come to realize is absolutely impossible. All the information I've given in regards to what happened at the school, has been nothing but the truth. The more given to you, the more you add your disgusting lies, claiming it's your questioning or assessment. My friend received one today that fits you and your cult to perfection. You'll make more false claims that I made it up, but I'll just let the Lord's Word speak for itself. You can wish I wrote it, but there will come a time when you suffer the consequences, knowing then that it truly was the God's Word.
On June 9, at 1.06pm, Publion wonders why 'Dan' doesn't take his "beautiful prophesies" to a wider adult audience, instead of school kids in a schoolyard. Well… I am immediately reminded of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. His audience was impressionable children, and he succeeded in casting a spell on them, didn't he? Although the outcome for those children was not good….so the story goes. They were led to their doom by his seductive music. His motive was believed to be revenge…. over an alleged wrong done to him. So I wonder what Dan's story really is?… and whether he is engaged in payback?.
I thought the children were led into the rock candy mountain by the Piper not to their "doom". When the entrance closed the crippled child was left behind weeping wishing she/he could get in the mountain.
P's Mini-Me, What is wrong with you sick, disgusting catholics? You have no shame? Who will you compare me to next, Jeffrey Dahmer? Googled "Pied Piper of Hamelin" in Wiki. Strange how stained glass windows dedicated to him were placed in churches. He led RATS-zingers out of town. A painting of him in 1592, depicts him dressed almost exactly how the pope's swiss guard clowns are arrayed in jesters outfits. "Pied Piper was a psychopathic paedophile". There were many legends to the story, averaging his abduction of 125 to 160 children. This surely depicts the pedophile creeps of your cult, one priest at a time, molesting hundreds of deaf, dumb, blind, disabled or simply outcasts of families. And you two creeps are just as disgusting, making excuses for these sexually deranged perverts, while pointing the finger at the innocent, hoping you can fool your brain-washed, dumb sheep into believing everyone else is perverted, like you. Disingenuous, lying creeps! My God will get his revenge on you despicable liars. servant of the Almighty
And by the way, the one and only prophecy I had to school children was well over 7 years ago, and I haven't returned to that church since. The message of love from the Lord shall live on in the disgusting minds of you fools, as something evil. Well done, creeps. Like I told you both before, if God sends His prophets to proclaim His message, it's not up to you to question where He sends you. You don't know the story of Jonah and what happened to him when he refused to prophecy against Nineveh? Only you "Know-It-Alls" think you know better than God, and can deceive as much as you please, and think you'll get away with it.
True Christians don't seek "payback". "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Romans 12:19 It's not for a Christian to seek revenge. I get the idea that you think the things I say is some sort of revenge against your church, when really it's a warning to change your stubborn ways, but I don't see much chance of that happening. IMHO
The Lord says, "I want people to love each other, not hate one another.
I want them to have calm days and not stressful days, like the world always dishes out.
I want them to tell the truth, and not lie about anything.
I hear your lies and you will never get away with it, don't you understand that by now.
I want them to be strong in Me, because the world will only make you weak, if you keep depending on it.
I want them to start reading My word, instead of the nonsense the world likes to read.
I want them to trust in Me, more than ever, to keep living in the Word and not depending on what the world says." This is the Word of the Lord
Any true believers will hear this and know this is not written by man. Trust in God and read His Word. Liars and pagan cults will try to convince you that they'll interpret the Word for you, so you won't see how poorly they follow the Word. In Romans chapter 1, Paul explains how they turn to false gods and goddesses (idolatry), and God gave them over to do every disgusting and indecent thing. They are evil, wicked and greedy, perverts and pedophile pigs, gossips, conceited, stupid, unreliable (liars) and without love. Read Romans 1: 18-32
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 725PM:
I had made a number of points in my most recent comments on this thread. How does ‘Dan’ deal with all of them?
Easy-peezy: he dons the Wig of Honest Exasperation and doth bleat – back of hand to forehead – that “trying to talk sense to a habitual liar … is absolutely impossible”. How often that thought has occurred to me, although I believe that the moral connotations of “habitual liar” have to be tempered, in ‘Dan’s case, with some serious questions as to psychological issues. All of which I have explicated in comments here and at length.
Thus his evasive dismissal of all my material as being merely the product of his evasively dismissive characterization of me as “a habitual liar”. And we’ve been over all this bit of his before here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 725PM:
And then he adds the slyly manipulative and deceptive characterizations of his stuff as “information”. Readers may well consider to what extent they consider themselves accurately and sufficiently and veraciously informed about either ‘Dan’s six misadventures with police, courts and psychiatry or this (as best can be determined) seventh incident at the schoolyard fence.
While claiming that the points I raise about the problems with his story (or various versions of the story) are merely “disgusting lies”. In the ‘Dan’-verse, if he has merely repeated the epithet “lies” often enough in regard to some material, then he has ‘proven’ that the material is indeed “lies”.
Nor, actually, have I made many – if any at all – assertions that could be judged as “lies” or not. I have pointed out problems, and proffered what seem to me far more credible possibilities or probabilities. But I have made few assertions, if any at all. My purpose is to analyze and point out problems; that type of thing doesn’t even rise to the question of “lies” or not “lies”.
But what else has he got, really?
"Credible possibilities or probabilities" that are untrue, can be spun and manipulated into what you claim are assessments, but when it comes down to it, your ignorant observations are truly nothing but "lies".
"Nor, actually, have I made many – if any at all – assertions that could be judged as 'lies' or not." I recall the same type of language when your making excuses for your pedophile pervert friends. Something to the effect of - it's questionable if "many - if any at all" – accusations were accurate or veracious. Where's the quote? As previously noted, you want it - you find it. I know your struggles remembering and researching – like the fact that I've told you a few times – 6 times in jail – 6 times in psyche wards. 6 + 6 = 12+ false accusations and "lies" by priests, nuns, pastors and hypocrites. Read again the Biblical fulfillment in Matthew 5 called the Beatitudes. "God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. Be happy about it! Be very glad! for a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, they persecuted the prophets who came before you in the same way." Matthew 5: 11-12 Still think the Bible doesn't back me up? Then you must be totally ignorant. Mock on!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 725PM:
Thus I have not made “false claims”. While ‘Dan’ has made nothing but “claims” and readers may judge for themselves to what extent his claims are “false”.
And he then concludes his comment by dragging the authority of God into it, and uttering assorted threats along the ‘God’ll getcha for that’ line.
Dead fish wrapped in prestigious newspapers are still dead fish. Baloney wrapped in pages torn from the Bible is still baloney.
Brilliance from someone full of balogny and as smart as a dead fish. Still mocking, are we?