Together against the Church: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editor-in-chief Gilbert Bailon (l)
and David Clohessy, National Director of SNAP (r)
After years of haranguing the Catholic Church over its alleged "lack of transparency" in its handling of abuse cases, David Clohessy, the national director of the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, is again not only defying a federal judge's orders to hand over important documents in the case of a falsely accused priest, but he is also now orchestrating a fraudulent media campaign about it.
As we have reported before, Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang has filed a federal lawsuit against his accusers, SNAP, and members of the St. Louis police department for publicly and wrongfully accusing him of being a child molester.
After SNAP openly defied two court orders directing them to turn over important documents in its possession, Fr. Jiang's lawyers are now asking the court to sanction SNAP for its contumacious refusal to obey the court's discovery orders.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch promoting SNAP's lies
Bravely fighting back:
Rev. Joseph Jiang
In truth, there is no "painful, intimate details" or "suffering" in this case, and SNAP knows this.
Clohessy is desperately trying to dupe the public into believing that the court's order seeks to publicly divulge the names of abuse victims and violate their privacy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Jiang already knows the names of his accusers, and he has already proposed to redact any unrelated third-party names in the documents.
And the obvious reason that Clohessy does not want to reveal SNAP's communications is that they would likely uncover the fact that the abuse claims against Fr. Jiang are completely bogus and that SNAP knowingly defamed Fr. Jiang. They would also likely uncover the sordid relationship between SNAP and plaintiffs' contingency lawyers.
So in its effort to avoid complying with the court orders against them and sway public opinion, SNAP turned to the always-willing media to advance its phony story line. Naturally, the bleary-eyed gang at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch were more than eager to oblige.
[***Click to read Fr. Jiang's motion to sanction SNAP (court docs)***]
Kowtowing to SNAP, the Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier and Valerie Shremp Hahn published apologia articles (1, 2) for SNAP's refusal to obey the law, and then the paper's editorial board chimed in with a painfully biased editorial that dutifully echoed SNAP's media talking points.
It was obvious that either SNAP itself or SNAP lawyer/contributor Ken Chackes – or both – provided information to the paper's editors for its attack on the Church and Fr. Jiang, as the editorial, with its one-sided presentation of past cases and events, read more like a press release from SNAP than any kind of even-keeled analysis. And upon the editorial's publication, SNAP then seemingly petitioned a bunch of its wild-eyed "members" from around the country to flood the paper's comments section to cheer on the group's cause.
Yet what was most notably absent from all of the Post-Dispatch's biased reporting was even a scintilla of information from the mountains of evidence that Jiang has obviously been falsely accused. For example:
- "The alleged victim had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse";
- "[The accuser's] parents had a history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain";
- "[The accuser's] fourth-grade teacher indicated that [the accuser] was a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional'";
- The same teacher has stated that it was "virtually impossible" that the abuse took place as claimed;
- "[The accuser] has never had any personal acquaintance with Fr. Joseph, and he could not even identify Fr. Joseph's name when he made the allegation";
- "[A parent of the accuser once] physically assaulted the principal of [a Catholic school] by choking him or her";
- The accusers already have 2 liens and 16 judgments entered against them in other cases, they have avoided service of process, and still other process servers are trying to serve them with even more legal papers.
In other words, the mob at the Post-Dispatch has zero interest in justice and truth in the Jiang case, and it certainly does not care that SNAP's Clohessy – a lawyer-funded zealot who has a long history of bigotry against the Church – is flouting court orders to shine a light on SNAP's activities while perpetually berating the Catholic Church for not being open enough.
SNAP's hypocrisy is off the charts once again.
Same as it ever was.
On then to JR’s of the 16th at 454PM:
For this one, you really do need popcorn.
JR puffs up his pinfeathers to bleat, whine and denounce my description of his actions as sociopathic. His own characterizations of me as a “sociopath” are, however – and had you been waitttinggggg forrr itttt? – “accurately” deployed.
The Wig of Upright Outrage waggles and wobbles on his head as he declaims “Is there no low depth of chicanery to which you will not stoop?” (And he suggests that it is I who need to get a new writer to do my material … when clearly he has engaged the services of somebody who wrote for Sarah Bernhardt.)
But abnormal psychology is not JR’s personal property, although he may in his way be rather immersed in it.
And he riffs on from there … until he ends with a bit of juvenile scatological epithet.
On the 16th at 421PM JR will try to do something to distract from my point in the question “Is this a game?”.
Readers may judge as they will.
On the 16th at 421PM JR raises the utterly irrelevant point that his monies were gained in a “civil suit” and not a “criminal case”. I had said a “legal case”, which covers either civil or criminal.
Whether his point here was lodged through ignorance or design is a mystery any reader so inclined may attempt to solve.
On then to JR’s of the 16th at 401PM:
Here he tries to blame the mess about whether he was or was not raped on – had you been waittttingggg for itttttttttttt? And with popcorn ready? – his own lawyer (the one who got him a million dollar settlement).
Did his lawyer file a Complaint for the lawsuit that would have had to name a specific charge? And what was the charge? Did the lawyer not explain what the charge was (and why, perhaps, it was not, and could not be, a charge of Rape)? Or are we to believe that JR didn’t read the Complaint or take part in the process of formulating a charge based on the experience he claimed to have undergone?
He got a million dollar settlement for having – allegedly – a hand stuck down his pants. And in all of that, the legal charge that formed the basis of his claim and Complaint completely escaped him … because his lawyer didn’t explain it to him? Really?
Thus his “whole truth and nothing but” claim that he merely “erred in my use of the term for me” (another hash of grammar which usually indicates he is up to something) can be neither accurate nor veracious nor “an honest mistake” on his part.
On then to the 16th at 404PM:
As if somehow aware that the foregoing wasn’t really going to do it, he quickly tries to change the subject … to me.
I am (scream-caps omitted) a “perpetrator” because I ‘defend them”. That’s how the Abusenik mind and Playbook work.
I don’t “deny” that abuse happened. I just look at the stories that come along and at the elements of the Stampede, with an eye to coherence and plausibility and probability. My stance – in regard to JR’s claim certainly – has indicated what it has indicated.
As for JR denouncing that I “don’t care for the truth at all” … I can only hope that readers have some popcorn left.
And it ends with the familiar innuendo and insinuation efforts that have been dealt with many times already.
On the 16th at 408PM JR will attempt to wave away the history of the Church’s corporal works of mercy with the historical howler – readers may have needed more popcorn than they realized – that “the Church is early Rome”. No, Rome had existed for centuries before the Church. The entire Republic came and went before the Church appeared.
Readers may consider JR’s historical assertion that the Church is “a direct linear heir to ancient Roman religions” as they may (pausing for fresh popcorn if need be).
And to save space, the 16th at 411PM is just another attempt to run JR’s usual innuendo and insinuation and so forth in order to try to distract from his own substantial veracity problem, which – readers may note – gets worse with every effort he makes to try to re-explain it away.
The church is early Rome with a Jesus veneer. The church inherited the wealth and privilege of the old religions and thanks to Constantine a connection from the state that continued the old religions' powers,politically, in new Christian forms.
Oh! you may think you believe differently than the old faiths and you do, when it comes to talking about your fellow human as if you loved them. All the while imposing guilt where there need be none . You maintain power and position just like the old Empire religions held. You are the continuation of the Roman Empire and you've been it for 1700 years. If you weren't more about power and privilege, then why aren't we having grown-up discussions over the political and moral ramifications of your denial and victims' assertions here? Speaking to each other calmly; kindly.,without bombarding ;relentless; and perfedious attacks ?
We just told you we were fucked with and you blew your tops. Why?
The only people benefiting from your defense of the indefensible are child molesters and the bosses who helped them screw more Catholic kids.
Let me know when you have more evidence that what you say is correct and accurate. So far so very little from you. If P's position is all you've got? You'll need a bit more to turn this in your favor. Please have a peaceful evening and night.
Hey Jim, "Imaginary enemies"? Probably part of this was meant to throw back at you some of the insults you throw out at God. When you insult my beliefs you insult my intellegence. I'm far from some dumb cluck that p would like all to believe. My list of your "imaginary enemies" – God, Jesus, Scripture, Bible, Dan, SNAP, Fr. Tom Doyle, Jeff Anderson – Now as far as your vitrol or anger towards those last 3, maybe it's justified. I don't know because I haven't experienced what you have in dealing with them. I've heard some things I liked about what they were doing, but have also seen them flip-flop, possibly bending to the pressure put on them by the church. I think you're well aware of the cult's evil power. The first five on my list, I just find hard to understand. I do understand your disbelief, but can't grasp your anger and nastiness towards those who aren't your enemies. Hope something said here is helpful?
On the night of the 16th we are treated – once again – to one of those catty little ‘just entre nous’ exchanges between JR and ‘Dan’.
More popcorn might be in order as readers so inclined tune in on these stagey bits.
Okay Jim, Apparently you'd like to know why I am here? I've several times asked that question myself, feeling like it's a waste of time, but also silently asked the same of you. I feel that this is a fight of good vs. evil, truth vs. lies and liars, God vs. catholic and protestant teaching and any other hypocrisy. Their disgusting lusts and denials are a big part of their sickness, but most definitely not the only part. As a Christian, it's my job to expose and weed out wickedness in all darkness, especially in high places. I think I'm here for just as good a reason you are, and maybe even for better reasons, for I have really nothing here to gain but a hope that someone hears my message, comes to their senses, and saves their soul. You may not like it, publyin' may not like it, but I don't have anything to prove to either one of you. I answer to a much higher authority and the only authority I'm responsible to. How about you putting yourself in my shoes, speak the truth about God, and as you've witnessed just a small example on this forum, all the hounds of hell will attempt to slander and attack you.
Cont. from 2:36pm -
Jim, when I insinuated that catholics were liars, I did not say all, as quoted "blind followers". When you belong to a religious organization who's teachers preach nothing but lies to their brainwashed sheep, the outcome will possibly be that a certain percentage will become liars, excusers and enablers. Who spoke out as these atrocities were being committed. There were even parents who wouldn't believe their own children because they couldn't come to grips with the fact that their holier than thou priests, were perverts or pedophiles. Don't know about the catholics you've run into, but I've experienced hundreds who had no problems with slandering me (lying) in order to attempt to have me imprisoned or sent away. Only the lying hierarchy were the ones the cops would believe. Cops and judges just couldn't believe that these blatant hypocrites would lie. No, they're greedy, idolators, perverts and pedophiles, but never could they be liars. How naive is our justice system and unwilling to consider both sides of a story. And this is why I wait for God to mete out justice. He knows everything and He shall be just. Good luck to you if you want to depend on this world for justice.
We bleat? we are catty? My god P's Old MacDonald! We're farm animals who've "stampeded"? According to P. LMFAO! Ye Haw! Baa! and Meow!
The only really interesting points to be made about the most recent crop from ‘Dan’ revolve around the level of primitiveness he demonstrates whenever things get too close to the reality of his derangement: suddenly the smarmy Scripture-quoter becomes the scatological and almost incoherently vitriolic potty-mouth primitive. One might almost recall the scenes in exorcism movies where the purring demon suddenly loses it and starts snarling (although in this case, the ‘demon’ imagery is purely intended to function in the psychological sense, and not the theological sense).
Thus his bits on the 17th at 347PM and 328PM and 557PM.
publyin' Beelzebub, continuously trying to label me deranged, brings to light his scenes from the exorcism movies, as he recalls, while stuffing his pigface with his preferred slop, "popcorn". He remembers when he acted like a "potty-mouth primitive" or "purring demon suddenly los[ing] it and starts snarling", "Hey the popcorn's gone and I didn't realize I ate the bucket." He finally calms down and comes to his senseless, when Porky Pig his most favoritist "cartoon" comes on screen. "Abidi, abidi, abidi, That's all Folks." And Beelzebub returns to roaming the earth, looking for other souls to destroy. servant
And if ‘Dan’ is accurate and veracious in his claim (the 17th at 305PM) that he himself has “experienced hundreds [of Catholics] who had no problems with slandering [him] in order to attempt to have [him] imprisoned or sent away” … then we see the darkly marvelous economy of his derangement: the more people seek to have him somehow legally restrained or “sent away”, then – tah dahhhhhhhh! – the more righteously ‘prophetic’ he must be; the desire of so many to have him restrained and confined must ‘prove’ how righteously right he must be.
The observer must ask (for ‘Dan’ is clearly far too gone now to ever ask himself) just what it is about ‘Dan’ that has moved “hundreds” of persons to seek his confinement or removal. Is he merely irritating? Or is the felt to be threatening (to themselves, others, or children)?
This will be quite difficult for you to understand, so maybe little peewee should ask his mommy to help explain it.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5: 10-12
Just to give you a little help, until you arrive home from kindergarten – This simply means that filthy liars will tell all kinds of lies and slander against you, you shall be blessed. Go to your cracked "bathroom mirror" and look in to find out who this is talking about. servant
And by the way, could the english scholar, who gets some kind of charge out of correcting other's grammar, please explain to us dumb folks what this sentence means. "Or is the felt to be threatening (to themselves, others, or children)?" I've lived for quite some time now and never ran into threatening "felt". I've always thought it to be soft and luxurious. You're a joke.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 178th at 305PM:
As I have said before: in the internet modality one only encounters the words and thoughts of someone, but one is not able to be in the physical presence of someone. What is it about ‘Dan’ such that experiencing his physical presence can move so many to see such stringent protective measures taken?
Why is it that law enforcement and justicial officials concurred in that impression of ‘Dan’? (‘Dan’s neat stratagem for covering that point is that all of them were also tools of the Church … very similar to JR’s standard ‘explanation’ about so many aspects of the Stampede that otherwise complicate his simplistic cartoon of the Stampede).
Liars. Idiota. Liars. Like yourself. How many times must I repeat that before it sinks into your peewee brain. Why did I ever wonder why it was so difficult for you to understand a simple quote of scripture. Are you aware that Scientology teaches a wonderful reading comprehension course. Of course you'll have to join another greedy, false cult, but I think you'd be gullible enough, since your cult has gained full control of your mind. That is if there are any brain cells left. I think you've burned out quite a few with your longwinded nonsense and ignorant, repetitive slander.
You know publyin', there's been times listening to your rubbish that I wondered what your "physical presence" must be like. I did one of your in-depth assessment studies and I think you'd be impressed with the conclusions I've come up with. a) An effeminate little man who prefers to dress in a tight scarlet red suit, maybe with a pointed tail and maybe a goats head on your shoulders. b) A snake with a reticulated purple and scarlet red skin and the slimy forked tongue of a monitor lizard. Did I not nail it? a or b? Or is it all of the above, depending on the disguise you chose for that day. I'm sure you'll hiss or oink back to me soon.
I also point out ‘Dan’s effort (the 17th at 347PM) to wave-away the Wypijewski article as being merely a “stupid propaganda article”. Whereas, but of course, ‘Dan’s rants and screams and smarmy bits are to be taken as neither “stupid” nor disturbing nor even amusing; rather, they are, but of course, the pure and perfect Word and Will of those other two divinities who inhabit his bathroom mirror.
Today, I wish you all peace.
Congratulations – Your mocking has now brought God and Jesus to toilet level. If you were stuck in the toilet, I'd just flush it. Mocking "potty-mouth" troll.
Is everyone having a nice day? I hope so.
What can be usefully gleaned from the most recent crop?
On the 18th at 822PM ‘Dan’ slyly tries to make himself out to be a ‘victim’: I am “trying to label” him “deranged”. Not quite at all; I am simply pointing out various of his bits that make quite a case for his derangement and explicating how they do so. Readers, of course, may consider his material and my assessment of his material and judge as they will.
And, as if on cue, he begins this comment by equating me with the Devil (“Beelzebub”).
Then a bit of a reach as he uses my “popcorn” imagery to imagine me as a “pigface” and a glutton. Readers may consider as they will whether this bit of his qualifies as juvenile epithet or not.
That bit provides a lead-in for his personal riff on Porky Pig.
And then that riff takes him back to “Beelzebub”.
And that constitutes both his comment and a nicely clear demonstration of how his mind works.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 841PM:
Another epithetical lead-in, this time that queasy “peewee” bit – to which he so often returns.
I had said in prior comments that a) I had no problem with Scripture but rather with ‘Dan’s assorted stuff attempting to shoehorn Scripture into supporting his derangement and that b) the core element in ‘Dan’s derangement was in explaining-away his many and substantive personal issues by re-casting himself as a prophet (or “servant” or what have you) who has been specially enlightened and empowered by ‘God’ to go out and deliver “beautiful prophecy” such that i) all of his behaviors and actions are merely functions of his carrying out that ‘divine’ warrant and that ii) anyone who questioned him was perforce “mocking God”.
Here ‘Dan’ simply demonstrates the accuracy of my assessment by merely quoting a Scriptural pericope about those who are “persecuted for righteousness’ sake” and so on. In other words, ‘Dan’ is not an apparently very disturbing whackjob whose presence and actions have moved “hundreds” to seek his incarceration and confinement; rather, he is being “persecuted for righteousness’ sake”. And that those who doesn’t buy his stuff are nothing but “filthy liars” and so on.
Ovvvv coursssse.
publyin' oinks and whimpers, "anyone who questioned him is perforce 'mocking God'."
I have no problem with anyone questioning me. Do you really believe that consistently piling your lies on top of lies is your idea of questioning. No you are a mocker of God and everything He is about, because you mock Him, His Son and the Holy Spirit. You are a liar because you tell lies and slander anyone who questions your nonsense and stupidity. It's that plain and simple. You use big words to make everyone believe your intellegent and actually are correct in your assessments, when much of your assessing and questioning is simply slander. It's simply that simple. A deceivingly simple mind, parading itself as having some form of wisdom, yet proving it's ignorance whenever it opens it's mouth. servant
On the 19th at 1003PM ‘Dan’ – as I have so often noted previously – comes back on stage with more pearl-clutching ala the Great Bernhardt: “Liars. Idiota. Liars.” That’s all they are, all those who are threatened by him or question his stuff. He’s ready for his close-up, Mr. DeMille.
He follows that up with a self-serving bit of histrionics as to how it was that he ever did “wonder why it was so difficult for [me] to understand a simple passage of scripture”. I understand the passage quite well; I just don’t see it as applying to ‘Dan’ as anywhere near an accurate or sufficient explanation for his many legal and psychiatric misadventures with “hundreds” of people and with the police and the courts and so on.
Then a riff on Scientology, which (in a nice economizing) provides a lead-in to his usual anti-Catholic stuff and also into an epithet about the number of my “brain cells” and my “long-winded nonsense and ignorant, repetitive slander”.
On the 18th at 1008PM ‘Dan’ then tries to take issue with one of my statements, claiming he can’t make out the grammar of it.
Perhaps if I stated it more directly, using the active voice and specificity: ‘Or do those “hundreds” feel that he is threatening (to themselves, others, or children)?’.
And that question remains for readers to consider as they will.
And on the 18th at 847PM (though positioned at the end of the series in the comments) ‘Dan’ puffs up is divine pinfeathers and clutches his pearls to denounce my reducing “God and Jesus to toilet level” (apparently, he means the “bathroom mirror” imagery).
One might ask: to what level has ‘Dan’ reduced the actual “God and Jesus” with all his self-serving and manipulative appropriation of Them in the service of evading the reality of his derangement?
You'll have to explain how directly quoting scripture and trying to explain such to the simple minded is "self-serving and manipulative". You act as if I needing you to believe me, is in some way of some benefit to myself. As I told Jim, I have nothing personal to gain in this forum, but a hope that someone listening to my message, may come to their senses, and save their soul. I don't see anything "self-serving or manipulative" to that. I'm not looking for payback or some trophy for what I do. I do it out of love for the Father and thanks for the gift of salvation from His Son. He's the one who chooses or saves the soul. I'm only His mouthpiece and I hope you're proud to have brought out some of the worst of my mouth. Evil has a "self-serving and manipulative" way of achieving this from a true Christian. And p responds, Oh! boy! There he goes with that I'm Not/You Are bit. How about you change the record. The needle keeps skipping and were tired of hearing the same old tune. I'll be waiting with great anticipation for more of your mocking. servant
Meanwhile, on the 18th at 835PM, having no doubt considered the formidable issues of his own untruthiness, JR has decided on an entirely different Wig for this performance: he doth today merely “wish you all peace”.
How nice.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 111AM:
He opens in a faux chummy fashion, but it’s just epithet about my “rubbish”.
Then – what else has he got left, really? – another run of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: he doth acknowledge himself as having wondered about what my “’physical presence must be like”.
And that provides him a lead-in where he can let his mind (and perhaps his bathroom mirror) take an exhilarating gambol through the lily-pads in his personal swamp. And that gambol produces merely more demonstration of the quality of his mind and mentation and readers can consider it as they may.
At least I'm up on the lily-pads and not deep in your swamp.
I wish you all a peaceful Saturday.
publyin', We always appreciate your priceless input, but request you leave prophecy alone.
"The LORD gave us the strength and made us strong to deal with the troubles and stress we have in this world, each day. The LORD fills my heart with His faith and I feel the glow of the Son around my life. The LORD'S Word makes me slow down in life, as I rest beside a lake in the midday sun, and enjoy all the things of nature, He's created for us to see. The LORD"S love is instilled in us forever and never leaves the heart, if we keep loving Him, until eternity. The LORD gave us the strength and made us strong to fight the wickedness on earth, to keep believing and staying in Him, now and forever."
I know it's tempting, but don't go there, mocker.
On the 20th at 1233PM we get another demonstration of the depth of ‘Dan’s derangement: he professes to have utterly no problem “with anyone questioning” him ………. But – doncha see? – he isn’t being questioned but instead is simply confronted with my “piling on [ had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttt?] lies on top of lies”.
Since in the Dan-verse whatever he doesn’t want to hear must be nothing but “lies”, then he is effectively insulated from reality and can continue to in the warm glowing aura of his bathroom mirror and its assorted resident fellow divinities.
And – as always – I am a “mocker of God … His Son and the Holy Spirit” – although in the Dan-verse those Three are actually just stand-ins for ‘Dan’, who – alas – by virtue of his issues is rather techy about being ‘mocked’.
And, of course, no actual examples of “lies” that I “tell”.
But – viewed through ‘Dan’s goggles, “it’s simply that simple”.
Liar, liar, panties on fire. I've pointed out your lies and will not repeat them. You're well aware of your lies, or maybe haved just lied so often that you don't realize the difference between slander and truth. Go to confession and one of your lying pedophile priests will forgive you.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1254PM, where he insists that I’ll “have to explain how directly quoting scripture and trying to explain such to the simple minded is ‘self-serving and manipulative’”.
Well, that’s easy enough: first, I have – to repeat – no problem with the direct quotation of Scripture; second, the effort to try to “explain” Scripture as if it could be simply shoe-horned into supporting ‘Dan’s cartoon visions, for the purpose of evading the reality of his derangement, is indeed something that reduces Scripture (and God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit) to mere tools in the Dan-project of keeping ‘Dan’ from having to confront his derangement, and that surely is “self- serving” and to the extent that it manipulates Scripture, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and anyone who has to listen-to or read his stuff then it is “manipulative”.
publyin' oinks, "I have – to repeat – no problem with direct quotation of Scripture"
So here is one for your insistence that since over hundreds of liars from your cult have falsely accused me, which led to my 6 arrests and 6 hospital stays (6 + 6 = 12, idiota) this is proof to my derangement. Seeing that you claim "no problem with direct quotation of Scripture", here you are, directly quoted from Scripture.
"Then you will be arrested and handed over to be punished and be put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me. Many will give up their faith at that time; they will betray one another. Then many false prophets will appear and fool many people." Matthew 24: 9-10
And what prophets could be more false than 'holier than thou', pedophile creeps, parading themselves in fancy dresses, while fooling brainwashed sheep, claiming they're the moral authority on earth. HYPOCRITES
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1254PM:
And then ‘Dan’ borrows a bit from JR: he tries for the idea that he couldn’t possibly have anything to gain by being anything but truthy.
And is it conceivable that ‘Dan’ doesn’t need to be believed? Being believed would be “of great benefit to” himself since the only alternative is to face the alternative, i.e. that he is deranged and apparently “hundreds” of people have come to some conclusion along those lines.
Thus ‘Dan is kidding no one but himself by bleating that he doth “have nothing personal to gain in this forum” by his carrying-on. He has a great deal to gain and an even greater deal to lose. He gains the sense (however phantasmic) that he is indeed some sort of special messenger of God; otherwise he loses that sense and would wind up alone with the awareness of his derangement – which possibility is, as I have said, the Big Bang experience that created the Dan-verse in the first place.
Anyway, ‘Dan’ is rather annoyed and irritated by it all and wants me to “change the record”. Alas, but ‘Dan’ can’t be changed, his stuff can’t be changed, and he – and the record – will no doubt go on and on as they have for quite some time.
And who is this “we” who are “tired” of it all? Is that ‘Dan’ manipulatively trying to speak for the readership? Or ‘Dan’ speaking for his fellow-divinities in the bathroom mirror?
And the broken record keeps skipping, like an annoying parrot, your deranged, your deranged, your deranged, 6 times in 4 posts, thinking he'll get some fool to believe it. Then the mocking parrot repeats with more mocking, thinking he's cute, as the Almighty patiently licks His chops, looking forward to His Judgment on the wicked. You may want to read about yourself in Psalm 37, since you have "no problem with direct quotation of scripture".
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 149PM:
Once again that royal (or divine) “We”, only this time the “we” makes a request.
And the request is that I “leave prophecy alone”.
By “prophecy” – of course – ‘Dan’ means his own stuff. But that cornucopia of derangement is not “prophecy” but rather only the manipulative phantasmagoria ‘Dan’ always tries to put up as if it were somehow hot off the Divine presses.
And then – as if on cue – ‘Dan’ provides a bit of “prophecy” and readers can consider it as they will. Apparently, and borrowing a cue from JR, ‘Dan’ has chosen to leave off the primitive stuff and strike a more appealing note, thus this ‘the sky is blue’ sort of “prophecy”.
And readers may also consider the tone and Wig evident in this bit, and compare it with the primitive scatological epithetical tone of – what? – some other ‘Dan’ also crammed in the mirror with the rest of the Wonderland crew?
I hope all who read this have had a peaceful Monday.
Hey Jim, Hope things are going well for you.
Not all of ‘Dan’s most recent crop needs much explication since it is revelatory all on its own.
However, a couple of bits are worth noting.
On the 23rd at 1232AM ‘Dan’ – rather infelicitously – reminds readers of those “hundreds” whom he must classify as “liars” or else have readers wonder how a single person can evoke the alarm and concern of so many people.
He then – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – proffers yet another Scriptural bit, this time about how genuine Christians and prophets will be “arrested and handed over to be punished” and so forth. (And again: it’s not ‘Dan’s Scriptural quotes with which I take issue; it’s his effort to apply them to himself (or Himself) in so self-serving a manner, as I have explained in prior comments on this thread.)
But he then includes the Matthean mention of “false prophets”, apparently secure in the presumption that nobody would think of himself as precisely one of that category. After all, since he has put up so much ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ that it is actually the Church and Catholics who are “false prophets” and “liars” then the security of his bathroom-mirror sanctum is neatly preserved.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1232AM:
For readers so inclined, by the by, his bit of numerological calculation remains to be sussed out. Perhaps the “6 arrests and 6 hospital stays” which work out to “6 + 6 = 12” is supposed to be some sort of divine sign, since – what? …. – maybe the number 12 equals the number of Disciples/Apostles.
And once again – unable to keep his excuses straight – he now acknowledges the “arrests” – which require the police and a judge, as do the enforced “hospital stays” (for psychiatric observation, not for his appendix or blood pressure).
FALSE ACCUSATIONS, IDIOTA. ONE ASST. PASTOR CLAIMED I SAID I WANTED TO KILL HIM. PRIESTS AND CATHOLIC LAITY CLAIMED I SAID DIRTY THINGS TO THEIR LITTLE CHILDREN. SAID I SHOOK THE GATES OF THEIR SCHOOLYARD 2 DAYS IN A ROW. LIED TO SAY I TOLD THE CHILDREN THAT 'JESUS WAS DEAD'. THESE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF THEIR SLANDER. THEN YOU COME ALONG CLAIMING I ACCOSTED, HARANGUED, HARRASSED AND YELLED AT INNOCENT CHILDREN. FILTHY, DIRTY, LYING, HYPOCRITE, COWARDLY CREEPS, THE WHOLE BUNCH OF YOU, YET I NEVER SOUGHT REVENGE AND SUED ONE OF YOU HYPOCRITES, AND I HAD PLENTY OF PROOF. SLITHER BACK INTO YOUR SWAMP, MOCKER OF ALL THAT IS GOOD.
Thank you for refraining from ALL CAPS next time. We appreciate it!
And then on the 23rd at 101AM, perhaps hoping to change the subject, ‘Dan’ will shout-out at JR.
Doing swell Dan, Peace is a wonderful thing. Hope you and everyone else here are well and happy.
Then Jesus declared, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind." John 9: 39 I threw this one in for you p 'cause I know how much you enjoy hearing Scripture.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 741PM:
I don’t see how any explication can improve upon ‘Dan’s demonstration in the comment.
And after his startlingly vivid and revealing demonstration of the 23rd at 741PM, even ‘Dan’ apparently realizes what he’s gone and done, and thus tries on the 23rd at 1124PM to get things back to ‘normal’ (i.e. just tossing up his usual stuff).
It won’t work. The comment of the 23rd at 741PM was a game-changer and if ‘Dan’ doesn’t see that (and who could be surprised?) then he can convene a conference with the whole Wonderland crew in his bathroom mirror and give it all some serious thought.
False accusations, lies, and slander. What in the heck is wrong with you? "It won't work. The comment…was a game-changer." Clue me in here. What kind of a game are we playing? You're dealing with your mortal, mocking, slandering soul and there may be other souls in this forum who's future is in the balance, and you think it's some kind of game? Hey, grab your "popcorn", the "cartoon" is starting. I'm not playing around with souls at stake. If this is funny or some joke to you, then the joke is on you. I'm not laughing.
And then you claim, He tries "to get things back to 'normal' (i.e. just tossing up his usual stuff)." First off, Dave left out my 11:16 pm comment, which might explain my 11:24 pm post. If you now claim my quoting the Word is "tossing up [my] usual stuff", now you've taken the new step of a disrespectful mocker of the Lord and His Word, and I bet you're proud of that.
Just in case you don't get it. If anything is "startlingly vivid and revealing", it would have to be the depths that hypocrites of your cult are willing to dive into in order to slander an innocent person. Like I've said before, you are a perfect fit and member of a deceiving cult. servant
On the 24th at 821PM ‘Dan’ cawn’t think how it isn’t crystal clear that he is nothing more than the victim of “false accusations, lies and slander” (by those “hundreds” of people, and the police and the court and so on). He requests that someone “clue [him] in here”.
Here we see the old Playbook gambit (it works for all sorts who for whatever reason are seeking to work a scam and distract from the scam’s weak points): let’s pretend we just started this back-and-forth and we’re all at square one.
I’ve been clueing ‘Dan’ in for quite some time and he has simply brushed it all away as “false accusations, lies and slander”.
Now he puts on the Goody Two-Shoes dumb blonde Wig and professes a need to be clued-in.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 821PM:
“What kind of game are we playing?”, he then asks.
It would be more accurate to ask what kind of game ‘Dan’ is playing, and we’ve been over all that before here.
He then tries not simply to reach for the Victim-y high-ground but to actually create some Victim-y high-ground … by suddenly inventing the issue of “other souls in this forum who’s [sic] future is in the balance”. Who and/or what is he on about here? Whatever it is, its purpose is to distract.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 821PM:
In his second paragraph ‘Dan’ then brings up an unpublished comment (purportedly made on the 24th at 1116PM) that would have explained his 1124PM comment, which comment is just another Scriptural bit and not at issue in the first place.
The key comment is that of the 23rd at 741PM (the one in all scream-caps) and if ‘Dan’ thinks that there is some missing comment that might explain-away that 741PM whopper , then he needs to windex his bathroom mirror very vigorously.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 821PM:
And he tries to wrap it all up with another pearl-clutching and huffy epithet, going for the Victim-y high-ground of Outraged Prophetic Integrity by professing same at my referring to his tossing up his self-servingly-interpreted Scriptural pericopes as “tossing up his usual stuff”.
That is his usual stuff; he traffics in it. Aside from tossing up increasingly contorted, dubious and incoherent ‘explanations’ as to why and how he is most surely not the notably unwell person that all his material actually indicates him to be, tossing up self-servingly-interpreted Scripture bits is his shtick and most likely has been for quite a long time and I can’t see how he can ever stop, since then he would have to confront realities he most surely does not ever want to deal-with.
But again: my purpose in all of this is to demonstrate the types that have been lured to the surface by the Stampede, and the need to always closely consider their stories, claims and accusations.
Publyin', Are you under the impression that slandering and falsely accusing an innocent person, is some positive character trait? If hundreds of others of your cult did the same thing, and authorities, assuming they were christians, didn't think they would lie, does that make their accusations true? How is it that you're able to live with your guilty conscience, or do you even have a conscience at all? Do you weekly go to confession, so you feel that you can continually slander another? Valid questions I'd like answered, if you even have any answers.
On the 25th at 746PM ‘Dan’ will try to run a variant of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: he has questions he would like answered.
OK, then; let’s to it.
“Am I under the impression that slandering and falsely accusing an innocent person is some positive character trait?”
Answer: Not at all. But ‘Dan’ is rather a far cry from being demonstrably “an innocent person” and the revelations provide through his material coincide quite closely with the behavior and judgment of those “hundreds” of people and the authorities.
Yes, you're absolutely right. After you and your fellow hypocrites have slandered myself in every way possible, how could I be considered "an innocent person". If you're willing to mock God, His Son, His Holy Spirit and his Divinely Inspired Word, why should I be exempt from the nasty lies from you or your cult. Praise to my God and His Son, for the pleasure of joining in the persecution, from the same cult of hypocrites who crucified my Lord and Savior. God-gram sent to all the blatant liars of your cult of hypocrisy. servant of the Lord
And speaking of 'revelations', maybe it's time you review your cult's biography in Revelations chapter 17 and 18, and find what future the Lord has waiting for you. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 746PM:
Just because those “hundreds of others” and the “authorities” have judged so, “does that make their accusations true?”.
Answer: If hundreds of persons and also those “authorities”, with far more closeness to the case(s) than we possess here, have made those judgments; and if those judgments mesh rather closely with the characteristics of ‘Dan’ that we have seen revealed in his material here; then … the probability of his being “an innocent person” becomes as low as the probability that the judgments of all those persons are utterly and totally wrong.
And you had no 'closeness to the case(s)' whatsoever, and yet feel compelled to add your ridiculously stupid input, that only amounts to more slander, and then claim your questioning and assessing is right on the mark. John 8: 44 Son of Satan, father of all liars.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 746PM:
“How is that I am able to live with a guilty conscience” if indeed I “have any conscience at all?”
Answer: I don’t have a guilty conscience in this matter since I have a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of my assessment of Things ‘Dan’. And I don’t think he has a guilty conscience simply for the reason that his derangement is so deep that his own conscience is rather significantly baffled.
Do I “weekly go to confession” because of my “slander” of ‘Dan’?
Answer: Since I haven’t done anything except assess the quality of ‘Dan’s assorted stories, claims, accusations, declamations and imprecations, then I don’t see the need for confession in the matter.
Like I guessed – A totally seared, burnt and nonexistent conscience. Later mocker and liar of all that is good. servant
Are you sure all you did was "assess', or are you confusing that with making an ass out of yourself. I'd say chances are much better that the latter is true, as usual. servant
On the 26th at 524PM ‘Dan’ now tries to extricate himself by claiming that he only looks bad “after you and your fellow hypocrites have slandered” him.
Not at all. His own material, revealing as it does elements and aspects of himself that he has papered-over with his fixed delusional system of the ‘Dan’-verse, exposed him. He provided all the material for his exposure himself. I have simply followed the path that ‘Dan’ himself set with his material.
On the 26th at 536PM ‘Dan’ tries to wrench some space for himself by noting that since (as only a reader of the material on this site) I had “no closeness” to his various cases, yet I “feel compelled” to add my material.
As I said in my original comment, while neither I nor any reader here has the personal experience of ‘Dan’ that so many others involved in those cases have, yet his material here provides more than sufficient material for the analysis I have provided.
Do I “feel compelled” to analyze his stuff? I do. Because a) it’s a rather rich lode in and of itself and b) because it forms the basis of ‘Dan’s extended and vitriolic comments about Catholicism and the Church and thus requires response and c) because his stuff is a vivid example of the type of mentality and thinking that lies behind much of the Stampede.
Of course, ‘Dan’ doth “feel compelled” to put up all his stuff (and to do all the things that got him involved in all of his arrests and so forth) because he is directed to do so by the divinities resident in his bathroom mirror. And – let’s face it – he seems very eager and happy to comply with those directions.
I am going to attempt to make this as easy as possible. You state, "Do I 'feel compelled' to analyze his stuff? I do. You claim, 'Dan' accosts(lie), harrasses(lie), harangues(lie), and yells (lie), at innocent school children. This in no way can be considered assessing, questioning or analyzing. It simply is called lying, and yet you continue to nauseatingly repeat these false accusations over and over again.
My 'stuff', as you rudely put it, "forms the basis of 'Dan's extended and vitriolic comments about [c]atholicism and the [c]hurch. Absolutely not. Your cult's crimes and sins form the basis of my accusations. Idolators(true), Mary worshippers(true), perverts(true), serial rapists and pedophiles(true), many liars(true), excusers(true), enablers(true), deceivers(true), Anti-Christ(true), Anti-Christian(true) and proven to be wrong in following God, His Son or the Holy Spirit(true).
So my telling the truth about your cult, makes me a "deranged, vitriolic, catholic hater"? No! It only makes me an honest and true servant of the Almighty God. And you, Mr. Mocker, can twist, degrade, lie and slander as much as you please. You can do nothing to change my standing with my God or His Son. Simplicity for the simple-minded, or even the ignorant.