KNOCKOUT! Falsely accused St. Louis priest Rev. Joseph Jiang fights SNAP – and wins!
In a monumental victory for truth and justice in the Catholic Church abuse story, a federal judge has ruled that the lawyer-funded group SNAP indeed defamed St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and conspired to falsely claim the priest of child sex abuse.
In her ruling, the judge sanctioned SNAP, its national director David Clohessy, and its "outreach director" Barbara Dorris and ordered them to pay for Fr. Jiang's attorney fees and expenses.
[**Court docs: Click to read the federal judge's ruling against SNAP (pdf)**]
SNAP national director
David Clohessy
The abuse claims were outlandish from the beginning. The accuser "had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse" and already had a reputation of being "a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional.'"
Meanwhile, one of the accuser's parents had a "history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain" and had a long record in the civil court system, with at least 2 liens and 16 judgments against him.
SNAP's willful contempt
Throughout the legal process, SNAP repeatedly and willfully defied a federal judge's orders to hand over important documentary evidence in the case. Then, as we reported just a few weeks ago, the group proceeded to orchestrate a fraudulent media campaign about the case.
So when U.S. District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson issued her ruling this week, she really let SNAP have it, concluding:
- "SNAP defendants' refusal to comply with the Court's discovery orders has been willful and in bad faith";
- "SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff's conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin";
- "SNAP defendants' public statements about plaintiff (Fr. Jiang) were false and they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth."
To punish SNAP for its recklessness, Jackson ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees, caused by their failure to comply with the Court's orders."
Kudos to Fr. Jiang for his victory for truth and justice.
Continuing my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 840PM:
As for JR’s bit about lawyers being “in a cutthroat search for clients”: they are still barred by law and/or professional strictures from soliciting persons who have not first come to them. Thus the invaluable uses of an organization like SNAP. And had lawyers resorted to those ads such as you see on late-nite TV, using 800-numbers and urging anyone so inclined to ‘call immediately; professionals ready to take your call’, then they would have far too obviously revealed their game and simultaneously would have detracted from the ‘dignity’ of their preferred posturing as humble but stalwart righters-of-great-wrongs (such as the Spotlight movie tried to do with the Boston tortie).
But when you essentially function in your own cartoon universe, then everything looks like “Big Magic”, especially if that ‘explanation’ can help you plump for your own favorite cartoon.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 840PM:
But JR is far more right than he may wish when he says that “money’s usually the Big Magic”, which is precisely how the Stampede kept growing: with every award of boatloads of cash for this and that story, amplified by a media that was kept fully informed by Anderson’s many busy fax machines, then yet more stories suddenly ‘came forward’.
And – as always – in regard to JR’s quick cut to his preferred cartoon about the Church bankrolling Anderson: just How and Why remain to be credibly theorized. Occam’s Razor would militate against introducing any unnecessary element into an explanation that could already stand on its own. Anderson had no need of the Church’s money; with SNAP and his own skills and ambition he could get it all done, creating a matrix for all the various elements to come together in synergy and the Ball could Keep Rolling from there.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 840PM:
And more of JR’s hopeful plop-tossing on the 31st at 847PM: but Anderson is more accurately characterized as the enabler of SNAP’s reincarnation as a front for the torties; I never said and I don’t recall anyone here saying that Anderson was the full and total “power behind SNAP”. Whatever SNAP itself chose to do (as it found its own status and perhaps proceeds from the torties declining) was not necessarily at all at the behest-of or with the approval-of Anderson.
Again, so little may “make sense” when one lives in one’s own cartoon universe. And yet there are explanations that can establish plausibility without having to resort to cartoonish speculations and mere assertions and claims.
Thus SNAP – whose leadership never seemed to me to be comprised of the brightest bulbs in the chandelier – went on, quite possibly becoming even more reckless and desperate as its status and funds dwindled, taking actions that were inadvisable from a legal point of view, especially if the Stampede’s all-protecting aura was beginning to fade. And the St. Louis case is one result of that.
BT
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 31st at 840PM:
And nobody here that I can recall has ever insisted that SNAP (certainly in its Anderson-Blaine incarnation) ever worked for victims, genuine or otherwise.
And I would say that it is charmingly ironic that SNAP and JR made the same mistake: by overplaying their hand, they gave away their game.
On the 31st at 1003PM ‘Dan’ will – yet again – try to shoehorn himself (or Himself) into the Bible: ya see, ‘Dan’s ignorance and whackery is actually part of the Divine Plan and God’ll get anyone who gets in ‘Dan’s way.
I would also say that ‘Dan’s core “foolishness” is and always has been his decision not to confront his many deep personal issues but instead try to ‘baptize’ them as being clear and shining and irrefutable and undeniable instruments of the Word and Will of (the actual) God.
‘Dan’s marshalling Scriptural pericopes to that end is simply a variant of the kid getting a plastic badge from the bottom of a cereal box, pinning it on, and going outside to direct traffic and issue tickets to passing drivers. Cute, in its way, until he starts screaming and trying to stop cars and arrest drivers and so forth.
And then – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttttt? – he (or He) actually rewrites Scripture to better conform to his delusions (St. Paul himself being insufficiently clear for ‘Dan’s own purposes).
More mockery while claiming you don't mock. Can't even be truthful about that. 'Dan' won't "confront his many deep personal issues". Are we talking about the lies and slander you've labeled me with, in your evil imagination. "Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool. When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise." Proverbs 10:18-19 Isn't it strange, that I can find one verse fitting you perfectly in the Bible, and the next verse describes your longwinded stupidity to a tee. And then you follow that ignorance with more mocking. And to wrap it all up, you think your cute or clever with an analogy you learned at one of your NAMBLA meetings or from one of the little boys you've been grooming. Maybe you should research analogies for adults, it may just help you with growing up. servant
Malcolm, Take a look at my August 31 @ 10:03pm and you will find that God answered your questioning of what happened to this 'great' country before you even posted. Any nation, who in their great pride, thinks they're bigger than God and have no real need of his wisdom, will be brought to their knees. History is proof of that and the Bible is full of these historical accounts – Tower of Babel, Egypt, Ancient Rome, just to name a few. – And we built our Twin Towers to see them destroyed and replaced with an obelisk between an inverted obelisk, the pride and symbol of Ancient Egypt. Any coincidence that those same obelisks are displayed in St. Peters as a sundial or strewn across Rome, or that we have the Washington monument, as our centerpiece to thumb our noses at God the creator. And apologists are going to make excuses that Rev. 17-18 doesn't describe the fall Rome and the catholic church in fine detail, along with the heathen kings of other nations. Time to awaken and open your eyes to the truth, and you won't find it in the catechism of a deceiving religion. Don't let them fool you.
P.S. Actually God answered your questions almost two thousand years ago. Read the Bible.
On the 2nd at 1245PM ‘Dan’ goes after ‘Malcolm Harris’. How does he do it?
Not with explanation or discussion of points rationally made. Instead, with a mere string of his usual epithetical puffery larded with Scriptural bits that – if you happen to be wearing a pair of ‘Dan’-verse goggles – make Scripture and ‘Dan’ appear to be on the same page.
And for this performance, “the legal system of this country” is cast as “corrupt” (but then, it has to be or else ‘Dan’s many arrests and remands for psychiatric observation assume an evidentiary weight that ‘Dan’s personal cartoon simply cannot permit).
And thus ‘Dan’s admonition to MH that he “wake up” simply reduces to the admonition that MH see things through the goggles of the ‘Dan’-verse (even if MH no doubt will never enjoy the privileges of the divine fax machine and the séances in the bathroom mirror) … or else.
Perhaps MH might try to discover and purchase that type of cereal box that has the badge at the bottom; then he could join ‘Dan’ out on the street … and at the schoolyard fence.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1245PM:
But all readers are well-advised to heed ‘Dan’s unwittingly revelatory admonition to “Beware of false prophets” … especially the ones that come at you spitting and spraying Scriptural pericopes (and epithets) like an old Vickers machine gun.
And that admonition is then marvelously burnished with what has to be one of the better Freudian slips I have seen in quite a while, wherein ‘Dan’ mistakenly singularizes the Scriptural “fruits” and we get “By their fruit will you recognize them” … which sounds like a maxim from the old days of gay bath-house culture.
And then ‘Dan’ riffs on along that path of thought, again marvelously, about “perverts, pedophiles, [and] deceivers” … and readers may consider it all as they will.
News flash to the great researcher, publyin'. There are more than just your version of the Bible. You might want to cross-reference other versions and you might actually educate yourself. Some versions use 'fruits' and some 'fruit'. I've observed that you're either stuck on immature, childish comments, cartoons or have now proceeded to your knowledge of gay bath-house culture. Is that where your diocese holds their Sunday child abuse services.
Ah. Yes! It would be much more beneficial for a catholic to listen to those who "come at you spitting and spraying", and let us not forget mocking "Scriptural pericopes" as "an old Vickers machine gun." False prophets will lie to your face while claiming to be truthful. Their consciences seared as with a branding iron, while telling you that they are the 'true' church. I believe them to be the 'true' cult of perverts and pedophile creeps. I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who in this forum would fit the profile. Later mocker. servant
And to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1034AM:
Wherein we are treated to a historical disquisition on how “Tower of Babel” equals the Twin Towers and – somehow – “Egypt, Ancient Rome, just to name a few”. And the Washington Monument, which is an “obelisk” (he’s right) and there’s one in St. Peter’s Square (also right) and all of this means that “we” are “thumbing our nose at the creator” (small-c).
I certainly can agree that secularism – especially as embraced by entire governments – is performing poorly for the West, as it did for the Communists and as any purely this-worldly approach will eventually prove far more lethal to those that embrace it, especially in its contemporary variants.
That being said, the fundie misch of the theological with current events always leads one before long to declaring that ‘the End-Times are here and we told you so’ sort of ranting. Although with ‘Dan’ we are not expected to go up to a hilltop on a specific date and at a specific time and wait for the Coming; rather, we are apparently to wait outside ‘Dan’s bathroom until he emerges from behind the Veil to deliver the word from the herd reposing in his bathroom mirror.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1034AM:
But while there is certainly historical warrant for the Book of Revelation’s inveighing against the Roman Empire (it was written most likely around the end of Domitian’s reign, i.e. 95-6 AD, in an era that had already seen persecutions of Christians and the wobbly imperial succession struggles that saw the Year of the Four Emperors and the dynasty of the Flavians), yet you have to have ‘Dan’-goggles snugly affixed to your head in order to then accept his sly addition to the effect that Revelation envisions the fall not only of the Roman Empire but also – had you been waittttingggggg forrrr itttttt? – “of the catholic church in fine detail”.
Oh, and if all that isn’t enough, ‘Dan’ instructs that one simply “read the Bible” (without adding the necessary warning to consumers that ‘results may vary’, especially if not wearing either ‘Dan’-goggles or other similar apparatus, such as a magic decoder ring keyed to ‘Dan’s oh-so-speshull mental frequency).
publyin' oinks, 'results may vary, especially' when hypocrites and deceivers think they can twist, change and deny Bible meaning to suit their personal greed, idolatry and lusts. Creeps!
Tew or three things are going on here, I think important, very important.
I want to point out these two or three manoeuvres as they are being played out.
First and foremost is the tactic of character assassination. P's assassination of my character.
Yes, I call him a liar and names but he's invisible. He's the ether. There's no there with him. It's like insulting a wall. I'm a known person. I self identified, You know I exist, my name is connected to me, my reputation is very important to me.
The fact that I have self-identified as a compensated victim. The facts of my molestation. The facts that I've presented here regarding the church's fraud called SNAP. All these are attached to my name.
P, since he is nameless, risks nothing. He assassinates my character. He's been using this method here daily for years. You've all seen him do it. He does it to literally everyone he deems opposite. Character destruction.
The second ploy, is very new, is double pronged.
First prong: Is to have the church attacked on its religious tenants. Have someone from a different faith attack the faith on style or traditions or doctrine And have the sex abuse issue in the church be a far-fetched excuse to criticize the faith itself. A non-sequator leading to an unasked for religious debate. (In that process we have P representing the church explaining the churches take on its doctrines, history, devotions. Making P look reasonable to Catholics who've learned their doctrines in Catholic school or catechism classes. )
The 2nd prong that reinsures the faithful is to have the person from the other faith should appear crazy at times. Not always, but just enough to pass the Tin Foil Hat test i.e. speaks for God etc.
And the third and oldest ploy is verbosity. Smother the audience in words. Clouds and clouds of words being layered like smoke. Half of all the posts on this thread are P's. And each post is lengthy chock full of smoke like words.
I share these ploys analysis with a readership
I share with the readership these tactics as I and they see them. They are that obvious.
Someone calls survivors and SNAP abuseniks LOL….and someone claims SNAP is conspiring with complicit church officials…. LOL Oh, and someone else claims SNAP is a Catholic hate group. LOL I am rolling on the floor laughing! Oh, not much has changed throughout the decades while survivors courageously expose sex crimes and cover ups in the Catholic church and elsewhere; as clearly many still want to vilify sex crime victims. I suppose those folks get their rocks off that way. Knock yourself out. LOL That said, it is not funny, in my opinion. See you in court.
Why is it considered courageous to expose sex crimes? SNAP uses that word all the time. Was I supposed to be afraid of telling? I was when I was 16 and harmed, but I've long been a grown up. Is it also courageous to report an auto accident or a murder?
What will the various states and courts across the U.S. decide to do to protect the public from complicit Catholic church officials for their knowingly conspiring to aid, abett, and harbor sexual predators in their churches…for example? It appears that not only will most states and courts enable the promotion of that organized crime, the U.S. is also choosing to revictimize those they know have been harmed…claiming their hands are tied to the mafia (no pun intended to the mafia). Guess those government officials will just pop into a local Catholic confessional, for example, and try to wash their hands of the crimes, in my opinion.
Well said Kris. Be ready to be attacked by the publiar. The more info you give him, the more ammunition he has to make a character assasination, so watch out. He'll twist, slander, lie and come up with any excuses, in order to destroy your credibility and question your sanity, so the brainwashed sheep of his cult will believe he's the one telling the truth. DECEIVERS and LIARS, just like their father, the devil.
Like to answer your question. Most likely nothing, just like their puppet leader, I mean papa – June 10, 2015 he claims he'll set up a Tribunal to prosecute 'complicit Catholic church officials' or bishops, one year later he scraps the abuse Tribunal because of pressure from the bishops. Talk about a perfect example of "the inmates are running the asylum". Problem is they should be inmates when instead they're free to stalk, groom and harm our children. Despicable creeps and their enablers.
Here, have a drug laced host (so to speak, imo) and some wine to make you feel better parishioners says the Catholic Church…while they feast on their flock. It is a Catholic tradition. No? What bishop?
Kris doesn't know that Catholics don't drink the consecrated wine?
Kris equates all who criticise SNAP as equal.
Kris, I'm a victim. I've worked for years around SNAP. SNAP's a church created false flag.
Jim Robertson on the 3rd, at 3.32 pm, says… "why is it considered courageous to expose sex crimes?" And also says….. "was I supposed to be afraid of telling?" His post raises good questions. I have tried to put myself in his position, with the religious teacher, and have asked myself how I would have reacted. For the sake of argument will assume his account is full and frank. That he really was molested by a sicko Marist Brother, at 16 years, causing him psychological harm. Granted that any teacher is a authority figure. Yet at 16 years I regarded myself as a young man, not a boy?. If anybody, anybody at all, told me to put my hand inside his trousers, I would have felt insulted, for his assumption that I was that way inclined. Leaving aside the possiblility of physical violence, I would certainly have planned revenge…big time. The obvious revenge would be to tell everybody, starting with my parents, and soon everybody in the school would know this guy was a sicko. JR has given reasons for not telling his parents, but his reason for not telling all his buddies are frankly not plausible. Anyway how did this man know that JR would not tell his parents?. In other words he would have been taking a huge risk with his reputation… almost suicidal for his career. Such questions are relevant to the entire Sexual Abuse narrative… but few seem to raise them?.
Marianist brother not Marist. I was a very young 16 year old. I never thought of myself as a man per se. I thought I was me.I knew I was male but being a man? That was for sissies. :^) I was thrilled to have the lead in the play. I'd worked my way up and the teacher who directed the play liked my work. The girls in the play came at 3:30 in the afternoon and we got out of school at 2:30. My perp knew that and told me to come to him for an hour. Every day. He never said much. I was being quizzed by him verbally on the symbols for elements etc. When I'd get one wrong. He'd start twisting my arm as punishment. It escalated over a few days. I was a very obedient kid and very religious to boot. I never disobeyed a teacher in my life. I was in shock.Once the abuse started. I Didn't know what to do. My personality changed so much my friend kept pressing me about what's wrong. I finally told him. I was queer identified by my fellow nazi boy classmates. I wanted no one to know that I had been touched by a man. I just wanted out. the abuse ended. finished.
I see the character assassination of me continues. Why I almost feel persecuted. I took $1 million bucks because nothing happened to me? The insurers and the church just gave it to me for nothing. I made it all up. I'm a liar and a thief according to your insinuations. One problem. The boy I told in 1963, spoke up and said his side of the events when I sued the church. I hadn't seen him or talked to him in 37 years and guess what? He corroborated everything i said in detail.Those are facts. Not fantasies.
Here's another fact; Weasels who attack innocent people's reputation get their asses handed back to them on a plate. Look at SNAP and the priest in this thread. Though it's a staged piece. The morality play is still there. Good triumphs over evil. The good guys win. Exit stage right. God's in his heaven and all is right with the world. Why wouldn't I want to do the right thing? I bought the morality plays moral, hook line etc. You're all frauds.
‘Dan’ on the 2nd at 813PM shares more revelations that have come to him through the combined power of his Bible-goggles and his bathroom mirror. Fine and dandy.
But then it appears that Scripture really isn’t sufficient for his purposes and he takes the same path JR took a while back when lacking anything better: ‘Dan’ accuses me of being a NAMBLA member and that I have been grooming … little boys”. At least he didn’t call me a nun or some such.
But ‘Dan’ has a well-thumbed collection of pericopes designed to counter any thought about his assorted mental infelicities; thus his pile of pericopes has been chosen to buttress his insistence that he is simply the victim of “lies and slander”.
Readers may judge as they will.
On Sept. 2nd @ 3:46pm, you're oinking some gay innuendo towards what I quoted in the Bible about 'fruit', so I responded towards you in like fashion at 8:13pm. So if JR and myself 'take the same path… when lacking anything better', then is that the reason for your repetitive lies, slander and false accusations, because you're 'always lacking anything better'? Funny how you think you can dish it out, but you're a cry baby when it's thrown back at you. How about you stop your ridiculous lies and maybe you'll be treated as an adult, instead of an immature, whimpering, lying cry-baby.
On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
Here, JR comes up with a style and structure befitting the Wig of Wisdom, while portentously intoning that what he is about to say is “important, very important”.
Well, then, what’s he got to say?
He himself has discerned “two or three maneuvers” (correction supplied).
And what might they be?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
First, he is on about “character assassination”, specifically my “assassination” of his “character”. Once again, it is as if we are supposed to no- recall the exposure of his rather non-veracious insistence about his being ‘raped’, and the passel of further explanations that simply dug him in deeper and revealed him further. How can I “assassinate” a “character” that has revealed so much about itself all on its own?
That then leads into his repetition – yet again – about the fact that I am “nameless”. But I do have a name – Publion – and it’s all about the ideas and concepts and such facts as we can muster in the face of various stories, claims, allegations, accusations and assertions. Had JR had a screen-name but put up the same material he has put up, my assessments would have been the same, because it is the material and not his actual name that is at issue.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
But JR then reveals that ideas and concepts and assessments and thinking aren’t really anything that appear as real to him. Since I am “nameless” then – somehow – I remain “invisible” to him. (Which ‘invisibility’ is increased, no doubt, by the fact that he “mostly” doesn’t read my material in the first place anyway.)
As I have often said on this site, it is precisely this type of mentality that has found such a congenial atmosphere in the dynamics and tactics of the Stampede: Avoid ideas and concepts and assessments and instead distract by any means necessary; keep it away from the conceptual and focus on the ‘personal’ so your stories and claims can simply be shrouded in the aura of your asserted and claimed personal victimhood.
I won’t play that game. The issues and concepts are vital and the focus has to be on them because they are the key to comprehending the Stampede and all that has happened.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
JR then tries this trick: since everything he has put up in his material constitutes “facts”, then those “facts” are “attached to [his] name”. Yes, that was his choice.
But – as has been demonstrated over the long haul here – very few of those “facts” are actually facts in the first place. His name is attached to claims that they are “facts”, when they are demonstrably not “facts” but rather are assertions and insinuations and innuendoes and so forth.
And he tries to work that bit further: because I am “nameless” then I “risk nothing”. What can this possibly mean? My material – a great deal of material – is up for every reader to judge as s/he will. And I make it a point to respond to whatever material is put up in regard to my material. What else is a site like this for? (It would appear that for JR’s purposes, this site is for something else indeed.)
JR’s own material has revealed his character. As it does right here, where he is trying to lay the blame on somebody who has sussed out the problems with his material, rather than considering for himself how his own character has gotten him to the point he is at now. He has victimized himself here through the material he has put up.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
On then to what he describes as my “second ploy”, which is “very new”, he claims, and is “double-pronged”.
But the explication of his first prong is clearly confused: it is clearly not me to whom he is referring with what seems to be a recitation of his own stratagems or methods.
But if there is a method to the madness here, it appears to be this: JR is trying to reduce my material to simply being an effort to make either myself or the Church “look reasonable”.
I point out counter-material to many of JR’s historical and theological claims and assertions, which are themselves his effort to make the Church (and Christianity and religion) look irrational and unreasonable.
Readers may judge whether my material is merely trying to give the Church the appearance of rationality or whether my material validly demonstrates the actual rationality of Christianity and the Church and genuine religion itself.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
But my material is only responsive to material (various assertions, claims and accusations) that JR has already put up, so his effort here fails if it is designed to make it look like I am the one who took matters into such historical and theological territory all on my own merely to create a “non-sequitur” (correction supplied) of some sort.
And thus it is JR’s own material that has revealed his infelicities in the matter of history and religion and Christianity and the Church. His effort to paint himself here as – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – a ‘victim’ of my material thus fails.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
And he then tries to reinforce that ‘victim’ gambit by claiming that “the person from the other faith” (apparently referring to JR himself, oddly), through the operation of my stratagem, “should appear crazy at times”.
In other words, if JR doth “appear crazy at times”, that is not his fault nor should it be taken as any sort of indication that he actually is “crazy”; rather, he merely doth “appear crazy” because of the operation of my claimed stratagem. Thus he is again victimized by my making him “appear crazy” (when really, we are meant to keep as the take-away, he is not at all “crazy”).
But then he apparently realizes that he has brought himself to the edge of an abyss, and quickly backtracks: he doesn’t “always” thus “appear crazy”, of course, but rather “just enough” … and the comment trails off into incomprehensibility.
Readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:
And that brings him to his third ploy: “verbosity”. Ya see, JR likes zingy one-liners and catchy images. But he doesn’t really cotton-to analysis and assessment. Once you don’t simply take his stuff at face value, and instead deploy words to point out the problems with his material, then that’s all nothing but “verbosity”. How convenient.
He doesn’t like “words”, at least not if they are marshaled to point out things he doesn’t want pointed out.
And his comment concludes with the pious and smarmy bleat that he doth “share these ploys analysis” (sic) with “a readership”, presumably this readership on this site.
Well, how nice of him to “share” for the further enlightenment and consideration of the readership.
But only a few minutes later (the 2nd at 741PM) it is clear that he doesn’t really have confidence that “a readership” is going to think the way he wants the readership to think.
So he lards on some manipulative bits to insure that the readership doesn’t do anything he doesn’t want.
Thus he now manipulatively and slyly tosses in a) that what he doth “share” is merely what he “and they” (i.e. the readership) do “see”. And b) that – of course – what he has pointed out is all “that obvious”.
And that manipulative bit is rather obvious indeed.
On then to the series from ‘Kris’, starting with the 3rd at 1210AM:
He seems to be taking issue with myself (calling “survivors” and SNAP “abuseniks” ) and JR (“SNAP is conspiring with complicit church officials”) and whoever might claim that “SNAP is a Catholic hate group”.
It all reduces him to laughter and multiple “LOL”s. This seems to be his preferred form of argument: he laughs a lot at stuff, even to the point of “rolling on the floor”. Not impressive, but it seems to be his thing.
As for “survivors”, that actually is the key problem in all of this: just who is and who isn’t a genuine “survivor” and how many such genuine “survivors” are there? (And, conversely, just how many who are … non-genuine?)
The rest of the comment seems a restatement of some classic maxims of Victimist dogma and strategy: a) if someone claims to be a ‘victim’ then you can’t re-victimize that individual by querying the claim and b) anyone who claims to be a victim is ipso facto and forthwith and forever ‘courageous’ for ‘exposing’ (although whether the allegant has actually exposed a fact or not is precisely the problem).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Kris’s comment of the 3rd at 1210AM:
But then some genuine oddness flags our attention:
From rather hysterically laughing to the point of rolling on the floor, the laughing ‘Kris’ suddenly leaves the building and suddenly we have a sober and serious ‘Kris’ who declaims darkly that (although he has just said he is “rolling on the floor laughing”) “it is not funny” … and readers can assess this sudden switch as they may.
And that declamation is then quickly followed by a repetition of that still-odd threat “See you in court”. Which is apropos of nothing and under the circumstances baseless and irrelevant, as it also was the first time he used it in a prior comment. But he seems to like it.
‘Kris’ returns a while later (the 3rd at 142AM:
And here we get simply a recitation of the preferred Stampede scripting of what it’s all about.
It has been over 30 years and whatever “the various states and courts across the U.S. decide to do” has been done and is in the record. ‘Kris’, however, appears to want to forget anything in the past (which hasn’t been anywhere near as Stampede-friendly as Abuseniks had hoped) and look to some future.
That must console him, that The Ball Will Keep Rolling.
And another familiar bit is trotted out: that the Church is a form of “organized crime” – although the US government won’t go after it, he notes and thus – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – the US government is itself working to “revictimize” … and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Kris’s of the 3rd at 142AM:
But then it gets a bit interesting: “Kris’ slyly sidesteps the whole abyssal genuine-or-not-genuine problem by describing the ‘revictimized’ as “those they [i.e. the government and the courts] know have been harmed”. Do the government and courts “know” this? Have they found a way to determine who is genuine and who is … otherwise?
(Victimist dogma has a ready sidestep for this problem: you have to accept their stories and claims and not question them. That way, anyone who claims to be genuine is ipso facto genuine.)
Then a rather maladroitly worded stab at some snark involving the Mafia.
And the comment concludes with a stab at insinuating that the “government officials” aren’t doing anything because they are all indentured to the Church. I would say that the government has done as much as it could without grossly if not utterly unhinging the rule of law, and that given the dubiousness of the core claims it hesitates to go further on the basis of so little demonstrable evidence.
But then (the 3rd at 257AM)‘Kris’ can’t seem to help himself and makes vividly clear what previously had only seemed probable: he tosses in some outré bit about “a drug laced host and some wine”, which rises close to the level of ‘Dan’s feverish and epithetical visions.
And the comment trails off into something rather clearly resembling incomprehensibility.
On the 3rd at 113PM ‘Dan’ will borrow a performance motif from JR, pull out the pom-poms, and cheerlead ‘Kris’.
But actually the pom-pomming merely provides a pretext for ‘Dan’ to try and burnish his own creds as a victim of “character assassination” (correction supplied).
We see once again how ‘Dan’s stratagem for evading his own issues works against him: he provides “information”, about which information he has only permitted himself one explanation, i.e. the one explanation that suits his abiding and abyssal purpose of evading his issues.
Thus when alternative explanations reveal the presence and activity of those issues he seeks to evade, then those alternative explanations must instantly be dismissed as totally “lies” and so on, which also then provides a pretext for his claim of being both a) a victim and b) a prophet persecuted for his ‘message’.
Thus we see the marvels of an abnormal psychic economy.
‘Dan’ is back a few hours later (the 3rd at 707PM) to “answer” Kris’s “question” (i.e. about the US courts and governments doing nothing for ‘victims’ and when will they start?).
Here ‘Dan’ – like JR – will try to come up with an “answer” that will serve to toss-plop at all his ‘enemies’ in one toss: the US government and courts will do nothing, says ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror, “just like their leader” – who, for the purposes of ‘Dan’s cartoon here, is … the Pope.
Again, here is a nice example of the dynamics of paranoia: once you have painted yourself into the corner of having to be perfectly and absolutely right in your claims (which claims, of course, are almost guaranteed to be whackery in the first place), then anyone who doesn’t agree must perforce be your enemy (and, given the mise-en-scene of ‘Dan’s particular cartoon, must also be an agent of the devil and a mocker of God – with Whom ‘Dan’ has assigned himself – or Himself – a very very speshull identification, and so on and so forth).
And since there is every possibility that ‘Dan’s whackeries will elicit questioning and exposure, then ‘Dan’ must declare rather large swaths of the real world to be his (or His) enemy. And – but of course – God’s enemy too.
The 'pope' (caps omitted), would have to be the lead character in your cult's 'Cartoon'. Parading himself around as the White Caped Crusader, for catholics to bow down, adore and worship. The apostles would never allow followers to do such, and they were performing miracles in peoples lives. "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." What will it take for catholics to recognize a fraudulent hierarchy and religion and come to their senses?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 707PM:
As for the present Pope’s failing to institute that Tribunal to judge bishops, I would say that it was a bad idea to begin with, since it simply sets up one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situations for the Church: if a Tribunal were to find a bishop not guilty, then that would simply provide more fodder for the usual Stampede soap-opera, and ditto if a Tribunal were to find a bishop guilty.
In other words, a Tribunal – and we would have to presume that such an entity would have to function according to the principles of classic Western law (greatly influenced by the Church’s canon law from the get-go) and not the Victimist-soused deranged legal jurispraxis of the contemporary scene – would simply wind up adding fresh fuel to the embers of the once-roaring Stampede fire.
It has always seemed to me that this Pope’s Tribunal idea – reflecting in so many ways his Jesuit Order’s approach to the contemporary scene – made a play for engaging public approval by caving in to a widespread excitements. (Regular readers might recall that attack on an old priest in San Jose/Los Gatos a few years back, about which I commented at length at that time, which seemed to indicate that the local Jesuits were somehow complicit in setting the whole thing up, while simultaneously hosting a publication party for some now-forgotten victim-stories compilation book a few miles away at the local Jesuit college campus.)
Here we have another example of several excuses, which you claim you never make, in regards to the pope not being a man of his word.
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' be 'No.' Anything more comes from the evil one." Matt. 5:37
Victims were looking forward to the church finally moving to punish those who enabled pedophiles and sex abusing clergy to continue their perversions unchecked. Their actions, or should we say lack of action, led to many more destroyed children and families. For the pope to make promises, with no intentions of keeping them, is cruel and disingenuous.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 707PM:
And, of course, in ‘Dan’s mind there is no dissonance created by the fact that his own legal and psychiatric misadventures are somehow connected to his own actions and words spewed at children in a schoolyard.
‘Dan’ is, of course, very interested in children … but only to help and save them.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
On the 5th at 406PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate – unintentionally, as so often – the dynamics of projection: it is I – and not he, he would have us believe – who thinks I “can dish it out” but am “a cry baby when it’s thrown back” at me. ‘Dan’ proffers, of course, no quotations of any of my material that would demonstrate where I am a “cry baby” about whatever material Abuseniks put up, but the record here is replete with Abusenik rants, tirades, threats, epithets, and bleats of victimization and so on and so forth.
And he had led into the whole bit here by also trying to run the old JR bit to the effect that maybe he is a little epithetical … but that’s just because my material forces him to be that way. (And thus he and JR are – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – innocently victimized by my material.)
And readers may consider if the level and extent of vituperative and epithetical bits tossed up by JR and ‘Dan’ (among other Abuseniks) can really be indicative of otherwise-rational and usually-mature individuals, or whether the level and extent of their assorted nasty bits come far more easily to them out of predilection and habit.
"For the dream comes with much effort and the voice of a fool through many words." Ecc. 5:3
"In the multitude of words the evil one is not saved and he who restrains his lips is intellegent."
19 fucking posts (Since Dan's last) filled with character assassination. More hostility ladled in those posts than there are rasins in an oatmeal cookie. 19 attempts at posing false premises, then reasoning those premises to "logical" conclusions. Incredible! given that the foundations of that reasoning are false. It's an old religionists' trick: That a mass of smoke like verbiage will confuse the easily led. Just like religion itself does. All talk and no truth.
It was interesting to see how a few folks, who post on this bogus blog, imo, sadly feed off each other, imo. I am glad that I do not feel that I have to defend my comments from those tag teams. My comments are my comments. Have a nice day.
And now to JR’s of the 6th at 817PM:
With all that’s on the table, what do we get from JR?
Some scatological reference to my nineteen posts – which contain a lot of material. But JR – like ‘Dan’ – has an easy-peezy solution to that: it’s all “character assassination” and “hostility”. (“Character assassination” seems to be his victimization du jour.)
Oh, and “false premises” – although (had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt?) JR neglects to provide an accurate quotation of such “false premises” and so on.
And it all leads up to what JR likes to do best: pose. Thus he strikes the Wiggy pose of Shocked Intelligence and Decency: “Incredible!”, he doth declaim, with the nested Wigs rustling on his head.
And he further proclaims that “given that the foundations of that reasoning are false” – although (had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt?) JR neglects to provide an accurate quotation of such “false foundations”.
Thus from somebody who laid down smoke like a destroyer for years about his own ‘rape’, we get this whole pearl-clutching performance.
I overlooked JR’s of the 3rd at 332PM:
Reaching far back to material covered quite a while ago, JR again tries to equate making a report of “an auto accident or a murder” with making an allegation of sex abuse.
As I said long ago on this site: with an auto accident your report is supported by the actuality of the crashed vehicle(s); in a murder there is a body or at least a missing person and some indication of blood.
But in a sex-abuse allegation, especially in ‘Victim-friendly’ law, there is nothing but your allegation (which, in Victim-friendly law is supposed to be taken for the equivalent of a ‘report’).
That’s quite a difference.
Wow! the big bucks must be being thrown P's way.
I see it as a preparation for something coming up in Philly. The rest of the plot. Any day now. more revelations against SNAP.
I used to wonder if part of my posting here wasn't an attempt at suicide by me. The church doesn't like it when it's little/big plots are foiled. If I was the guy to blow the whistle on SNAP being a false flag and the press looked into my claims? And found what I said to be accurate? Well as Fr. Tom Doyle said himself. "It would be a bigger scandal than the sex abuse scandal, they already had.". Church can't have that. The faithful had always been the Golden Goose to Mama Roma. What if that goose walked away. The wealth of the church, Empirical in scope, doesn't want to plug up the font of giving from the membership. Golden Geese are protected at all costs. All costs. People die over far, far lesser "sins". But the church owns the media now. Not to worry. There are no more investigative reporters. Even the L.A. Times covering our law suits out here literally changed those reporters assigned to the story every month. God forbid there would be an overview and an accumulation of information that would let the SNAP cat out of the bag. Tribune company owns the L.A. Times and the Chicago Tribune. THE largest landowner in downtown Chicago is the Catholic church. The Nazi's have bought the media.(If you think not, then explain Rush Limbaugh and co.) And we know who loves their fascists. The guys who've always loved the fascists. Their first and biggest fans. The Vatican. Who got thousands of Nazis out of Europe, Eichman, Mengele and co.? It was our boys in red in Rome.
I expected a knock on my door, fixed car brakes, something. When $billions are at stake. One person's death doesn't mean much in this world. Maybe, I've thought, P's character attacks are an attempt at saving my life. If I can be killed by character assassins the real boys who kill can stay at home. And the church boys won't have more blood on their consciences.
But I'm as safe as houses as the Brits say. Why? Because the discussion isn't one. Not one victim's critiques of SNAP has, or will ever be aired. (Except thanks to me here at TMR, go figure?)
Paint me looney or a liar and a thief. I get at least 20 coats of propaganda painted on me every time I make a post here by P. But he may, in fact, be saving me. Those attacks discredit the one consistent critic of SNAP from us, victims, points of view. And with zero investigative media.Probably because the church owns it. The church feels pretty sure that it's plots won't ever be revealed. Who's that victim yelling that "SNAP's the church"? Just a voice crying out in the wilderness. A looney. Nothing to see there. Move along people. Just a nutcase. a Tin Foiled Mad Hatter. I guess I'm pretty safe.
On the 7th at 103AM ‘Kris’ returns.
But as may come as little surprise to regular readers, we have yet another Abusenik who sniffs that he doth not “feel” that he has “to defend [his[ comments on this “bogus blog”.
Thus, having tossed a few of his preferred piece of plop, he feels quite pleased with himself and will – though it remains to be seen – take himself off to other precincts for other recreations.
His comments are indeed – as he says – his comments. And readers may give them as just as much consideration as they consider those comments to merit.
And ‘Kris’ can have a nice day.
On the 7th at 527AM ‘Dan’ has apparently failed to notice – or at least slyly wants to distract others from noticing – that the core whacky whopper in his rant (of the 3rd at 707PM) had been that the Pope was the “leader” of the US government and of its courts.
Thus we are treated merely to his bits about capitalizing or not the title of “Pope” and then his cartoonish riff on “White Caped Crusader” – whom, he claims with a charmingly overt untruth, Catholics “adore and worship”.
Your "core whacky whopper" accusation, is ridiculous because when I said the gov't will "Most likely [do] nothing, just like their puppet leader", I was referring to the fact that your pope is your bishop's puppet leader, especially regarding his record of doing nothing to help sexual abuse victims or prosecuting the enabling bishops who secretly shuffled them around from church, to schools or to orphanages. DESPICABLE!
And as far as popes being puppet leaders of countries or gov'ts, that's not such a far stretch, when they're always cozying up to presidents, kings and other religious leaders, and involved in major decisions like war and have you forgotten his influence on Obama's agreement with Cuba. How about you quit reaching for straws, and blowing things way out of proportion, to suit your "core whacky whopper" assessments. servant
P.S. catholics don't "adore and worship" the pope. Yeah! Like they don't worship Mary, "Queen of Heaven". They just fawn all over them, bow before them, kiss their ring finger or Mary's feet, until they wear the toes completely off, but Nooo! we don't "worship" them. HYPOCRITE LYING IDOLATORS
On the 7th at 453PM JR resorts – yet again – to an epithetical and insinuating opening: I must be being paid lots of money (to interfere with his cartoons, we recall).
But on the basis of his insinuation that my commenting here is part of some paid Church strategy, he can then start spinning more of his usual webs: it’s all part of a “preparation for something coming up in Philly” … thus neatly trying to sidestep the recent major legal developments in the Lynn case (and the DA’s own status there, as Ralph Cipriano on the BigTrial site indicates).
Regular readers may recall the value of JR’s prognostications, as when he was muttering darkly about something-big going to happen when the Pope came to Philadelphia.
But then – yielding to his predilection to wrap up all his targets into one convenient blob – he suggests that in Philadelphia there will be “more revelations against SNAP … any day now”. The SNAP case was in St. Louis.
And it’s all a Church “plot”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 453PM:
Then a self-serving riff on whether JR was really just trying to “attempt suicide” by “posting here” since – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttttt? – he thus (heroically and courageously, but of course) placed himself in the path of the steamroller of the Church and its revenge when its “little/big plots are foiled”.
Verrrry neat. But what “plots” would JR’s stuff here have foiled in the first place? And having read JR’s stuff here over the years, it would hardly be an irrational suspicion for a reader to imagine that JR himself was a plant by the Church to – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – ‘make victims look bad’. (Thus – if you want to run with this thought – his ‘payment’ was diabolically cleverly hidden in that million he got in the LA settlement for his once having (allegedly, of course) his hand shoved down a teacher’s pants.)
But as the riffing goes on and on, it’s a tissue of “If” statements, speculations and so forth. Including the whopper about ‘what if’ all his stuff turned out to be “accurate” … and readers so inclined can savor that self-consoling bit of his as they may.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 453PM:
Which all requires the further cartoon sigh that “the Church owns the media now” – and readers are welcome to consider that sly but whacky assertion as they may. And “there are no more investigative reporters” (meaning, any whacked out enough to follow the suggestions inherent in his cartoon).
But that means that this pearl-clutching Tribune is now up against the Church a-n-d the media. So very heroic and courageous, and who then can be surprised if he turns out to have failed? But of course, it was not the weight of ‘powers that be’ that resulted in his failure; it would be his own performance that resulted in the failure.
And – once again – the claim (only made by the now-defunct Al-Jazeera network, as I noted quite a while ago) that the Church is soooo wealthy that it is “THE largest landowner in downtown Chicago” (scream-caps retained). As I noted back then, that stunning claim exists nowhere else that I can find; there was a 1909 or so reference to the Church buying a block for a parish church and school which it still owns, but beyond that … nothing. But this silly bit helps buttress the cartoon that JR was up against reely reely rich and powerful interests so who can blame him if he is victimized by failure at the hands of such a monstrous conglomerate?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 453PM:
And then – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – he drags in the Nazis: they “bought the media”. No they didn’t; Hitler intimidated the media both with the Brownshirt SA and then after his accession to the office of Chancellor, through a variety of laws specifically aimed to eradicate dissent and objections under the pains and penalties of treason to the Reich and Volk.
Or perhaps he is simply characterizing the Church as “the Nazis” – and readers may consider that assertion as they will. His proof for that? “Rush Limbaugh and co.” And readers may judge as they will.
Then more of his old 3x5s on the Church and the Nazis and readers may judge that as they will.
And let us not fail to note that seemingly patriotic reference to “our boys” – this (we have from his own claims) from a Vietnam era draftee who spent his single hitch in the Canal Zone and “couldn’t wait” to get out. (Well, that wasn’t his fault: he was victimized by being drafted and anyway, everybody “couldn’t wait” to get out.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 453PM:
And then a further riff on what terrible and dangerous retributions he allowed himself to imagine he could ‘expect’. And apparently the worst of them was my “character attacks” (on a ‘character’ who plumped his rape-story on this site for years).
But that leads into another self-consoling and self-excusing bit: he didn’t have to worry about all that violent stuff he imagined – doncha see? – because my material did the job for them.
But – yes – his cartoonish tissue of stuff about SNAP being a tool of the Church is up here and I, for one, am grateful for that since anyone can now read it in the record on this site.
So he’s safe, except that “the discussion” on this site … “isn’t one” (because – doncha see? – his stuff and cartoons don’t receive the ooh-and-ahhh acceptance that he expects and is sure it deserves).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 453PM:
Which works it all up to its concluding crescendo of a paragraph:
He may be ‘painted’ as “looney or a liar and a thief” … as if his own material hasn’t done that all on its own. But no, he is – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttttt? – victimized by being ‘painted’ as such by others, evil forces and maleficent ‘painters’ and such (he missed a connection here: Hitler was a ‘painter’ too).
And which of my material is merely “propaganda” … JR of course doesn’t bother to say or demonstrate.
And – tah dahhhhhhhhhhhhh! – he borrows a bit from the ‘Dan’-verse Playbook and refers to himself Scripturally as “a voice crying in the wilderness” … and readers may consider it all as they will.