Finally busted for bogus journalism: Sabrina Erdely from Rolling Stone magazine
A jury has awarded $3 million to an administrator at the University of Virginia after Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Erdely defamed her in a bogus story Erdely wrote in 2014 about gang rape at a college fraternity.
However, as readers of this site already know, years before Erdely defamed the U-Va. administrator, she published a completely false and malicious article in 2011 about sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Philadelphia.
Shortly after its publication, Bill Donohue at the Catholic League published a lengthy blow-by-blow takedown of Erdely's hit piece.
In her 2011 article, Erdely relayed the bizarre claims of "Billy" – whom readers of this site know to be Florida resident Dan Gallagher – who claimed to have been raped, molested, and sodomized by some three different men – two priests and a Catholic school teacher, all of whom barely knew each other – years ago as an altar boy in Philly in the late 1990s.
Enter veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano at BigTrial.net. As we have repeatedly chronicled here at TheMediaReport.com, Cipriano has doggedly uncovered detailed information indicating that Gallagher's unbelievable claims were just that: unbelievable. The lives of these three innocent accused men were shattered by Erdely's reckless reporting. (For background on the Gallagher case, see this and this. Also, check out the latest from Cipriano.)
Now that a jury has affirmed that Erdely's tale of ceremonial gang rape at U-Va. was false, we hope that the mainstream media will finally take a similar close look at her preposterous 2011 story about abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
We await.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 232PM:
‘Dan’ will try to weasel around the evidence problem with – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – an epithet (it’s “just laughable”).
Thus, working up “a careful and rational assessment(s) of the possibilities, the plausibility, and the probability” is “just laughable”. But with stories and claims and assertions and accusations that come to us with little or no evidence, that’s – as I said – what has to be done.
Unless – of course – one simply does what the story-tellers (whether of the Abusenik or ‘Dan’-verse type) want … which is to swallow their stuff hook, line, and sinker.
And then more of the usual epithets (“nonsense and ignorance”) and that I “lie like a rug”.
And the bleat that ‘Dan’ cawn’t think why anyone familiar with his material might be moved – upon extended consideration – to consider him “deranged” and “manipulative” and “fraudulent” and “cartoonish”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 232PM:
He then tries to toss the usual wool over everyone’s eyes by attempting to pass off his assorted imprecations and claims – dressed up with Scriptural quotes – as evidence that he has “numerous times shown proof” and so on. Thus, that his own whackeries are “proof” that he is not whacky.
He cawn’t think why that sounds whacky.
And he brings the performance home with more epithet, to the effect that I am a “lying, Mocking Hypocrite” – which readers may or may not take as being a pronouncement of God.
But he’s no doubt right that there’s “more to come” and – I will “predict” here – none of the stuff “to come” is going to be any better than the stuff we’ve already seen.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 255PM:
Here we get just a further riff on the Catholic “cult” and so forth (‘Dan’, of course, doesn’t actually qualify as a “cult” since the religion of the ‘Dan’-verse consists of just the one person (assisted by that congeries of deities resident in his bathroom mirror).
And then – in as good a mimicry of scholarly chops as we are ever going to see from him – he proffers as supportive evidence more of his usual whackeries, this time posted on some other site. Thus, again, his whackeries are introduced as evidence that he is not whacky and how can anyone think that’s whacky?
That’s a phenomenon that will remain opaque to him until the blinders of his original derangement are removed … and I wouldn’t hold off my next meal until that happens.
And – in what has to be considered a pitch-perfect concluding flourish – ‘Dan’ doth pronounce and declaim that I have now and thus “been served by the servant”. He is, apparently, deputized by the deities resident in his bathroom mirror to serve Divine Process. (The badge couldn’t be sent via the Fax Machine From The Beyond; it was no doubt providentially provided at the bottom of a cereal box.)
"How do we see the Lord through our eyes. We don't call Him our Father on earth, we consider other people as our father. Our FAITH is not the Lord's faith, it is the many other different faiths of the world. The HOPE the Lord gives to people is lost, because our hope is put in worldly things. Our LOVE does not come from the Lord's heart, it comes from the hatred that is in the world. We don't want to learn from the true Word of the Lord, we think the truth is in the world. How do you say you can see through Me, when you haven't yet even opened your eyes." This is a prophetic message from the Lord God.
Readers, don't allow a lying, worldly hypocrite, try to convince you that someone who receives prophecies from the Lord is somehow deranged, for that would be a fairly good example of one who is truly deranged and evil, attempting to separate God's children from true wisdom. Pure wickedness from Satan and his minions. Sick and disgustingly evil.
P.S. Compare this to my statement on 12/9 @ 2:55 regarding whom you should call Father.
And on the 11th at 545PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate his last-ditch tactic: when none of his other games work, he will claim to deliver “a prophetic message from the Lord God”. Ovvvvv courssssssse.
This bit of his seems to be structured on the ancient Christian triad of Faith, Hope, and Love.
But apparently either the Fax Machine wasn’t working properly or the deities resident in ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror were having a bad day. Or perhaps ‘Dan’ shouldn’t try to Windex the mirror when the deities are in the middle of their discourse and delivering their instructions.
Readers so inclined are welcome to try to suss out the sense of the whole riff.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 545PM:
But after that first paragraph, ‘Dan’ gets down to the scheduled point: merely an exhortation to “readers” (promoted, at least for this exercise, from being dumb sheep and unbelievers and what-have-you) not to imagine that “someone who receives prophecies from the Lord is somehow deranged”.
Because – he doth exhort – it’s actually the people who think he’s deranged who are actually deranged.
No explication as to how his assertion here might be credible or plausible or accurate.
Instead, just a string of epithets to spiff up his presentation.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 545PM:
Including the bit about Catholics calling priests ‘Father’ and the Pope ‘Holy Father’ being “’demonstrated’ and ‘accurate’ proof that your cult is the most false, lying, hypocrite cult on this planet, of which you are the perfect card carrying member and excuser” (using his bit from his comment of the 9th at 255PM).
And that is so – ‘Dan’s cartoon continues – because actually (‘Dan’ presumes that) Catholic clergy are “greedy, wicked, sexually immoral perverts and pedophiles, idolators and vicious liars”.
But if the examination of the Stampede has demonstrated anything, it is that the global presumption of wickedness and sexual immorality among the Catholic clergy is a carefully blown bubble of stupefying proportions.
And regular readers will recognize the “vicious liars” bit as stemming from those schoolyard monitors who testified as to ‘Dan’s derangement when he tried to accost the kids (his preferred version: tried to “deliver a beautiful prophecy”). Because – doncha see? – if you think ‘Dan’ is whacky, then you must surely be a “vicious liar” … what other explanation (‘Dan’ would have us wonder) could there possibly be?
I'll cover your triad of ignorance in one post. Funny how your opposition's efforts to educate your dumbass are just "riffs, bits, stuff, cartoons, games and last-ditch tactics", while your comments and lies are "careful and rational assessments of the possibilities, the plausibility, and the probability." Your owner ought to put a muzzle on you. I'm not sure they make a muzzle for big-mouthed liars.
When I refer to "readers", I'm not referring to all as dumb sheep and unbelievers, that's more or less directed towards those like yourself, for which it would definitely apply, Mocker.
I never "presume[d] that "Catholic clergy are greedy, wicked, sexually immoral perverts and pedophiles, idolators and vicious liars." I'm sure of it, from my own experience with you lyin' creeps, from the majority of pedophiles among priests from the catholic cult of my youth, and all the facts out there that are easily attainable, for which you continue to make excuses.
And he ends with a "last-ditch tactic" of claiming I "tried to accost the kids," proving again his insistence on being a habitual, vicious, lying creep… "what other explanation could there possibly be?" Mocking Blasphemer. servant, Spiritually ordained and loaded with prophecies and "more to come."
The fool lies again. My story of the crimes committed against me hasn't changed ever. The fact that you lie about it changing only proves you to be the liar that I and Dan and others have always claimed you to be. You lie and you know that you lie and don't care that you lie. You change history that you may control the present and the future.for your church. A History that in this country, presently, is not yours to own; and yet. you still want to claim power with lies like changing history. Why else would you be here? It's not to defend truth it's to pass off lies as truth. P is for propaganda.
Hi Jim, I've made every effort not to mention God to you, so I guess He felt He wanted to send you a message for Himself. My friend received this Dec.12.
"We blame everything on the Lord. We blame our mistakes on Him. We blame our disagreements on Him. We blame our troubles on Him. We blame our lack of believing on Him. We blame our lack of faith on Him. We blame our lack of loving on Him. We blame our hatred on Him. We blame our lies on Him. If He put the blame on every person in this whole, wide, wicked world, no one would have any chance to be a child of His or live with HIm in heaven, forever and an eternity."
Taking ‘Dan’s most recent bits in the order of their appearance we come to his of the 13th at 250PM:
Here – nicely enough, for a change – he actually proffers a researchable quotation, specifically from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1035.
But – as so very often – it’s not as relevant as he would like it to be in relation to what I had said (i.e. that the term “Lake of Fire” is not “a fixed element of Catholic doctrine”).
The applicable Numbers in the CCC are 1034 through 1037.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 250PM:
And 1035 does not anywhere deploy the term “Lake of Fire”, nor does 1034, which is actually the more relevant Number for the present discussion here.
Jesus referred to “the unquenchable fire”, but that’s not the same thing. The “Lake” bit is an imaginative add-on and has been used historically and popularly to add zing and heft to descriptions of Hell, but just what exactly Hell consists of, and of just what the causal mechanism of its pain and suffering consists, is not something spelled out in any Catholic doctrinal statements – except that “the chief punishment of Hell is eternal separation from God” (1035). (I won’t expand that assertion to include other more or less Christian polities and their doctrines, since the spectrum is far too broad and who knows what this or that obscure – and often generally Protestant – group might doctrinally hold?)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 250PM:
‘Dan’ then tries to spiff up his mis-reading with one of his no-doubt favorite bits from the Book of Revelation. But that bit doesn’t purport to be a complete list of the many ways (or ‘sins’, if you will) that can separate one eternally from God.
And of course one would have to buy into ‘Dan’s verrrry specific preferences as to just who qualifies for the Revelation list, and we all know where he’s trying to go with that.
Does accosting childrens in a schoolyard on the pretext of delivering “a beautiful prophecy” qualify as “cowardly”? ‘Dan’ doubtless thinks not. Does setting oneself up as a specially-appointed and officially-deputized Prophet and Server of Divine Process qualify as being an ‘idolater’? ‘Dan’ doubtless thinks not.
But he quickly moves on to his scheduled epithet, declaring and pronouncing (upon the authority of the deities resident in his bathroom mirror) that I qualify fully. That no doubt must console him.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 250PM:
And then – again sublimely ignorant of the revelatory and recoil consequences of his claims – doth indict the Catholic Church and hierarchy as being “hypocrites” who can make Bible passages “mean” whatever they want it to mean. Whereas – readers may consult the record here – ‘Dan’s twisty-turny manipulations of Scripture for his own purposes are … what? (‘Dan’s short answer: the Word and Will of God, hot off the griddle, courtesy of ‘Dan’ in his role as Divine Flapjack Flipper Extraordinaire.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 250PM:
Readers will also note that they have yet again been demoted to “deceiving, lying dumb sheep”. ‘Dan’ really hasn’t made up his mind – but then, his mind doesn’t really enter into it.
Poor ‘Dan’: he wants to flatter readers in order to sweet-talk them into agreeing with his stuff, but deep down he can’t escape the profoundly uncongenial reality that those Catholics who intervened at the schoolyard fence and all the other times they testified about him (according to his own reports here) have to be somehow swatted away and squashed down into the “deceiving, lying dumb sheep” box that ‘Dan’ hath prepared for all those who dare to notice his numerous infelicities, derangements, and manipulations.
And he then yet again delivers an exhortation that would be best delivered to himself in his bathroom mirror: “Be Not Deceived”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1150AM:
Here he opens strongly with a double epithet: I am a “fool” and I am ‘lying’.
Am I? Readers can consult the record here for his assorted contortions as to his arrests and court-ordered psychiatric evaluations: he wasn’t arrested but then he was, six times /no judge ordered his evaluations but then how did he wind up under observation, six times? / anyway, the police and judges were Catholics / as were all the “hundreds” who testified against him as to his assorted infelicities / and so on.
Like JR and his variations on the theme, ‘Dan’ can’t seem to keep his stories straight. But how can he … without confronting himself with his profound problems? And to un-deceive himself in regard to those problematical aspects of himself would pretty much undermine the entire vaudeville act (with Scriptural costumes. Wigs, props and scenery) that he has developed precisely to evade un-deceiving himself.
The material is all there in the record, in ‘Dan’s own telling of his story (or stories). If there is any lying going on, it is by ‘Dan’, second to us and first to himself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1150AM:
He is – though – right in trying to go for the bit that he doesn’t “care”. How, after all, could he “care” without un-deceiving himself … and then where would he be?
And he then quickly moves on to something else in order to change this most uncongenial subject: I “change history” and then the riff trails off – similar to JR’s oft-used gambit – into something about “this country” and the effort to shoehorn in current events and so on and so forth.
Then he tries to bring it all home with a word-play on “Propaganda” – although his own carefully constructed vaudeville is the real propaganda here, hiding in Scriptural vestments in order to further his own abiding personal agenda of self-deception and the deception of others.