The other shoe drops: SNAP president Barbara Blaine makes a hasty exit
***BREAKING: Saturday, February 4, 2017, 2:35pm EDT***
Barbara Blaine, the founder and national president of the troubled and contentious group SNAP, has just resigned.
An email announcing the resignation was sent to members of SNAP earlier today (Sat., 2/4/17) (screenshot (jpg)) followed by a separate email with a statement by Blaine (screenshot (pdf)). It was then reported in the Chicago Tribune and other outlets.
Blaine's announcement continues a tumultuous past few months for SNAP:
- Just a couple weeks ago, SNAP's former director of development, Gretchen Hammond, dropped a bombshell lawsuit on SNAP, asserting that SNAP "exploits" victims and "routinely accepts financial kickbacks" from Church-suing contingency lawyers in the form of "donations";
- Last week, after Hammond's lawsuit alleging serious malpractice at SNAP received substantial national media attention, SNAP national director David Clohessy announced his embarrassing resignation.
- And in August, after Rev. Joseph Jiang sued SNAP after the group falsely accused him of being a pedophile, a federal judge ruled that SNAP maliciously defamed him "negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth" and ordered that SNAP must "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees";
Now SNAP's own founder has deserted the organization with an announcement hidden on a Saturday morning.
This is a developing story …
ALSO: TheMediaReport.com is investigating a tip that SNAP was sued again last Monday (1/30/17). An accused priest in Michigan lodged the suit. Developing …
————-
Here are a couple of Blaine's "greatest hits":
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
But ‘Dan’ is on to something when he declares that he doth not “depend on [his] own understanding” … and we surely should not depend on his “understanding” either. Especially including ‘Dan’s “understanding” that when you hear from ‘Dan’ you are hearing from God.
And the whole bit concludes with another of ‘Dan’s favorite (and in light of the weakness of his material, necessary) bits: God’ll getcha if you don’t listen to ‘Dan’. If you can’t make sense of ‘Dan’s stuff and thus accept it on the level of rationality, then at least be afraid enough of God to accept it.
You won't want to miss my "God'll getcha" on Feb. 22 @ 10:42pm, in older comments.
Catholics read Romans chapter 1, explaining how idol-worship (statue worship) leads to all types of sexual immorality. How God let them follow their own evil desires. This description fits your hierarchy and all the evil, wicked and greedy creeps of your cult, including publyin'. Romans 1:18-32
Run from their wicked cult. Escape the punishment he has waiting for all "cowards, idolators, dirty-minded, sexually immoral, murderers, liars and all who love the lie." Rev 21:8 and 22:15 Read, study and live the Word. God's reward awaits those who change and seek His love.
Todays word from the Lord: I, the Lord, will show you how to deal with all the wicked people in this world. When I know they know nothing about your life, and try to make the decisions for you. Look at ME, they know nothing and brag on how much knowledge they think they have, when their knowledge is without My teaching. Love is the most important word in life, always keep it deep within your heart, until eternity. Show that love and kindness, each day, until eternity. Use the word love in your life, until eternity. Have faith with people, that have no faith in me and are against me, unwilling to change their ways and put love in their heart, until eternity.
Don't allow publiar to try to convince you that these are my words. You can easily tell that they don't sound like me at all. I'm sorry, answering to his BS, makes it hard for me to share the love I'm able to express with caring and loving people. None of us can con or fool the Lord God, and He knows those who are truly His, no matter what the world and it's liars have to say. Don't allow them to deceive you.
And you shall reap exactly as you sow! "Easy-peezy." Immature, mocking, little creep.
Since ‘Dan’s most recent bunch of comments here are on both the ‘older comments’ and ‘newer comments’ screens, then I’ll deal with the ‘older comments’ section first. And some of them don’t bring anything new, so I’ll work with whatever fresh material he proffers.
On the 22nd at 1042PM ‘Dan’ opens with a long string of epitheticals. My, he does like to go on.
My comments about ‘Dan’s “mental state” are not snide; they are based on his own presentations here. They are serious. And as usual, no examples of where I have “mocked God, His Word, and His Holy Spirit”. Unless you buy ‘Dan’s bit that by countering his material you are countering God Himself.
He cawn’t see what’s off about his bit about another commenter being able to “destroy … another’s ‘mental and spiritual attribute’”. But no surprise here because if he faced up to my point, he’d have to face up to his actual manipulative gambit.
As for ‘Dan’s “moral character”, no examples there of how I made “false accusations” about it. But it’s all easily comprehensible if readers recall one of ‘Dan’s primary hermeneutical principles: if it makes ‘Dan’ look bad, then it must be “false accusations” and “lies”.
You're under the impression that your garbage "bring[s] anything new". It's the same repetitive excuses, manipulating facts and lies, in order to protect the lying, idol-worshipping, cowardly, perverts and pedophiles of your cult, and you being a perfect example of all of the above, creep. Do you think your "luc[iferi]an infancy" nonsense and ignorance, you throw at us, shows some form of "anything new", just because you're impressed with your worldly knowledge? Using your stupid wisdom, you said "infancy", so how many infants have you been hanging around? "Infancy", sounds like you been playing with an army of baby boys? Sounds extremely "pedophile and perverted". You're an ignorant, lying, mocking fool, and many times I've pointed out examples and you insistently repeat the lies and mockery, so quit playing dumb, or maybe you're just not playing. 1) Lies – a) accosting, harassing, haranguing children. b) deceiving, lying and making excuses for pedophiles and perverts and liars, like yourself 2) Mocking God and His Holy Spirit – a) Faxes from Beyond, etc., etc. b) When pertaining to myself, capitalizing He, Himself, etc., insinuating that I'm claiming myself to be God or Christ c) Prophecies from God's Holy Spirit, claiming it's " 'Dan' trying to mimic Scriptural diction and style", when I didn't even receive the Word, but was given to my disabled roomate the day before. Although you think not, this is all mockery against God's Spirit, and you may want to start to not "lean on your own understanding", because, boy are you dumb to mock God and His Power. Don't forget. God's gonna getcha, and I can't wait. servant
And by the way, your own presentations as to my "mental state and Scriptural attributes" are just more of your lying, ridiculously stupid assessments, and make you look like the jackass that you have proven yourself to be. "Take the board out from your own eye, before trying to take the splinter from another." Problem is, you've got a giant Sequoia stuck in your eye and I think it's already dead, just like your deceiving, manipulating material. Later, lying mocker. servant
You probably think you deserve forgiveness, also, but you're just one more perfect example of a catholic creep, unremorseful, unrepentant, lying perverter of God's Truth. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s’ of the 22nd at 1042PM:
In the second paragraph ‘Dan’ once again puffs up his faux-papal pinfeathers: he would “like to bring every catholic’s attention” to something.
And what would that something be? My post of the 22nd at 312AM.
“It is known”, he doth declaim, “that your cult is full of idol-worshipping, pedophile perverts and liars”. And where is it “known”, beside in the séances in his bathroom mirror?
Then ‘Dan’ does a bit of cut-and-paste work on his own material to try to evade the gravamen of his own comment. He had said on the 21st at 652PM and purely as his own choice of material, that he doth “know infants that could interpret the Bible better than [I do]”.
First, he surely doesn’t know any such “infants”. Given the lack of development in the prefrontal cortex there is not one ‘infant’ on the planet who could accomplish such a task, let alone “infants” plural.
Second, the very fact that out of thin air and with no prompted relevance from anything in the comments, his mind goes to “infants” is revelatory in and of itself. That such a tendency doesn’t ring any alarm bells in his mind simply demonstrates something that I would say is very much a part of the original Big Bang that prompted his creation of the ‘Dan’-verse to begin with, probably quite a while ago.
And sarcasm doesn't necessarily have any gravamen to it. It's just sarcasm, plain and simple, stuff that goes clear past your peewee brain. LOL, potty-mouthed mocker. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s’ of the 22nd at 1042PM:
So to now assert – as he does here – that all he had done was to ‘compare’ my material “to that of an infant” is doubly inaccurate: first, he didn’t just ‘compare’ my material to that of an infant’s; actually, he said he doth “know infants that could interpret the Bible better than [I do]”.
Second, that final bit doesn’t quite qualify as a ‘comparison’; it is proffered as an assertion of fact, and it fails as such. As do so many of ‘Dan’s assertions made as if they were demonstrated fact.
Last two ignorant posts: Comparing your mind to that of a child was what is called sarcasm. Alot of your material is immature and so childish, so there's no need to carry on with your stupidity, as you enjoy doing. You sure do like to carry on over nothing, and nobody is interested in your long-winded explanations of nothingness, Mrs. Persnickety.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s’ of the 22nd at 1042PM:
But he dassn’t dawdle on this difficult bit. So he quickly tosses in a distraction from the way-back: clutching his pearls he now huffs about how I would “dare” to “nauseatingly blame” poor old JR for “mistakenly” (correction supplied) having “called his child molestation … ‘rape’”.
As was demonstrated when this bit of JR’s was looked-at quite some time ago here, the probability or even plausibility of JR’s having made a ‘mistake’ is slim-to-none: JR had gone over his story with a fully-qualified attorney almost a decade prior to his having made the claim of ‘rape’ here; and he had submitted a formal allegation as part of that huge 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit under pains and penalties of perjury (otherwise it couldn’t have been in the lawsuit’s master Complaint).
Thus to accept the characterization of JR’s rape-claim as a ‘mistake’, we would have to presume that during the preparation of the Complaint the attorney did not explain to JR that his story did not rise to the level of rape for any legal purposes.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s’ of the 22nd at 1042PM:
But on the basis of this balderdash, ‘Dan’ can then toss up all of his concluding epithets and threats-from-God and so on and so forth.
And he likes to do that. He likes it a whole lot.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1148PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ simply “must say” … and he goes on again that he is being lied-against – though as always without any demonstration that anything in my material is a lie. It’s just – we are to believe – that poor decent and innocent and “Chosen” ‘Dan’ just happens to have been “falsely accused” a real whole lot.
I am reminded of one of the classic plaints of Homer J. Simpson: Oh why is it that things that only happen to stupid people always keep happening to meeee?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1154PM:
Concerning my example of the problems with the Lucan ‘infancy narratives’ ‘Dan’ will try to evade the point by claiming that he simply cawn’t see how it has anything to do with anything we are discussing”.
I had been pointing out the complexity and difficulty of the Bible that ‘Dan’ claims is so crystal clear and forthright and easy to understand and interpret. And readers may note that ‘Dan’ also hasn’t jumped right in to clearly explain the crystal-clarity of the Lucan ‘infancy narratives’. Which should come as no surprise at all.
And he concludes with an epithet to the effect that I “have no clue what [I’m] talking about”, although he proffers no explanation or example.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1208AM:
Here we merely get pearly-clutchy huffing and puffing without any explanation of what his objection actually is. Par for the course with his stuff.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1225AM:
How oh how is ‘Dan’ to deal with the grossly inconvenient fact of his lengthy court and psychiatric record?
Easy-peezy: At least he hasn’t been charged with “pedophilia”.
Few priests have been, as the first Jay Report demonstrates.
And who here really knows what the reasons were that drove courts to send him for psychiatric evaluation six times?
And is ‘Dan’ seriously trying to claim that “just about every clergyman on the planet” is a pedophile?
An alternative explanation for this sublimely whacked-out bit: ‘Dan’ sees everywhere what he doesn’t want to see … much much closer to home, as it were.
I was just quoting you, "just about every clergyman on the planet" is a pedophile. Maybe that's wrong, but they're surely cowards, idolators, insistent liars, perverts and their excusers or all of the above, as you would qualify. Sorry, but that's God's honest truth. There's still time for decent, deceived catholics, to run from there corruption and escape their eternal destruction.
Satan, claiming to be "the Angel of Light", while accusing me of "channeling the entities" and "seances in his (or His) bathroom mirror. And the pee-devil oinks, "No, I don't mock God's Holy Spirit." Do you catholics know that Satan is known as the Deceiver and Accuser of God's chosen. Should it be any surprise that his demon-possessed children would falsely accuse and slander God's faithful, in order to carry out his wicked deceptions. Be ye not fooled, by the Prince of Darkness and his Cult of Liars. servant
peewee oinks, "How oh how is 'Dan' to deal with the grossly inconvenient fact of his lengthy court and psychiatric record? At least you realize how "grossly inconvenient" it is to suffer for crimes and slander, that you're not guilty of, at the hands of the most wicked, grossest, lying cult on earth. My satisfaction will come on Judgment Day, when all the pedophile and perverted creeps are exposed, the truth shall come to pass and all the lying creeps are thrown into the pit and Lake of Fire. Revenge shall be so sweet, saith the Lord. I hate to say, that I may find some enjoyment in that myself. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1109PM (appearing on the ‘newer comments’ screen):
Here ‘Dan’ simply tosses up more of his 3x5s, based on his presumption that Catholicism is “idol-worship” (he slyly tries to adapt Paul’s actual statement of “idol worship” to the more cartoon-friendly “statue worship”).
And only if one buys that bit can one then entertain with a straight face ‘Dan’s Scripturally ‘logical’ assertion that “this description fits your hierarchy” and so on and so forth.
Not a "presumption", whatsoever. Catholicism, from the top, down, is idol-worship in it's truest, worst form. Statue worship, pope, archbishop, cardinal and Mary Mediatrix, "Queen of Heaven" worship, false Saint worship, greediness and disgusting, sexual lusts. All forms of idolatry in it's truest sense. No one does it any better, catholics. Do not be deceived. Escape the lying Cult. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1126PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will deliver himself (or Himself) of “Todays word from the Lord” (sic).
Readers unfamiliar with ‘Dan’s M.O. can familiarize themselves with it here: this is merely ‘Dan’ channeling the entities ‘Dan’ accesses in those séances in his (or His) bathroom mirror.
That was the first paragraph.
In the second paragraph – as if ‘Dan’ sorta realizes that this is all a bit of a stretch – he then attempts to burnish his stuff in the first paragraph by pointing out as evidence that this hash of “words” must surely be from the Lord since “you can easily tell that they don’t sound like [‘Dan’] at all”.
Seriously? While his words surely don’t sound like ‘Dan’ insofar as they lack all the usual epithet and trash-talk, they certainly do sound like ‘Dan’ trying to mimic Scriptural diction and style (which would explain the notable lack of epithet and trash-talk).
‘Dan’ should try to imitate God more often; it certainly reduces all the juvenile whackery of his usual diction, style and usage. But if all that were omitted, there wouldn’t be a whole lot left to his material.
And I doubt many people get the “caring and loving” from ‘Dan’, unless they are willing to buy into the ‘Dan’-verse and all its pomps and all its works.
Satan, claiming to be "the Angel of Light", while accusing me of "channeling the entities" and "seances in his (or His) bathroom mirror. And the pee-devil oinks, "No, I don't mock God's Holy Spirit." Do you catholics know that Satan is known as the Deceiver and Accuser of God's chosen. Should it be any surprise that his demon-possessed children would falsely accuse and slander God's faithful, in order to carry out his wicked deceptions. Be ye not fooled, by the Prince of Darkness and his Cult of Liars. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 118PM:
He opens as so often with the old I’m Not/You Are gambit: it’s not he but I with “the same repetitive” stuff and so on. And that riff goes on for a bit.
Then he tries to somehow deal with the problem of the Lucan infancy narratives. Which he does – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr ittttt? – by mere evasion.
First, by mere wordplay, trying to get “Luciferian” out of “Lucan”. But indulging himself in this bit of cutesy wordplay ‘Dan’ creates a profound problem for his entire Scriptural project (as it were): for if the Lucan infancy narratives are a part of Scripture, then what happens when ‘Dan’ characterizes them as being from Lucifer?
Perhaps what ‘Dan’ – probably unintentionally – has done here is to reveal his underlying assumption that anything that doesn’t fit in with his cartoons must be demonic, even Scripture.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 118PM:
And then second, by mere epithet, i.e. “nonsense and ignorance”. The bottom line of it all being: ‘Dan’s got nothing and the complications posed by the Lucan infancy narratives are something his cartoons can’t deal with at all.
Also, it would now appear that in ‘Dan’s cartoon categories the Lucan infancy narratives (and the complications they present) qualifiy as mere “worldly knowledge”. Thus, not even knowledge of the Bible qualifies in the ‘Dan’-verse unless it supports his cartoons.
The problem, genius, was that your assessment and analysis of the "lucan infancy narratives", had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was being discussed at the time, and that's why it was "nonsense and ignorance" to even mention. Speaking of nonsense and ignorance, was the fact that I used the word infant, so that makes me a pedophile or perverted. Your cult, being so well indulged and involved in pedophilia and perversions, would be the last to try an lay such an ignorant, lying claim on another. Shows your hypocrisy.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 118PM:
The ‘infancy narratives’ are the commonly-accepted name for those particular narratives in Luke, so named because they deal with the infancy of Jesus. As opposed to ‘Dan’s – how would he put it? – “creepy and perverted” recourse to infants for no reason whatsoever.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 118PM:
And then we get a repeat example of the “lies” of which ‘Dan’ accuses me:
First, that he was “accosting, harassing, haranguing children”. He went up for no good reason to a schoolyard and began going on with the schoolchildren until responsible adults intervened. If this was a seventh incident, separate from the six that got him arrested and taken before a court and thus sent to the psychiatric services, then I would say that the three verbs he quoted here qualify as accurate. ‘Dan’, of course, claimed that he was merely ‘delivering’ “beautiful prophecy”. As for the other six times, who knows?
Second, he terms as “lies” what he claims are my “deceiving, lying and making excuses for pedophiles and perverts and liars”. But as we have seen here so often, I am merely pointing out the complications with his assertions and material; I have never asserted any claims as to the guilt or innocence of the Church and priests, whether specifically or generally. ‘Dan’ is the assertion-and-claim maker; I simply point out the difficulties with his assertions and claims – which are numerous.
And true to form, he repeats his ignorant lies, again and again and again, hoping some dumb sheep will buy into his garbage, as if it's truth. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass, Jack. servant
You call, deceiving, lying, violent, cowardly creeps, hitting me from behind, "responsible adults interven[ing]". And how can you know this to be true, when you were not present, but think you can accurately assess what went down? You are the biggest lying, deceiving, cowardly, catholic creep I have ever run into. Likewise, you cannot claim that I was "accosting, harrassing, harranging children" or now your added "going on with the children". Why can I say this? BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THERE! STOP YOUR INSISTENT, RIDICULOUS LYING. YOU DESERVE NO FORGIVENESS, BECAUSE YOU CONTINUE TO SLANDER ME AND YOU ARE UNREPENTANT, AND WORTHY OF HELL. YES, AND THAT IS CONFIRMED FROM A FAX FROM BEYOND, MOCKING, LYIN' CREEP. servant
publiar oinks, "I have never asserted claims as to the guilt or innocence of the church and priests." Well, of course you haven't, because you're too busy making excuses, denying and lying for them. And just because you're too cowardly to make claims, doesn't change the fact that the majority of your cult is guilty and not innocence. Deceiving others, being themselves deceived. You have yet to figure out, that you've only fooled yourself? FOOL servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 118PM:
Third, he (or He) doesn’t like my grammatical characterizations of capitalizing in reference to him (or Him): but from what we have seen in his own material on this site, there seems to be precious little daylight (in ‘Dan’s mind, anyway) between ‘Dan’ and God, so I think that the “or He” type of usage applies validly here.
As for images such as Faxes From The Beyond: given that i) ‘Dan’ has no proffered evidence whatsoever that his material is pretty much God’s material and that ii) ‘Dan’ yet insists that there is precious little (if any) daylight between his assertions and the Mind and Will of God, then some form of “secret” (to use his own term) communications from the Beyond is pretty much all that’s left. Is it Tweets or emails rather than Faxes? Let ‘Dan’ demonstrate that.
Nor am I “insinuating” any of this. We have it from ‘Dan’s own statements, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions here.
And then – in a pitch-perfect bit of Victimist demagoguery – ‘Dan’ again drags in his “disabled roommate” whom – regular readers may recall – was a character originally introduced here by ‘Dan’ as a font of “prophecy” and as somehow being ‘proof’ that it was God speaking and not ‘Dan’.
And more mocking stupidity, shoveled onto the pile of mocking ignorance, previously repeated, again and again and again. You must be pretty proud of displaying such ignorance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 127PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will also register his displeasure with any un-congenial characterizations as to his “mental state and Scriptural attributes”. Again, it’s all right there in his material and has been explicated many times.
And I again suggest strongly that ‘Dan’ needs to head for the bathroom mirror and commune with the “board out of your own eye” pericope before distracting himself (or Himself) by summoning the séance crew.
More mocking stupidity.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 131PM:
Here – apparently presuming the veracity and coherence of all his stuff – he (or He) will now clutch the pearls and check the tea-leaves, which tell ‘Dan’ what I “probably think”, i.e. that I “deserve forgiveness” for screwing up ‘Dan’s cartoons.
They’re cartoons. I don’t see myself as in need of forgiveness in the first place.
And has it occurred to ‘Dan’ that once again his material has slipped into epithet? He should go back to trying to imitate and channel God so that at least readers don’t have to wade through the epithets and “potty-mouthed” stuff that comprise so large a chunk of the ‘Dan’-verse material.
Forgiveness for your multitude of LIES, dummy. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 910PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade the ramifications of his spontaneous and deliberate use of “infants” by claiming that it was all just a joke (“sarcasm”, specifically) and that so much of my material is “immature and so childish” that “infants” just sorta popped into his head.
This requires presuming, of course, that anything that ‘Dan’ doesn’t like can simply be classified as “immature and so childish”; reading his own potpourri of epithetical juvenilia and evasive gambits doesn’t register with him as “immature and so childish” in the least. Nor does any of ‘Dan’s stuff apparently strike him as “ignorant” either.
Readers may judge as they will.
Oh, and looking too closely at his stuff and noticing the problems with it is – yet again – “Persnickety”. With the Abuseniks, they so often claim they are delivering ‘facts’, but if you actually try to examine those ‘facts’, then you are being “Persnickety”.
They have their little plop-tossing game all figured out; but we’re only supposed to believe everything they say, not go and look at their ‘facts’ and stories and claims and assertions.
More of your I'm Not/You Are bit, baby peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 143PM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates again just how slyly and manipulatively deceptive and unreliable his claims can so often be: he claims that he “was just quoting [me]” in the matter of “just about every clergyman on the planet” being a “pedophile”.
But I had used the phrase “just about every clergyman on the planet” (on the 22nd at 5PM) in reference to ‘Dan’s own court and psychiatric record being longer than that of “just about every clergyman on the planet”.
But in ‘Dan’s comment here, he is quoting the phrase I used … but for an entirely different purpose: he tries to make it sound as I had said what is actually now ‘Dan’s assertion (and a whopper it is), i.e. that “’just about every clergyman on the planet’ is a pedophile”.
Oh, wooops, “maybe that’s wrong”, ‘Dan’ now says. Ya think?
But having backed off that now-exposed whopper, ‘Dan’ just can’t help himself and so he lards on a whole bunch of hardly more viable assertions: “but surely they’re cowards, idolators [sic], insistent liars, perverts and their excusers or all of the above”.
Oh, but “that’s God’s honest truth” … ‘Dan’ just got a Fax confirming it, doncha see?
All your stupid accusations and lies, aren't terribly different from the one's your cult cronies laid on me. Birds of the feather flock together. "God's honest truth" is from the Bible, for anyone to look up for themselves. "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolators and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur." Rev 21:8 "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolators and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [liars like you publyin']. Rev 22:15 And once again the insistent liar wants to convince you that " 'Dan' just got a Fax confirming it", when it's verified, plain as day, but the blind and deaf refuse to see or hear. How's the heat and burning sulfur beginning to feel, publiar. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 502PM:
There’s only one commenter here who has ever made (and insistently continues to make) a claim in regard to status ranking in the Beyond, and it’s not me. It is the self-styled “servant” and “Servant” and/or “Chosen”.
Fax for the publiar, "You'd actually have to be a servant or chosen to claim it, and if I'm wrong, then I'd be destined for the Lake of Fire, like yourself. See how simple following God's truth is.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 518PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade the still-bubbling question of his lengthy court and psychiatric record by simply – again – claiming that he was made “to suffer for crimes and slander that [he’s]not guilty of”.
In other words – to repeat – poor ‘Dan’ just minds his business and yet “hundreds” of strangers, and police and courts, have for no reason whatsoever gone and “lied” about him and so on and so forth.
And was it not quite the act of a “coward” for a grown man to go after schoolchildren in a schoolyard?
Will you ever stop, with your childish accusations and slander? Is lying just your second nature, or should I say first? You're one big lying idiot. Why don't you stop your ignorance?
Here ‘Dan’ (responding to mine of the 24th at 402AM) will try to hang on to his “idol worship” accusation by merely claiming that it is “not a ‘presumption’, whatsoever”. And how does he demonstrate that his bit about the Church here is not a mere “presumption”? Why, he does so by simply saying so. If ‘Dan’ says it – doncha see? – then God says it and that’s all there is to it.
Readers will notice that he doesn’t even try to go near the fact that he had changed Paul’s wording for the convenience of the ‘Dan’-verse cartoon.
Tired of answering to your stupidity!!
The problem with SNAP, as with a lot of the grievance industry, is that the siren call of money outweighs concern for real victims and the truth. All of this was to be expected when numerous abuse claims were settled based on accusations alone rther than fact. Remember the discredited McMartin pre-school scandal that damaged the lives of many to satisfy power hungry bureacrats.
NB: Dan. I first met his like in 1961 when I lived in Alabama. I had thought his species extinct. Truely a laboratory curiousity that they still exist.
"I first met his like in 1961." So you're speaking of someone who enjoys telling the truth and is willing to expose the crimes of your catholic cult, even if it would bring all the liars of the cult, out of the woodwork against him. Glad to hear we're not extinct. I would "rther"[sic] not have to deal with the lying "chrlatons"[sic] and deceiving "bureacrats"[sic]. Maybe you'd like to contact Mr. Know-It-All, to help your spelling, and maybe he can also share with you his skills in lying and slandering the innocent. He's the type of lying creep, you brainwashed sheep seem to look up to. Experiment with that "ignorance and stupidity" in your lab. servant
I would add a bit to ‘Donald Link’s comment of the 27th at 1159AM:
Certainly ‘Dan’s material draws much of its stance and content and methodology from what might be called ‘fundamentalism’ as it has existed for a century, nowadays more in rural areas. Although that stance draws upon other historical dynamics reaching back to American ‘Know-Nothings’ and further back to the Reformation era in Europe.
But as I have long and often put forward here at length, ‘Dan’s material also reveals his own personal twists and they are not inconsiderable.
One of the reasons I have allowed myself – with DP’s indulgence – to engage ‘Dan’ at length is to give readers an opportunity to encounter this type of stance, since I don’t think many have often encountered it and have certainly not had the chance to engage and examine and assess it at length.
Are there only a few such specimens left? I think there are, though it has been the internet that has enabled them to populate some precincts of it in order to put their material forward in a way that would be impossible only by face-to-face encounters.
And the Stampede has certainly offered a chance for them to piggy-back their stance on a much larger and more powerful wave. Though – again – ‘Dan’ brings his own personal twists to the undertaking.
DP indulges blatant liars? Really? You think you "engage and examine and assess" others? By that you mean, lie and manipulate and deceive others? I was not aware that those were synonyms, maybe only in your narrow, lying mind. Quit lying, twisting and manipulating truth, including Biblical truth, and just maybe you'll be treated with respect. I don't see that happening, seeing the obvious enjoyment you get out of slandering and deceiving others.
I also note that the use of prejoratives is inversely proportional to the rationality of the arguement. This appears to be a constant.
I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s comments as they appear on the screen rather than in chronological order. And some of them are so devoid of worthwhile content (i.e. they’re nothing but juvenile epithetical rants) that I’ll just deal with those that offer some useful bits.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 0106AM:
Here he tries to wave-away any of my material about the schoolyard fence episode by merely claiming – yet again – that since I wasn’t there then … what?
What have I got to examine? I have his own recounting of the episode. And that recounting indicates that he walked up to a schoolyard fence and began to speak to schoolchildren in the schoolyard (“delivering beautiful prophecy”, he would say) until school staffers (those whom I called “responsible adults”) became concerned (or alarmed) and intervened to stop him.
Since ‘Dan’ was not a member of the school staff and by his own recounting initiated some sort of verbal presentation to the students (would he care to now say he was seeking to engage them in conversation?) then on the very basis of those facts alone, he was grossly out of line and out of order.
And again, peewee whimpers and oinks," 'Dan's comments 'are so devoid of worthwhile content' (i.e. nothing but juvenile)." Then what does he consider his incessant 'lies', adult and sophisticated? I answer a child or baby, with juvenility, so little peewee would understand. Sad that most grown-ups, grow out of being liars in their youth, understanding that people don't terribly appreciate those who have trouble with telling the truth. Unlike many in your cult, who think they can lie and get away with it, as long as nobody can catch their lying. Sad, but apparently they don't think there's a God, that can count the hairs on their head. You think He's as deaf, dumb and blind as you and your hierarchy? Judgment Day, Coming Soon to a Temple near you. Publiar, no need to buy a ticket, your incessant 'lies' have earned you a front row seat. servant of God
P.S. Maybe they'll show your favorite Looney Liars Toons, Porky Oinkin' Pig. So tired of casting pearls at swine.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 106AM:
And from the material that I have seen so very voluminously presented here by ‘Dan’ then I would say that “harangue” and “accost” and “harass” are surely plausible if not indeed greatly probable.
And I would further propose that if any of those children spoke up and disagreed with this ‘adult’ named ‘Dan’, then those children would have been subjected to the same verbal treatment to which we have so often seen ‘Dan’ resort here when his ‘truth’ isn’t accepted but is rather questioned or exposed as whackery.
And he concludes with an all-caps scream-rant and who can be surprised?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 118AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade the reality of his having made so very many assertions and claims by trying to make it seem that those who throw about such assertions and claims are not “cowardly” (thus that those who do so (such as, oh, say … ‘Dan’) are – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – somehow courageous and truthy).
And then he tops off that wad of baloney with a further assertion that “the majority of your cult is guilty”. Readers may judge as they will.
No, publiar, God will judge as He will. He holds a special place for you liars.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1047PM:
Here – prescinding from the opening epithets – he merely repeats his hardly plausible claim that he was simply lied-about.
What is of interest here is that he reveals – unwittingly no doubt – that the same questions and characterizations that his material and performances have prompted on this site were raised by all those (still unexplained) “hundreds” of people who have lodged concerns about him to the police and courts after having encountered him in action on the hoof.
And he tries to dragoon the Bible into lending his deceitful whackery some patina of authority and truth.
Concluding – but of course – with another run at the God’ll-getcha bit.
Can't wait for God-to-getcha, Lyin' Mocker.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1052PM:
Here he tries to justify his claims as to being God’s “servant” and “chosen” by tossing this one up: “You’d actually have to be a servant or chosen to claim it”.
Which is patently untrue. Just as one can claim (through deceitfulness or lunacy) to be Napoleon even though one isn’t, so can ‘Dan’ claim to be the speshull deputy-dawg of God even though he is actually not and is actually something else altogether.
And as ever he tries to back up this content-less bit by dragging in Scripture and the God’ll-getcha bit .
No need to answer the rest of your ignorance and garbage, so I'll let the Lord do it for me.
"For this people's heart has grown cold, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." Matthew 13:15
So strange how they so easily lie with their mouth, when all their other senses have apparently gone dead. servant of the Awesome God and Savior
My friend's prophetic message from the Lord -
"Lord you give me the power to fight with your Words.
Lord you give me the eyes, their eyes refuse to see.
Lord you give me a mouth, that overpowers their ears.
Lord you give me the wisdom to try to make them understand and accept what your spirit stands for in life.
Lord you give me the boldness I need to never give up and show them how you have helped me with the power and strength of your Word.
Lord you give me a way not to fear anyone who comes against me, to let them know how powerful your Words are.
Lord you give me the hope that this world will change and learn about you, and I won't have to fight again or fear this corrupt, wicked, world!" May someone hear the Lord's Word