'How some of us got here': Hollywood's all-true honor to the casting couch
Hollywood and Highland is a multi-tiered, shopping and dining entertainment complex along the Hollywood Walk of Fame and only steps away from the Dolby Theatre (home of the annual Oscar ceremonies) and the famous Grauman's Chinese Theatre. Being an homage to Hollywood, it is a must-see stop for any tourist or sightseer who is visiting Tinseltown.
And at Hollywood and Highland there is an actual tribute to the Hollywood casting couch. It sits on an observation deck with a view of the famed "HOLLYWOOD" sign, and the tiled floor beneath the couch informs visitors: "The Road to Hollywood: how some of us got here." (See the photo at the top of this post!)
As the travel advice site TripSavvy tells its readers:
"This over-sized piece of furniture is the most popular spot for a photograph at Hollywood and Highland. The term 'casting couch' originated with unscrupulous casting agents, whose office furniture could be used for sexual activity between them and aspiring actresses looking to get an advantage."
Uh-huh.
For years already, we at TheMediaReport.com have been informing you of the rampant sex abuse in Hollywood that the mainstream media has blithely ignored or downplayed. But the new revelations surrounding Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein have opened a whole new can of worms.
For the first time, the mainstream media has been forced to admit that while it has been scolding the Church for decades over old claims of abuse, it has wantonly ignored the widespread practice of abuse in the entertainment industry. And the casting couch should put to rest any doubt of how widespread this abuse in Hollywood has really been.
[UPDATE, 10/16/17: The Los Angeles Times reports that Hollywood and Highland has now "censored" the casting couch sculpture – a piece which the Times unbelievably calls "one of the finest works of public art commissioned in Los Angeles in the last quarter-century" – in light of the Weinstein scandal.]
Have to admit having doubts about the mainstream media?. So will pose this question….will the Boston Globe's 'Spotlight' team now turn it's investigative skills onto Hollywood studios? Personally I doubt it…. because the can of worms, opened by Harvey Weinstein, is just too embarrassing for powerful people. The studios will throw Harvey from the ramparts… to appease the attackers. But the endemic sexual abuse will continue to be covered up. Maybe some contingency lawyers, catching the smell of big bucks, will pursue this as they pursued the Church. And maybe some media, with the prospect of sensational T.V., ……all those attractive girls describing their individual experiences… will be helpful for boosting of ratings. But I do sense we are now living in very interesing times.
Malcolm: the can of worms is indeed in Hollywood everybody knows that but the place were there should not be any is in the Catholic Church…..but surprise there are a lot of cans of that nature within the church since way back and long before Hollywood existed and we did not know about it until the media started to say so, there is no other way but to expose them to the public eye. Sorry if it hurts you….
Rafael, on the 16th, says that it was the media who first told the public about the "cans of worms exisitng in the Catholic Church". Yes it was….and that is what surprises me?. Because if these sins had really been widespread in the Church, then I would have heard about it before. What outsiders don't understand is that for an individual Catholic his Church is his parish…..it's really a community within the wider community. Like any community there is gossip. But in thirty years I never heard any hint of the "can of worms" that Rafael is alleging? My wife and her friends were born and raised in different parishes and they say the same…. plenty of gossip… but nothing about any child molestation. So we believe our own background experience. And not the unsubstantiated claims of accusers and lawyers… who have the intoxicating smell of big bucks in their nostrils.
Not sure why a small unknown travel blog (TripSavvy) is somehow the authority of a public art instalation. The peice was a daybed included in "The Road to Hollywood" public art display as a spot, at the end of a mosaic trail of quotes, to take pictures of the Hollywood sign. The entire display was done by artist Erika Rothenberg, a celebrated femnist. TripSavvy and others are just straight up wrong about this piece. They have their interpretation….and now reactionaries have decided that nobody else is entitled to having their own. Nice.
Might make it more than hypocritical of Hollywood to put out a movie like Spotlight in light of all this. Certainly hypocritical of the Weinstein Company to release The Magadline Sisters or Philomena. I bet the Boston Globe won't devote as much page space to this.
Mark Taylor, on the 17th, remarks on the hypocrisy of Hollywood… for their 'Spotlight' movie. Sort of like that gospel story…. about a person who pointed to the speck of dust in his neighbour's eye…. before removing the beam of wood in his own eye?. My wife says all of this is "Bad Karma"…. because Harvey Weinstein has brought it on himself. Anyway this could be a ticking time- bomb. All it would need now would be for a disgruntled former insider ….be be prepared to testify. That a promising young actress was rejected for a movie for reasons other than her suitability. And that it was common knowledge the actual reason was….. she had spurned the advances of a studio boss. The contingency lawyers will be all over this….. this is not going away any time soon.
T
Why are some Catholic people here so afraid of the truth? Philomena was true. Magdalene Sisters was true, and Spotlight was true. You are so fragile you can't hear the truth?
Protecting your own children doesn't seem very important to you. How many young people have not been made victims because of those truths coming out. Any real follower of Jesus would aplaud the truth coming out. But why not here? You pat yourself on the back for being religious yet you fail Jesus. Where are your millstones for the perps and enablers in your church? Your outrage is at the messengers, us. Why do we deserve that? Our lives are fucked with as kids, thanks to your cover-ups and then you call us liars when we tell you the truth as adults. There's nothing loving about you.
The real question should be : How do you dare to call yourself followers of Jesus?
Just what the Catholic church has waited for. Someone they can shout at that "you have sinned with young people too. So who are you to throw stones at us?"Let's see how you like it."
As if it was Hollywood that outed the Catholic pedophile scandal. When it was the Catholic leaders themselves who outed what they knew about abusers and what they had not done to protect Catholic children. Where's the Catholic "casting couch". Every sacristy?
The issue isn't who else is fucking kids. The issue is that anybody's fucking kids. Get it?
No you don't. You believe no one's fucking kids particularly Catholic clergy.
Or everyone but Catholic clergy
An interesting consequence of the Weinstein matter is the social-media “Me-Too” phenomenon: numbers of persons – especially female pols – are suddenly twittering that they too at some point were … something’ed … by somebody (male, of course; amazingly, women don’t ever seem to encounter abuse – however defined – by the Sapphic Demographic).
I thought that US Senator Elizabeth Warren’s was instructive: she claims that when she was a young professor (politically informed readers may recall that she claimed she was Native American, which ‘minority’ status helped get her appointment) to have been chased around a desk by a randy old professor (now long deceased) who – mirabile dictu – had polio.
At his long-ago obsequies she had related the story in a half-joking and wistfully reminiscent way. But at this point the abuse surf is up and now she “too” is one of those who call themselves “a woman with a story”.
Continuing with my comment of the 26th at PM:
Just how credible this or that “story” might be remains problematic. But according to accepted practice, one isn’t supposed to question such a “story” anyway; one just inhales the bracing or toxic (take your pick) fumes and thus fortified one buzzes on from there like a drunken honeybee.
And another so-familiar element of the script is also being bruited by the media: these story-tellers are to be congratulated for their ‘courage in coming forward’ … that sort of thing. (And thus: would it not be churlish to question persons of such ‘courage’… ?)
But what we are seeing here is simply a dynamic that I have always said has been operative in the Stampede: telling such a story is now ‘a thing’ / everybody’s doing it / it might be advantageous to number oneself among that number. What’s not to like?
Continuing with my comment of the 26th at 423PM:
And from the frothily bubbling pot of university free-speech issues comes this ‘new’ mantra: ‘Don’t debate; intimidate!’.
The mantra may be new; the tactic is pure old revolutionary agitprop from the way-back: avoid discussing the actual substance / facts don’t matter anyway / just threaten the other side to make them shut up / then claim that since nobody disagrees with you (or dares to) then that just proves how right your own position must be and how baseless any oppositional position must surely be.
Lenin and Stalin and others of totalitarian ilk (whether of right or left provenance) had to deploy actual physical violence. But after half a century or so of the more nuanced Victimist approach that has succeeded in the West (of which Gramsci no doubt would approve) the enterprising activist agitprop type can nowadays get by with the threat of (mostly) non-physical violence: you will be publicly branded ‘insensitive’ or ‘oppressive’ / you will be fired from your job and position / people will un-Friend you on Facebook … the list goes on.
How do you debate a liar? How do you debate someone who doesn't tell the truth by claiming that you never tell the truth or that if you do it's by accident. What is this mobster doing here? Does anyone really want to sound like P.? Even Malcolm's a bit of gentleman It's impossible to be whole here.
You want me to talk about killing you again? No problem. Happy to blow those brains out anytime. You don't use them for anything but deception. By claiming innocent others, are the decievers.
Intimidation is also done through lying, exagerating, infering. Smearing, obfuscating and damning, words like "ilk" and "type" used about human beings. Human beings who've done you no wrong.
CLEARLY I STATE AGAIN. YOU ARE NOT HERE BY ACCIDENT OR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE YOU HAVE BEEN STATIONED HERE> TO FEED HATE. FEAR AND DOUBT WITH LITERALLY NO EXAMPLES TO PROVE YOUR POINTS JUST YOUR OWN SAD INNUENDO. AND YOUR DISGUSTING ARROGANCE.
After the revolution and there will be a revolution. I'm sticking you on trial in a Peoples court. Let's trot you out like Vadar without a helmet into the sunlight and see who you really are. I see you as a criminal against justice. You are an accessory after the fact to the abuses.
Hell, Your very being is an error by nature. You do not like your fellow human beings. That's a moral crime . If you want to feel that way privately fine but to publicly push such horror as yourself as being virtueous, moral. That's a crime in my book.
You personally deserve to die. Now. You are no longer needed on the planet. you never were. What are you good for? You lie to aid corruption. You conciously aim to decieve. You are a bad magician your tricks are old and rusty but most of all completly stupid. You are here for the dumb Catholics that buy your stupid shit as smart. Like they would know smart. Your entire religion is all based on fear. You can never show love to anything but your own beliefs. And they are as phony as you are.
And – prudently having put his shotgun back in the closet – JR returns on the 24th at 830PM.
His own surfing project in this episode is – surprise, surprise – to somehow shoehorn the Church and the Catholic Abuse Matter into being the Great Satan of Abuse, besides which Hollywood and Harvey are mere junior-varsity come-latelys.
And for the purposes of today’s episode it’s the Church that “outed” itself.
Soooo … the Church was behind the original actual 2002 Boston Globe campaign? The Church put them up it? And the Church got the ‘Spotlight’ movie made? And got it an Academy Award? And a hundred or more other assorted film industry awards and nominations? And would that mean – in JR’s cartoon – that the Church runs Hollywood and the myriad denizens and minions of the film industry?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 830PM:
Then a new twist: once we get beyond the adolescent scatology (as if scatology meant one was a straight-shooter and so very truthy) JR doth declare that “the issue is that anybody’s fxxxg kids”.
Well, that takes us into the realm of truism: there is a great deal of abuse and rapine going on in the world and JR’s against it. All well and good and who can be ‘for’ such (admittedly universal) horrors?
He somehow seems to think that this is so obvious that one would have to be rather obtuse not to “get it”. And he’s right: at the level he’s pitched his position here, who could deny that there is abuse and rapine in the world?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 830PM:
But as one can clearly and quickly see, this isn’t going to get him very far at all.
So he immediately (and slyly) has to introduce another element, i.e. that there are persons on this site who “believe no one’s fxxxg kids”. I cannot recall a single person commenting on this site who has ever held that position – and if any reader can submit evidence from the site to the contrary, let it be done.
Nobody on this site that I can recall has ever said – even of the Catholic Abuse Matter – that there have never been any genuine cases of abuse or even child-rape.
But the real point – and the one none of the Abuseniks have ever wanted to deal with – is that especially under the conditions of the Stampede there is no way of ascertaining any such genuine victim from the general scrum of ‘those with a story’, for which – following the money, as JR so often likes to say – there exists no small probability.
Tell that to the John Jay report.
On the 27th at 934AM JR tosses up a one-liner referring us to “the John Jay Report”.
I can’t see the relevance to what I had put up.
First, there were two John Jay Reports. But why quibble, perhaps, when to the Victimist/Abusenik way of thinking, facts don’t matter anyway and one’s self-proclaimed ‘personal truth’ outweighs any actual objectively-definable and demonstrable truth … ?
Second, what the Reports tallied up were the number of allegants and the numbers of accused. We still remain with little if any convincing demonstration of the veracity of the allegations and thus of the genuineness of the ‘victimizations’ and the legitimacy of the settlements and costs (which, as I noted on the immediately previous thread was estimated by National Catholic Reporter in November, 2015 as being 3.99 billion dollars – which the NCRep considers an underestimation).
Are there any catholics out there buying this repetitive, double-talking, mumbo jumbo drivel spewing from the insistent publiar of this forum? I quote his ignorance on Oct. 26 @ 5:48pm -
"Nobody on this site that I can recall has ever said – even of the Catholic Abuse Matter – that there have never been any genuine cases of abuse or even child-rape." Next paragraph he's claiming "there is no way of ascertaining any such genuine victim", and trying to insinuate that there are no real victims. He follows that up with the statement in this post – "We still remain with little if any convincing demonstration of the veracity of the allegations and thus of the genuineness of the 'victimizations' and the legitimacy of the statements and costs." He says no one has ever denied that there were "genuine cases of abuse" and then turns around and denies the truth of any cases, the "genuineness of the 'victimizations' and the legitimacy of the settlements". Publiar is one flip-flopping snake in the grass. You are one deceiving, lying creep who needs to be silenced. Do you think everyone is as dumb and gullible as the blinded sheep of your cult?
So interesting how the description of Anti-Christ so well describes you, publyin', your hierarchy and all the other lying deceivers of your cult. Just some strange coincidence?
"He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth." 2 Thess 2:10-12
Catholics, Don't allow them to blind and fool you wth their consistent deceit, claims of visions and outright false gospel. Your hierarchy is guilty in both word and deed, doing every disgusting ungodly act, while polluting God's Word, His Truth and His Love. "Trust the Lord with all your heart, and don't lean on your own understanding", but on every Word that comes from the mouth of God.
On the 29th at 1038PM we get a crystal clear example of 'Dan's sly and manipulative whackery: having accurately quoted several points/comments of mine, he then utterly fails to address any of them but instead proceeds directly to calling them "drivel" and so on and so forth. You don't get to assess 'Dan's claims and stories and assertions and pronouncements; you just get to agree with them – that's how he wants the game to be played.
And we're treated to more drivel.
I most clearly addressed how you speak from both sides of the mouth, making one statement while immediately following that up with an absolutely contradictory one. The only manipulations happening in this forum are coming from your forked tongue. I have absolutely no problem with your addressing anything I say. For you to spew your lies and false assessments in regard to myself and others shows what a deceiving and manipulating creep you've become. You are one insistent lying whackjob trying to project your ignorance onto others. You are the perfect child of your father, Satan, the ACCUSER. servant of the Lord
And it's troubling to see that you think this is some kind of "game to be played." Does that pair well with your Cartoon Time fantasies and deceptions?
And on the 30th at 912PM 'Dan' will – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? -try to drag in Scripture to make his whackery look like it's God's will.
It's not God's will that you're a lying deceiving ignorant fool. This repetitive sinfulness of yours is completely and without doubt the work of yours and your father, Satan, father of all liars and deceivers. servant of Truth
"Take heed lest there will be anyone taking you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the principles of the world and not according to Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. And you have been made complete in Christ, who is head over every ruler and authority." Collossians 2:8-10
Catholics, Don't allow idolators to convince you that the salvation of Christ isn't good enough and you're in need of a mediatrix goddess or saints or the pope and his false infallability to bring to you faith, hope or love. You will be left empty and devoid of heaven's graces when Christ returns in all His glory. Don't allow deceiving liars to pull the wool over your eyes, telling you that they'll interpret the Word for you. Read the Bible yourself and you will find that the churches of today all preach and twist the Word to their own liking, in order to control you and rob you blind (money and souls). They are a disgusting thing in the eyes of the One True God. "Be ye not deceived."
I will deal with ‘Dan’s most recent crop in the order they appear on the site.
On the 2nd at 202AM we get a sterling example of ‘Dan’s own gameplan: he thinks that to have called something a name is to have “clearly addressed” it. Thus to have merely (and epithetically) declared that I “speak from both sides of the mouth” – without having demonstrated with explications of how he has reached that ‘conclusion’ from my material – is somehow equivalent to his having “clearly addressed” the points I made.
What statement did I make in which I was “immediately following that up with an absolutely contradictory one” … ? ‘Dan’s doesn’t bother to say – since he most likely can’t say.
But the bit provides an easy platform for his quick segue into his “absolutely” conclusive epitheticals. Which is really all he brings to the table.
And once again we see one of his other basic gambits: don’t think of ‘Dan’ as a “whackjob” because look at all the (merely epithetical) declarations he’s made about my material (that he hasn’t actually “clearly addressed”).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 207AM:
Taking an old and familiar bit from PC rhetorical usage, he now pronounces it “troubling” that I think “this” is “some kind of ‘game to be played’”.
What’s more than “troubling” is the actual nature of that “this” he mentions, i.e. that the “game” ‘Dan’ is playing here is his own. And that game is based – as I have often explicated – on his own manipulative objective of a) distracting from his own very very “troubling” problems and record by b) making vast and unfounded presumptions about Catholicism and the Abuse Matter while c) masquerading himself and his stuff as God’s own Word and Will.
But there is also a tactical method to his madness here: he’s trying yet again to play with words: he tries – deploying his old I’m Not/You Are bit – to connect the word “game” to an effort to paint my material as “Cartoon fantasies and deceptions”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 424PM:
He opens with an epithetical bit, which leads into his declaration about “this repetitive sinfulness of yours” (as if there is nothing sinful in deliberately masquerading as God’s speshull deputy dawg and demanding that others accept that self-serving fantasy as real) and then indulges himself in a bit of denunciation to the effect that my “father” is “Satan”.
How does one who promotes himself as someone having answers to everything, act like such a sarcastic mocking prick (i.e. God's speshull deputy dawg). I've even warned you that it's not cool to mock God, His Holy Spirit or His servants, but you just carry on like an ignorant fool, not knowing the consequences for your actions. What's your problem?
"But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy." 2 Chron. 36:16
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st (of October) at 1023PM:
Here he has – but of course – introduced another pericope to burnish his self-serving masquerade.
And that pericope – which could far more easily be applied to ‘Dan’ himself – is followed by another faux-Urbi et Orbi address to “Catholics”. But – as so very often – in his excited effort to toss some plop he’s lost what little coherence his material might have: he speaks to “Catholics” as if they were separate from “idolators”, although if they are already “Catholics” then – in ‘Dan’s cartoons – they are already themselves “idolators”.
And that simply leads into another recitation from his core 3x5s about “goddess” and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st (of October) at 1023PM:
Readers by now might recall that even if they “read the Bible” they can only reach ‘Dan’s cartoon phantasm visions if they have donned the same type of whacky-goggles that he wears.
And we see another repetition of his sly game of not-belonging to any of “the churches of today”, which neatly a) absolves him of the responsibility of subjecting his whackeries to any religion’s strictures and principles while b) allowing him free play as being merely (but oh so purely) a ‘church’ of one, which actually might qualify far more veraciously as a “cult” than any of the established “churches of today”.
I refuse to play into your ignorant and stupid, back and forth little silly games. On Oct. 29 @ 10:38pm I clearly quoted you and explained the contradiction. If you have some reading comprehension problems or are that dense, well I'm truly sorry. And for you to repeat once again my "very very troubling problems and record", when they were only catholic lies bolstered by your additional deceit and false accusations, is both cowardly and unfair. And as to the "pericope" on Oct 31, nothing could describe you and the creeps of your cult's false teachings better. It's you deceivers who couple catholic theology with philosophy, filled with deceit, based on the pagan traditions of your idolatrous cult. I believe many catholics are unaware that they are idolators, but those who made the statues, slathered there temples with the disgusting images and taught others to bow to them, will bear the brunt of the God's punishment. In regards to subjecting myself to any religion's strictures and principles, I surely wouldn't be bound by a cult who by it's own bad fruit demonstrates a total lack of any principles, especially when considering moral ones. Hypocritical pedophiles and perverted creeps and their excusers and deniers. I'm free in Christ from all your pagan greed, idolatry and manmade rules. servant of Christ
This time around, I will deal with ‘Dan’s most recent crop in chronological order.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1115PM:
I had pointed out in comments earlier on the 2nd that i) he hadn’t at all explained just what he found problematic in those of my comments that he had quoted and characterized with numerous epithetical bits and that ii) that he could put up explications of his objections if he could.
Here at 1115Pm ‘Dan’ demonstrates nicely and vividly that he can’t. Instead – and had you been waittttttinggggggggggggg forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttt? – he puffs up his pearls and pinfeathers to declaim that he simply doth “refuse” to “play into your ignorant and stupid, back and forth silly little games”.
Having to explain himself and his assorted ploppy-bits is – doncha see? – nothing but “ignorant and stupid, back and forth silly little games”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1115PM:
He then goes on to claim that he actually had “explained the contradiction”.
Because – doncha see? – I had first said (i) that nobody I can recall on this site had ever claimed that there have never been any genuine cases and I had then said (ii) that “under the conditions of the Stampede there is no way of ascertaining any such genuine victim from the general scrum of ‘those with a story’”.
Thus, in the first place, the two statements are not contradictory and ‘Dan’ has not explained how he came to the conclusion that they are contradictory.
And in the second place, on the 29th at 1038PM ‘Dan’ then adds his own bit, i.e. that I am “trying to insinuate that there are no real victims”. I was not insinuating or trying to insinuate any such thing. I was pointing out (and hardly for the first time on this site) that “under the conditions of the Stampede” it is now impossible to determine and distinguish genuine victims from not-so-genuine allegants.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1115PM:
Thus the problem is not with my points, but rather with ‘Dan’s “reading comprehension” and his lack of ability or willingness to think clearly and logically.
But having – to his own simplistic satisfaction, anyway – gotten to the point where he can huff that he was right all along, he can quickly move beyond thinking at all and simply indulge himself in his favorite activity, posturing and bleating as to his victimization in regard to “catholic lies” and being misunderstood or what-have-you.
As to how often the pericopes he deploys are equally if not more telling when applied to him, he merely insists that such is not the case and anyway he doesn’t wanna think about it. One can easily see why.
And the rest of the comment trails off with more of his usual favorite bits.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 208AM:
Here – and once again vividly – we see ‘Dan’ yet again doing himself in through the trusty dynamics of clinical projection: he bleats that it is I who “promotes [my]self as someone having answers to everything”.
If ‘Dan’ can put up even one accurate quotation of mine claiming that status then he can put it up.
Rather, it is ‘Dan’ who keeps bethumping the readership with his oh-so-speshull claims and self-ascribed titles , frequently instructing readers as to what they should “read” while declaring Catholics to be this, that, and the other bad and evil thing and insisting all the while that he does all of this on the authority of God and the Bible and so on, about which he insists he possesses a “secret” and speshull knowledge so clearly of divine origin that anyone who doesn’t accept him as such is gonna be in deep doo-doo with God Himself (about which – marvelously – he then growls that he has “warned” me).
Thus the question that he should far more rightly be addressing to his bathroom mirror: “What’s your problem?”. But I think that he’s right about one thing: for ‘Dan’s “problem” there is indeed “no remedy”.
I think it's time I let you know exactly how I feel about you, peewee. I only see you as a catholic compulsive liar, church apologist, terrible deceiver, pedophile or pederast excuser and ultimate fraud. What you have to say in regards to myself means so very very little to me, because I look at you as evil incarnate. The only reason I challenge or answer you at all, is because you think if you can make catholics believe I don't know anything or Bible knowledge I'm presenting to them, than you've won your childish little deceiving game.
Unlike yourself, I do my best to tell the truth in all situations. You and your evil hierarchy blatantly lied about myself in every situation where I was imprisoned or hospitalized, knowing what to lie in order to cause me the most trouble. Not all catholics, but only the "bad and evil" deceivers and liars are the ones I'm against. That includes those who have taught and perpetuated this totally false belief system, filled with disgusting idolatry, pedophilia and perverts, greed, cowardice and your favorite quality, lying and deceiving.
I and my God have no use for deceiving hypocrite creeps like your bunch and have to believe that it's more like your "gonna be in deep [shit] with God", if you're not there already. servant of the Just God
P.S. Why don't you just stop answering me and I can be done with you and your evil, lying cult.
And lest we forget, your ignorant mocking against God, His Word, or His chosen shall bring upon your head the "wrath of the LORD" and there shall be "no remedy". You may want to quit your prolific use of your I'm Not/ You Are bit while accusing others with your nonsense and ignorance, HYPOCRITE. servant and chosen of the Almighty, and don't you forget it.
Dan It's fight or flee with P. You don't want to see yourself running away from such an evil person because that's what he wants. To repell by degradation To have only his nonsense be heard. You fight or flee. How many hours a day does this lving excrement write his posts? He's not fast and he has develped a real taste for repulsion. He's here to repell anyone who doesn't think the church is the one being abused.. He just goes on and on. and on. What kind of pathetic religion would let this horrible man defend them? And on such sleazy terms. You make my abusor look sane comparatively. P you are so bad u make child molestors look like better people but I shouldn't be suprised that's why you are here after all.
I had most recently put up several comments demonstrating the problems with several of ‘Dan’s recent productions. So ‘Dan’ was faced with a problem: how to keep putting stuff up while evading the problems with his material?
On the 5th at 447AM we get his ‘solution’, and it is – for him – neither unfamiliar nor surprising: he tries to change the subject, specifically by striking one of his all-time favorite poses, that of the bleating and bethumped, truthy and heroic, misunderstood and un-appreciated ‘prophet’ victimized by the evil unbelievers.
But there’s a problem with this admittedly slyly self-serving solution: you can only deploy it infrequently – perhaps even only once – before it reveals itself as being the deceptive (and self-deceptively delusional) gambit it really is.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 447AM:
Thus he opens with the “I think it’s time” bit: yet the record here is already replete with his denunciations and complaints and opining as to “exactly how [he doth] feel about” me. This is no new thing at all; he’s been doing it all along.
But there’s a method to his madness here: this ‘new’ submission gives him the platform from which to launch into – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttttt? – all his usual “catholic compulsive liar” stuff. And – my, my – he does like to toss the ploppy epitheticals. The self-appointed prophet doth hurl his ploppy verbal thunderbolts in righteous anger at not being taken for the character he poses himself to be.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 447AM:
And furthermore – doncha see? – objections as to the many many problems with his material mean so very very little to him (so – doncha see? – he really shouldn’t be expected to be bothered dealing with those objections).
And anyway, he sees me as “evil incarnate” so – well, why should he be bothered with objections at all? (If ‘Dan’ thinks that I and my objections are “evil incarnate” then the poor thing really does need to get out more.)
But he expects to get credit – doncha see? – for going to such painful trouble as he does in ‘challenging’ or ‘answering’ my objections. He’s doing it in a good cause – doncha see? – because he’s really just trying to help … well, help himself, by countering the impression that readers may get to the effect that he doesn’t “know anything or Bible knowledge [he’s] presenting to them”. (His grammar can’t keep up with his ‘thinking’ here, but you get the idea.)
As to whether he does indeed “know anything” and as to whether his “Bible knowledge” is worth squat … readers may judge for themselves. Ditto as to who here is playing a “childish little deceiving game”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 447AM:
Then he tries a double-whammy bit, taking an epithetical swipe at me while putting himself forward as one who doth “do [his] best to tell the truth in all situations”.
Let us – for the purposes of argument – take ‘Dan’ at his word here: the sum content of all his stuff in the record here accurately reflects ‘Dan’s best shots at trying to “tell the truth in all situations”.
Readers may then consider and judge for themselves what ‘Dan’s efforts are worth.
But this self-serving double-whammy then serves – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttttt? – to platform yet another repetition of his favorite 3x5s in regard to how he was lied about and so on by – well, not Catholics this time but instead “only by the ‘bad and evil’ deceivers and liars” whom he is so heroically and truthily “against”. And thus the familiar plop-tossy posturing and posing and pearl-clutching roll on to the conclusion of that paragraph.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 447AM:
But no ‘Dan’ performance would be complete without a threat, especially one that included ‘God’, so ‘Dan’ then swings into his peroration by claiming to speak for “I and my God” – or more accurately ‘god’, since the thing that appears in his bathroom mirror during those séances is actually only a delusive phantasm that ‘Dan’ has created to supportively tell him that he’s right and very clever in regard to just about any of the plop he chooses to toss.
And he even tosses in a bit of adolescent scatology, because – doncha know? – using scatology means he is reely reely reely truthy and heroic and don’t need no stinkin’ knowledge because he’s already got it and nobody else does.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 447AM:
But then – marvelously – we get the “P.S.” where ‘Dan’ proposes his own ‘solution’ to the problems with his material: “why don’t [I] just stop” putting up the objections and then he can happily “be done with” the whole thing and just toss plop in his sandbox, which – basically – is his game and his life plan and he was very happy with it until his stuff actually started to be examined.
Well, Halloween’s come and gone and clearly the Great Pumpkin hasn’t granted his wish. Maybe he can try for Santa now. As for all childish mentalities, there’s always Santa. And for ‘Dan’, there’s always his bathroom mirror.
And then comes JR (the 5th at 1051PM) seeing if he can’t also indulge himself in his favorite posturing and posing.
From Mr. Shotgun we get the prim huff that with me “it’s fight or flee”. Oh, and – piggybacking himself on ‘Dan’s theologically-flavored ranting – that I am “such an evil person”. JR – ovvvv coursssse – like ‘Dan’, is the very soul of heroic truthiness and virtue. Two peas in a pod.
And he then seeks to commiserate with ‘Dan’ by clucking pearl-clutchingly over efforts at “degradation”. Again they might consider addressing such concerns to their respective bathroom mirrors, perhaps adding “self-degradation” to the mix as well, just to spackle up their contemplations.
And I’m “not fast” when it comes to writing my posts. And JR ‘knows’ that … how exactly?
And I’m “a horrible man” and “on such sleazy terms” too. Readers may consult JR’s oeuvre in the record here and judge as they will.
Then some bits trading on his ‘abuse’ and so on, and the final epithetical insinuation to top it all off.
Hey one doesn't have to believe in god to recognize evil. You are your actions. Jesus told me you aren't very fast. When your little god was handing on brains you thought he said trains and you missed yours.
Publiar, Your ignorance and stupidity, coupled with your lying, mocking, slander and false accusations never fail to astound me, but your immaturity surely takes no second place to your other numerous faults. I have absolutely no desire to respond to most of your garbage and insults on Nov. 6th, but would like to respond to your last paragraph at 3:02pm.
I have not for several years celebrated any pagan holidays of Easter, Halloween or Xmas. For you to use this infantile comeback against me, most definitely demonstrates your repetitive hypocrisy and immature ignorance. Know you not that it's prevalent among catholics to lie and brainwash their innocent babies and children with these stupid fantasies, when even some have an evil sinister history and background. Yet you find it appropriate to label me as one adhering to your babyish nonsense.
It just may be that you're the one who needs to "get out [a little] more", and get yourself a life, because the worthless dishonest fraud you're living just ain't worth "squat". There you go, you grammar snob. Go ahead and correct my use of the word ain't so you can show your cronies how intelligent you are. Catholics must be so proud that their "defender of the faith" turns out to be such an immature, deceiving, lying creep. A perfect fit with the rest of the lying deceivers of your cult. servant of a Vengeful God – Can't wait until you stand before Him.
On the 6th at 814PM JR doth nicely proclaim that “you are your actions”. With that being said, readers may consider all of JR’s material and draw such conclusions as they will.
It’s noteworthy that with Abuseniks and ranters generally, it’s always ‘today’ in the sense that they demonstrate no capacity to consider whatever they want to put up in relation to anything they have previously put up.
This, I think, is the result of their having just their one shtick, and they neither desire nor are capable of looking any deeper into whatever issues they raise. Thus we simply keep getting the same talking-points from their 3×5 piles; they have nothing else and they are not interested in anything else except their shtick as it exists on their 3x5s.
And if you try to go any deeper with that shtick then they get very irritated very quickly.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1251AM:
As I was saying, they have just the one shtick, as ‘Dan’ demonstrates so nicely and vividly here.
How he gets “immaturity” out of it, however, is for any reader to suss out. Apparently it was a term he hasn’t often used and – whether it fits or not, of course – he will load it into his plop-shooty blunderbuss and fire away.
And so – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttttttt? – he thus considers himself absolved of any responsibility to respond substantively to any of the problems noted with his material because it’s all “babyish nonsense” – doncha see?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1251AM:
Well, actually, he’ll evade whatever he can’t deal with at all, but he apparently thinks he’s got something that might work for my comment of the 6th at 302PM. Let’s see what we get.
That section of my comment mentioned the Great Pumpkin and Santa. What’s he got?
He doth hereby declare, declaim, announce and pronounce that he hasn’t “celebrated any pagan holidays” (Easter and “Xmas” as well as Halloween) … well, at least “not for several years”.
Thus he considers my references to himself in connection with the Great Pumpkin and Santa to be “infantile”. ‘Dan’ – of course – being very knowledgeable in, among so many other things, maturity.
And has he then somehow suddenly achieved maturity in the past “several years”?
Readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1251AM:
And that incoherent bit then platforms more of his usual epitheticals for the rest of that paragraph.
The final paragraph is just another rerun of his childish I’m Not/You Are gambit.
As to ‘Dan’s uncharacteristic usage of “ain’t”: it wasn’t I but ‘Dan’ who threw this bit in, so that he could create something I didn’t say in order to paint himself as the ‘victim’ of grammar (as he is so often also ‘victimized’ by knowledge, or rather his lack of it).
And – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’ brings it all home with another God’ll getcha threat.
You are one class act, publiar. I call out your "immaturity" and you answer with some more "babyish nonsense" (i.e. he will load it into his plop-shooty blunderbuss and fire away). Can you be anymore childish. Oh yes! I know you can. My guess is you just made another grammatical mistake, knowing that I consider myself "absolved of any responsibility to respond substantively to any of the problems noted with [your] material because it's all 'babyish nonsense' ". And let's not forget that when it doesn't qualify as "immature" then it will usually fall under the heading of ignorance or stupidity, which I feel no responsibility to respond to, especially when it's larded with more of your lies and manipulations.
My friend got a prophecy yesterday that was appropriate regarding you and your eternity. You don't deserve to hear the best part of the Lord's message, so I'll share with you the sentence that pertains to you – "Don't get angry at how the world treats you, just think of how they are going to be treated when they stand before Me." Now that should be a nice "God'll getcha" for you to ponder for awhile. Sure gives me something to smile about as I dispute all your lying and deceiving ignorance. Oh, He sure is a just God, and make a note that it's the one with a capital G, unlike all your false goddessess and plethora of phony saints. Keep on worshipping and bowing to them, as the True God ignores your worthless repetition of prayers. servant of the One True God, and don't you forget it!!
Oh! And the grammar police can correct my typo of an extra s on 'goddesses'.
On the 8th at 301AM ‘Dan’ now tries to double-down on his recent “immaturity” thing.
And he does so with his usual I’m Not/You Are gambit.
I have to deal with his “immaturity” and in dealing with it I characterize it for what it is, demonstrating just how it is what it is. ‘Dan’ here is trying to blame the fire department for the fire here and who can be surprised?
Then he figures he can cover any other vulnerabilities in his material with more of his usual: if my material isn’t “immature” then it’s “ignorance or stupidity”. You can trust ‘Dan’ because he says so.
What we seem to be dealing with here with these types is simply a written form of rants that certain types of people usually deliver to their televisions: their comments are really only written forms of ‘yelling at the TV’; which is a helpful practice for releasing emotional pressures but usually doesn’t provide much in the way of reliable thinking.
Oh, and by amazing coincidence his “friend” “got a prophecy” just “yesterday”. Even if we assume this “friend” isn’t just one of the entities in ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror, then we are still faced with this silly idea of ‘getting a prophecy’ as if on cue, especially one that just happens to show that ‘Dan’ is right and very clever. And that God’ll get me for all this.
I don't know if it shows how "very clever" I am, but it surely does prove that I'm "right". Even without the prophecy, it doesn't take a Bible scholar to know that we all will stand before the Almighty and be judged on every word, thought and deed done in our lifetime. Too bad you haven't a clue of how salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, and think that your loving "Queen of Heaven" shall bring you grace, mercy, hope and forgiveness. Or maybe you can depend upon pedophile excusing popes and corrupt saints to do your bidding. Good luck with that, lying hypocrite, you're gonna need it.