Busted: Claimants caught on tape scheming to bilk the Church and falsely accuse Daniel McCormack
It has long been a poorly kept secret in the neighborhoods near St. Agatha Catholic Church and within the offices at the Archdiocese of Chicago that most, if not nearly all, of the abuse accusations lodged against ex-priest Daniel McCormack are completely bogus.
For the past several years, MacCormack has been the subject of many breathless headlines in Chicago with each new ridiculous lawsuit claiming "repressed memories" of abuse. But now the secret is finally out in the open thanks to the serendipity of a jail telephone recording of a plaintiff trying to defraud the Catholic Church.
In fact, a Chicago judge has even ordered that the plaintiff repay the Church for the money it spent defending itself after the audiotape was revealed.
But that's not all. It turns out that this one case is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
The story was first reported by Michael J. O'Loughlin at America magazine.
Show me the 'free' money
In court documents, the scammer is only identified as "John J. Doe," a convicted criminal. And as O'Loughlin reports:
In June, just before Mr. Doe was released from prison, his cousin reassured him that he had been "working with the archdiocese … [A]nybody I say got touched, or didn't get touched, they believe me."
Mr. Doe replied that he needed "free money" and that he was happy to proceed with the suit as long as nobody had to "touch me for real."
By July, Mr. Doe had contacted a lawyer. He told his cousin during another phone call that he should be able to convince church authorities that he was also a victim because he had previously met some of Mr. McCormack's victims and even Mr. McCormack himself.
"Yeah boy," Mr. Doe said to his cousin. "I gotta go play that role."
Burying the lede
Unfortunately, O'Loughlin waits until the very end of his article to report the real story here:
Mr. [James C.] Geoly, [Archdiocese of Chicago] lawyer, said there are some other pending claims against Mr. McCormack that may be turn out to be false.
"We are defending cases right now and we certainly think there are some that are fraudulent," he said.
Earlier in the article, O'Loughlin had run to the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP and quotes the hysterical Barbara Dorris, who claims, without any evidence, that false charges against priests are "rare" and that "[t]his is going to make it harder for victims to come forward."
In truth, however, false claims like these will only make it harder for more false claims to come forward! As a matter of common sense and logic, if one case of fraud is uncovered, there are likely many more to be found.
TheMediaReport.com has recently contacted its sources in Chicago who have indicated that we likely have not heard the end of this story.
It was reported years ago – back in 2001, in fact – that an East Coast lawyer wrote, "I have some contacts in the prison system, having been an attorney for some time, and it has been made known to me that [accusing a Catholic priest of abuse] is a current and popular scam."
Some things never change!
Stay tuned.
[SEE ALSO:
• TheMediaReport.com : Falsely Accused Priests (tag/multiple pages of archived posts)
• Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories (Amazon.com)]
[And RECOMMENDED:
• "Plea Deals or a Life Sentence in the Live Free or Die State" (TheseStoneWalls.com)]
Too bad for everyone.. As I understand it, this is a very poor area and the temptation for these guys to make up a false claims must just be too much for them. Wonder how many claims were made and what the church has already paid out. Any chance that they will be criminally prosecuted for this as this seems like a crime to me to be doing this stuff.?
"Burying the lede"? "
"Lead" perhaps? More inaccuracy from TMR.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede
Your reading experience is neither very wide not deep, is it? You really ought to run that word through a dictionary before speaking your mind, or at least a search engine.
"lede" in common use in newsrooms. I knew that but thought it of no legitimacy, only practicality, to distinguish from various meanings of "lead." Glad to learn of the Merriam-Webster endorsement. 1951, eh? I feel better already bout using it now and then in blogs.
Never saw it spelled that way. I worked at a weekly paper for 10 years. I stand corrected,a bit.
Phil Steinacker, What do you know about my reading experience ? You insulting piece of crap. How many tired old queens like you know anything you pretend to know?
I have read every thing from Gilgamesh to Camus. From Sartre to Voltaire. From William Burroughs (Who I interviewed and spent a weekend going to different events with) to Jean Genet. I have read Pushkin, Beckett, Steinbeck; Kalfka; Coward; Joe Orton, I know the grand daughter of F Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, and I've read him. I've read Joyce; Inge; Williams, Synge and Turgenev and Edward Albee. I've read Germaine Greer to Kate Millet. I've read Engles and Marx and Che Gueverra and Pepys. I've even read the Bible cover to cover, which made me an atheist. I've read Ginsberg and Keroac; and Nietzsche. I've read Mao, Lenin; and Stalin, George Jackson, Shirley Jackson and Angela Davis. I've read poets from Byron to Pasolini to Vachel Lindsey to Edna St Vincent Millay to ee cummings and TS Eliot and Ezra Pound and Dylan, and Dylan Thomas and Proust. I've read Dreiser, Artaud; and de Sade. I've read Gide and the Buddha. Augustine and Aquinas. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, Sophocles, Euripides, Edna Ferber, London, Chesterton, Willa Cather, and Tolkien. Ray Bradbury and Azimov. and Thomas Wolfe, Stanislavsky and Strasberg. Sinclair Lewis to Charles Dickens and Shakespeare to Upton Sinclair and Eugene O'Neil, and Jane Austin.Truman Capote, Herman Melville, Hawthorne; Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. To Enid Blyton and Carolyn Keene. (lol)
I have known 4 Pulitzer Prize winners. 2 for playwriting, Chuck Gordon and Robert Patrick, 1 for reviewing, Johnathan Gold and 1 for news photography. The man who took the picture of the napalmed girl running in Vietnam, His name eludes me because I don't race to a search engine when I'm writing off the top of my head to jerks like you.
So, you pompous little bedeviled deist, shove what YOU think YOU know I know and what YOU think YOU know I've read, where the sun don't shine. No one knows everything (and my spelling is awful).
I left out Willa Cather and Chekov and Salinger. I even read Ayn Rand and Hitler Yechhhh!( I'm sure P is their love child. )
And most importantly I left out Mark Twain, my first pornography: "Git on da raft Huck honey".. and I did mention Cather in the longer post.
Ms. Dorris, let's be clear. If false charges make it harder for victims to come forward, the responsibility for that lies with the scammers and not with the Catholic Church. SNAP isn't exactly known for discouraging or weeding out false accusers.
For all intents and purposes, SNAP is dead.
SNAP's end? Both a murder and a suicide. All enacted by SNAP's church owners.
Dave Pierre makes the point "As a matter of common sense and logic, if one case of fraud is uncovered… it is likely that there are other cases to be found". How very true. And on the question of logic, I cannot understand what constitutes "credible". Because even when watching cop shows on T.V….., we learn that the opportunity to commit the crime has to be established. Zero opportuniity usually means the suspect is crossed off the list. And in my time only the alter servers were ever alone with the priests, usually on a Sunday. And two of us were rostered on. Moreover our parents were usually attending that same mass. So were is the opportunity??. Am beginning to think that the Church is paying out on claims, which they know are false, because they fear a merciless witch-hunt. Which will result in a court loss, whatever the lack of evidence. You only have to read about the conviction of Fr. Gordon MacRae… to understand that the court system is not fair and impartial. It is loaded and biased against Catholic priests,.
altar.
Malcolm just because you were never approached or acted against doesn't mean it didn't happen to others.
Excellent points Malcom! Thank you and God Bless you.
Dave, Are you aware that ex-priest Fr. Daniel McCormack plead guilty to sexually abusing five boys and was sentenced to five years in prison. With information from police reports, the archdiocese and records from the Illinois Dept. of Corrections, psychiatrist, Dr. Angeline Stanislaus, diagnosed McCormack with pedophilia, concluding it was "substantially probable" he would reoffend if released from custody. In separate reports written in 2009 and 2011, Stanislaus identified sex abuse allegations against the ex-priest from more than 25 people in addition to the five victims whose accusations led to his conviction.
So now some jailbirds come along and see it as an opportunity to bilk some money from the Church, and now we can bring into question the veracity of his 5 year conviction and the fact that there was 30 other people that accused him of molesting them as children? All you continue to prove is that there are many pedophile creeps among clergy in your church. This article and it's claims that as far back as 2001 some lawyer claimed that prisoners "[accusing a catholic priest of abuse] is a current and popular scam" is ridiculous. Oh yeah! The whole Catholic Abuse Matter is all perpetuated by anti-catholic bigots, catholic haters and fake news from the media. Sounds to me like publiar has taken control of "TheMediaReport" and has exposed it as the biased, fictitious fraud that it really is. Catholics come and soak up your favorite catholic fake news. "Separating Fact From Fiction in the Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative", but we'll fail to inform you that we're the ones spewing most of the "Fiction".
What do you know of the McCormack case? I'd like to know what exactly were the allegations and prior convictions? Were they all plea-bargained or did they go to trial? If the latter, was it a jury of "peers" in an all black neighborhood? Did McCormack's cases involve inappropriate touching or requests for oral sex, or did they involve penetration from the black alter boy accusers? I'm asking for clarificaiton, because I read of a case involving another priest which failed at trial twice, and a friend was convinced the guy raped a ton of kids when the TRUTH was the Fr was only accused of asking for oral sex; and the accusation failed at trial, twice. The public are such fools for our liar media who never correct their incorrect reporting.
Oh looks like you already answered my question in your initial post. That original conviction of Daniel McCormack was YET ANOTHER plea bargain. Plea bargains are heavily encouraged as a means to "make the pain go away." And now Father McCormack is rotting in an insane asylum.
There is another case where the Priest was heavily leaned on to cop a plea. Father Andrew McCormick was offered "sweetheart" deals too. Thank God he refused, and thankful he had many friends supporting him, even if the Catholic Church wasn't one of them; they abandoned him at the first utterance.
Speaking of which, if you fancy yourself an expert in the Daniel McCormack trial, can you tell me; did the Church abandon him too, or did they provide him lawyers?
I would also add that the occurence of white men raping blacks is statistically zero; so I magine the raping of black boys is even less. So the idea that Father McCocmarck "would reoffend" strikes me as odd. But admittely I am not an expert on the Father McCormack case. Just sounds fishy, and most of the time this sense has served me well.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Here Publiar, a mirrtor.
Describes publiar to a tee. Gotta be him, when they even found his picture for the article. LOL
mirror.
JR…. on the 7th….. says that just because I never experienced sexual abuse….. doesn't mean that it never happened to others?. Fair comment. But I could equally say… have never been mugged….but wouldn't be implying that others haven't been mugged?. Of course they have! But if I had been mugged… then would have run to my parents to tell them. And they would have gone to the police. Not just for my sake…. but because others might also be attacked… by the same mugger. This, to my mind, is exactly what would have happened if anybody sexually abused me. Even as a kid I had heard about 'dirty old men' and 'perverts'.What's more every other kid I knew would have run to their parents straight away, And certainly not have waited decades before telling anyone?. My considered opinion is that the majority of these claims are false. Like a feeding frency… for opportunists.
These assumptions you make are utterly ridiculous, Malcolm. In many child rape and molestation cases, these young innocent children are groomed, treated to trips to camp and sometimes the perpetrators have even befriended their parents. I've heard several cases where the child was going to tell on the priest and they, their parents or their whole family was threatened. Also reporting families were threatened with excommunication, and didn't want to loose their membership in such a Holier Than Thou cult. For you to make such outrageous claims that as a child you would have definitely reported them and all your friends would have done the same, is ridiculously presumptuous ignorance. And how about stopping with your stupid witch-hunt accusations and your "opinion is that the majority of these claims are false". Nobody asked for your twisted, pro-catholic biased opinion. We get enough of that ignorance and nonsense from the deceiving liar and excuser, publiar, and we surely don't need to hear the same lame excuses from you. servant of the Truth
P.S. I've even heard where creepy priests claimed to forgive the child for giving him oral sex or for the sicko sodomizing the child. Disgusting nasty hypocrites, and there are no excuses.
Malcolm, How old are you. I'm 70 and went to an all boys Catholic high school. I assume you are a heterosexual. I was not. Being male when i was growing up meant one thing: you weren't gay. You being straight sexually meant never having to worry about being gay now did you?
I couldn't face who i was, being gay, at 16 when I was abused. I was afraid the other boys would find out if i told. I was already tormented daily as a "fag". My parents were older and both had been ill. My parents never even told me about sex. that's how open my family was around the subject.
I just wanted the abuse to end. I didn't know whether I'd even be believed if I did tell. (Which I eventually did to the priest at school. 2 authorities at my school knew about the abuse at the time aside from the perp. they did nothing. It was their job to report it to the police and my parents. they did not. It was not the duty of a 16 yr old sexually traumatized child who had told his school authorities, to call the police. )
I thought by ending the sexual abuse. I could get over it and move on. It just didn't work out that way. All survivors of such abuse by adults never get "over" it.
Jim, what was the name of the abusive Priest? At what parish did this take place? Sorry to ask, but you did bring it up. And of course everyone on the internet tells the truth, so let us share your pain by knowing who did this to you.
I’m going to take JR’s recent ones first, and then get on to ‘Dan’s.
In a marvelously un-self-aware bit, JR (the 7th at 528PM) tries to extract himself from the howler of not knowing that “lede” is a perfectly established term: he claims never to have seen it “spelled that way”.
But he can’t let it go with that because it makes him look as if he didn’t know stuff – and he can’t possibly entertain that thought. Thus (cue trumpets) he now says that he “worked at a weekly newspaper for 10 years”. And never encountered the term “lede” … perhaps navigating the streets on a bicycle with a basketful of newspapers all those years precluded his actually getting to know much about the newspaper business.
But that’s still not enough for him. He acknowledges that doth “stand corrected” … “a bit”. I would say ‘completely’ is a far more accurate term, rather than the self-servingly minimizing “a bit”.
"If it bleeds it leads" that I've seen.
Never saw "If it bleeds it ledes". Just telling the truth.
Get how asswipe P mocks paper boys/girls/ men/women. You know those workers who are up pre dawn to deliver your paper in everykind of weather?
Why I, according to P, if I did work 10 years for a newspaper only delivered it on a bicycle. (I had been, in the 70's, a bike messenger on Hollywood blvd. I was never fitter physically.)
But just for once the fucker is right. Back in the '80's in L.A. I could work one day a week delivering the LA Weekly from the back seat and trunk of my 72 Chevy Nova and live. I had a one room cabin in Echo Park with a view of the Hollywood sign for $90 a month. Stupid fucking me. LOL!
The more important issue here is P's denegration of workers no matter what the job. He thinks saying someones a paper boy etc. is an insult. Any of the readership ever paper deliverers?
I'm so dumb I can only deliver duh! papers infers P. He attempts to denigrate my intelligence and capacity by imagining me in what he deams a childish, low ranking stupid job. (God knows what he does/did for work. He's probably a priest living off the parishioners largesse. He used to golf 4 days a week but now he plies his lying trade here.)
This is the "type" of person referenced so brilliantly in,
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
On to the 7th at 530PM where JR tries to revive his Total Church Conspiracy (TCC) theory: Barbara Dorris’s death was “both a murder and a suicide”. That breaks remarkable conceptual and legal ground: can one and the same death be both a murder and a suicide?
Yes it can … in a cartoon universe where all that counts is that you have some snazzy ploppy-bits you can toss.
So now Barbra Dorris is dead? Jesus your stupid! Did you miss your mirror? here it is again.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
In conformity with his basic agenda, ‘Dan’ has to engage – if it isn’t actually already permanently engaged – some serious reading mis-comprehension: the current TMR article here is not focused on McCormack’s prior legal history; it is focused on the efforts – via lawsuit – by some persons to make hay off the whole thing, surfing the still-functioning and now-classic Stampede waves.
In regard to McCormack’s conviction (apparently through a plea bargain of some sort): we don’t have access to the vital information that might be contained in assorted court records but we do know we are dealing with Stampede dynamics here. And it is a well-known tactic of prosecutors to apply all sorts of pressure to get accused to accept plea-bargains; 97 percent of federal convictions come through such pleas; Jed S. Rakoff has an acute article entitled “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty” (The New York Times Book Review, Nov. 20, 2014).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
But – keeping in mind both Stampede dynamics and the dynamics of plea-bargains as they exist in the criminal justice system – let us assume here that there is some or even much solid basis for his conviction, and perhaps also for the subsequent declaration by a judge (on the authority of a State-employed or –contracted clinician) that McCormack remains at high risk of re-offending and is thus legally classifiable as a Sexually Violent Person (which enables the State to continue incarceration – although in a secure ‘therapeutic’ facility rather than an outright prison – for any amount of time after his actual sentence has been served).
What is of interest in this TMR article is the clear evidence that at least one person – whom I would call an ‘enterprising allegant’ – is now trying to piggy-back his own desire for “free money” onto the back of this conviction. Or, more accurately, onto the Chicago Archdiocese (I don’t think McCormack – who by this point probably has few financial assets – is named as a Party Defendant in the lawsuit; were this only a lawsuit against McCormack himself there would be few torties who would see it worthwhile to pursue it – that’s the nature of the tortie business model in this sort of thing).
BT
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
The article from ‘America’ magazine – surely no friend of the Church – that is hyperlinked above in this TMR article is instructive in several ways:
First, an Archdiocese of Chicago (AoC) attorney lets a cat out of the bag when he is quoted as noting that in defending against these lawsuits the defense counsel have to steer between a) their responsibility as stewards of Church funds b) “while avoiding the re-victimizing or re-injuring” of “the people coming forward” … “by questioning their allegations to rigorously” (italics mine).
Thus – and I would say this has been the well-strategized gambit of torties in the Catholic Abuse Matter all along – in trying to mount a defense against an allegation (and we recall that so many of these abuse lawsuits contained multiple allegants and allegations) defense counsel have to steer between i) the Scylla of simply giving money away to anyone who “comes forward” and becoming seen as such a source of “free money” and ii) the Charybdis of falling afoul of reigning Victimist sensibility by actually “questioning” the allegants and allegations “too rigorously”.
It's "too" rigorously. not to. Question people till the cows come home Evil one. You'd never believe any of us anyway. You never have.
Oh yea the church and their insurors just caved in with no heavy hard questions being asked on their part to the total tune of $3 billion.(If we are to believe Satan here.) LOL ( the church has only laid out half of the 3 billion). But they like to act like the coffers are so strained by greedy victims but guess who strained them, if they are strained? Not the victims and our lawyers but the fucks who did the covering up and transferring of perpetrators to fresh fields of Catholic children. You all brought this on us your children and yourselves by supporting the oligarchs of the church without question. You still do that. You are all accessories after the fact.
Don't believe us all. Question us as much as you like. We'll stop you, if you are like P never willing to accept the truth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
That reigning Victimist sensibility dogmatically requires that the ‘victim’ (a presumption far too gratuitously made at the outset) / be believed / and precisely not be ‘re-victimized’ by being doubted or questioned .
Thus – and from the get-go in these lawsuits – defense counsel are hobbled in their ability to defend.
One wonders – in these lawsuits – if this well-strategized tortie gambit hasn’t undermined the legal process and the genuine process of defense before the allegations can even be examined. Thus resulting in ‘game over’ before it’s actually begun.
As the article further quotes defense counsel: “many dioceses have been reluctant to question the veracity of many claims”.
publiar quotes "many dioceses have been reluctant to question the veracity of many claims"
Well of course they were, knowing that in the majority of cases there was truth to every accusation. The priests and bishops were well aware of the extent of pedophiles, perverts and perversions going on in their own churches and afraid that exposing another pervert might open a can-of-worms and bring scrutiny down upon their own malfeasances. Now they've found that denying and lying about every accusation is the best policy, in hopes they can get away with their disgusting crimes against innocent children. All of them, including pope John Paul II, cardinal RAT-zinger, bishops and priests did their very best to hide their perverts and perversions, all for the good of "Mother Church". And Ohhh!! What a Mother of a sick cult of hypocritical deceivers it's turned out to be. servant of The Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
Defense counsel is further quoted as trying to resolve this profound and abyssal legal problem by saying that now the defense is “going after fraud, not going after victims”.
The legal layman might wonder why defense counsel in these lawsuits didn’t simply do this decades ago at the outset of the Stampede. But a) back when Insurers were footing the bills the Insurers had a great say in how to proceed (i.e. settle rather than go to the expense of so many trials).
And b) there was little if any proof available that plaintiffs were more ‘enterprising allegants’ than genuine ‘victims’.
After all, the client-attorney privilege blocked any examination of tactical and strategic discussions between the tortie and the allegant-plaintiff in preparing the stories that would be included in the Complaints.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
But Time and events have a way of moving along. At this point, Insurers are no longer covering many of these cases, which actually serves to free the defense counsel from insurance hobbles while also prompting more dioceses to make a more active defense.
And this is especially so since there is, in this instance, clear evidence of fraudulent planning and manipulation, at least on the part of an individual ‘enterprising allegant’ if not of torties.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
Thus getting to ‘Dan’s particular points:
First, it is not clear that the psychiatrist “diagnosed McCormack with pedophilia” rather than simply hewing to the specific legally-required task of offering her clinical opinion as to whether he is a Sexually Violent Person according to applicable statute. She is careful to limit herself to saying that it is “substantially probable” that he is, which is all that the statute requires.
Second, in the matter of there being (as far as we know) a number of further allegations: clearly these allegations never proceeded to a point where she can characterize them as definitively proven. And we are then also faced with the clear possibility that some of those allegations may themselves be the result of ‘enterprising allegants’.
And if these mere allegations constituted a major element in her diagnostic conclusion/opinion, then we see what further complications arise.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
Third, ‘Dan’ tries then to minimize (as Victimist argot likes to put it) the (possibly conspiratorial) actions as being merely “some jailbirds” who have “come along” and “see it as an opportunity to bilk some money from the Church”.
That point alone – that we now have evidence of such actions – is the key relevant point. Nobody here, and not the article, and certainly not I, are in any way proclaiming McCormack’s innocence on the basis of the subsequent present lawsuit.
But – yes – so much very much indeed “does bring into question” elements of the whole affair.
Among which I would also point out that a plea-bargain offered by prosecutors with a 5-year cap does not indicate something as serious as actual (and apparently multiple) rapes of a child or legal ‘minor’. For that prosecutors would surely have set a higher cap. And the very fact that a plea-bargain was offered in the first place might well also indicate that prosecutors didn’t really feel they had enough of a case to result with any certainty in a whizz-bang and media-pleasing trial conviction.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:
Fourth, nothing in the article or this present lawsuit supports ‘Dan’s assertion that “all you continue to prove is that there are many pedophile creeps among clergy in your Church”. That is ‘Dan’s self-serving personal cartoon and nothing more.
Fifth, nor can his typical attempt to dispose of the 2001 attorney statement that “accusing a catholic priest of abuse is a current popular scam” be taken seriously when he waves it away as being “ridiculous”. As usual, ‘Dan’ seems to think that his mere epithetical characterizations somehow constitute serious and credible rebuttal and demonstration.
Sixth – and when ‘Dan’ brays that “it sounds to me like” you know we’re on our way down the rabbit-hole – I have not “taken control” of TMR. Rather, the vivid but scanty rantings of the Abuseniks have failed to “take control” and they aren’t happy about that at all, no siree.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1102PM:
Here he accuses ‘Malcolm Harris’ of making “assumptions” that are – had you been waiting forrr itttt? – “utterly ridiculous”.
In support of which characterization, he proffers a bunch of now-classic Victimist come-backs:
First, that in “many” (a weasel term designed to sound ‘scientific’ while not actually establishing anything at all) cases there is “grooming” and such. What is the relevance here? Some are groomed and some are not. What’s the point here?
Second, if this “threatened with excommunication” bit is based on the 1962 Church directive, that punishment was only enjoined on clerical participants in canonical trials and – once the trial was completed – not on accusers. And as to what ‘Dan’ has “heard” … readers may take it as they will.
Third, ‘Dan’s pearl-clutching effort to assume the Pose of Shocked Decency with his claim that MH’s saying that he would have reported any abuse to himself is “outrageous” is itself a clearly manipulative and self-serving bit of histrionics that are par-for-the-course in Victimist theater and also in ‘Dan’-verse theatrics.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1102PM:
Fourth – and moving beyond yet more examples of ‘Dan’s larding on more assorted epitheticals – ‘Dan’s bit “Nobody asked you for your … opinion” does nothing except reveal the repellent and childish level of ‘Dan’s mentation and tactics. Nobody asked ‘Dan’ for his assorted opinions either, if there is in his statement some principle to be applied.
But it’s a comment-enabled website here so ‘Dan’s comment is nonsensical on its face.
And he tries to bring it all home with more stuff that he has “heard” (and one can only imagine where). Readers may judge as they will.
My response to publyin's lyin' longwinded ignorance, stupidity and nonsense on Nov. 8th – Aren't we all impressed now that the publiar clearly lists by number or letter all the excuses, manipulations and lies he can fabricate in regards to minimalizing the disgusting crimes of the pedophiles and perverts of his cult. Problem is he's gotten so used to making excuses, that even his excuses have excuses. I'd like to ask if he even believes all of the garbage that spews from his forked tongue.
Now in regards to my statement on opinions, I have absolutely no problem with anyones "honest" opinion. The quote was "Nobody asked for your twisted, pro-catholic biased opinion." And likewise, no honest or truth seeking person needs to hear your longwinded slew of 'twisted', lying, deceiving, manipulating and 'pro-catholic biased opinion' either.
Quit trying to impress us with your vast vocabulary and now your use of "Scylla and Charybdis" to show how learned you are even in Greek mythology. Do you have any idea how annoying your pompous arrogance is?
And Jim, I don't think it's fair to call publiar "Asswipe". It wouldn't be fair to toilet paper, which actually has some value and importance. LMAO
As for JR’s of the 8th at 1226PM:
Here JR tells his story as he has a number of times before here. As far as his family history (the first two paragraphs) goes, who can say and readers may take it as they will.
However in the third paragraph, getting to matters touched upon in regard to his case when documents relating to it were released in an LA Times cache a few years back, I would note the following:
First, it is not accurate to characterize “the authorities” at the school as having ‘known’ “about the abuse”. JR told them his story (against a teacher, we recall, in whose class JR was failing, endangering his scholarship status) and they came to the conclusion that it was a case of JR trying to get payback for getting low grades in the class. It was on that basis that they “did nothing”, or at least, they did nothing that JR wanted them to do.
My scholarship was gone 1and 1/2 years earlier. Wrong again.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 1226PM:
At the time of the incident (the early 1960s) the statutory requirements of reporting allegations were not in place as they are now.
Nor would it have seemed necessary to allow themselves to be turned into JR’s pack-mules by saving him the unpleasantness of informing his parents of his allegations (and, as well, the fact that he was failing in a class and his scholarship was endangered).
If it was not the “duty” of JR – as he so self-servingly describes himself in the paragraph – to inform the police, it was not also the “duty” – half a century and more ago – of the administrators to do so, especially in the case of so dubious an allegation, which would have wrought – if JR’s descriptions of his parents is to be believed – even worse traumatic experiences upon his parents.
They were in California.
They were 20 years later and then 2 people i told, A Marianist brother and a Gardena detective both failed to report what I told them at my 20 yr. reunion.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 1226PM:
All of which is repetition of points made over the course of several years on this site when the topic has come up.
But lastly, and much more recently, we have demonstrations by JR which would certainly not indicate that the administrators were wide of the mark in their initial assessment fifty-plus years ago of JR’s allegation and what they knew even then of his rather vengeful and self-excusing tendencies.
Whether there was any abuse and whether such abuse (a hand stuck down his pants, perhaps on several occasions within a period of weeks) could credibly be blamed for how he and his life have turned out remain questions for consideration by those so inclined.
And the scumbbagged bitch that you are still gets the facts of my abuse wrong. He forced my hand down his pants. If you can't get my history straight SHUT THE @#$% ABOUT IT! http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Again. This will be my response to Asswipe from here on.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Barbra Dorris lives. She and Jesus both returned from the dead. Miracles abound.
On the 8th at 547PM JR proffers the point that some “they” “were in California”. Readers who can suss the meaning and relevance of the comment, especially in light of the vague “they” are welcome to share their thoughts.
He then refers to the same or some other “they” as being “20 years later” (as so often when JR’s grammar starts to slip, he’s trying to put something over but trips over the effort). And ditto for any readers who can suss the meaning and relevance of this bit.
However the subsequent snippet does provide something to think about: he claims to have “told a Marianist brother” and – remarkably – “a Gardena detective” at his 20th reunion (thus sometime in the early-mid 1980s) and both of those persons – he says – “failed to report”, apparently referring to his abuse story.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 547PM:
In the era of JR’s high-school days the California mandated-reporter statute (first enacted in 1963) applied only to physicians. It has since been amended a number of times over the past half century and more, but its primary focus in on abuse of a child (Sec. 11164 b) – and by the time of his 20th reunion JR was far beyond that category.
The current and presumably most refined version of that law (Sections 11164 to 11174.3 of the California Penal Code) requires that “all persons who are mandated reporters are required by law to report all known or suspected cases of child abuse or neglect” if they have a “reasonable suspicion” (Ch. 11166 a).
Whether JR’s recitation of his allegation 20 or more years after the (alleged) fact qualified as grounding a “reasonable suspicion” to those whom he told in the early 1980s is surely of relevance here, and it is hardly beyond possibility that even the detective did not see grounds for “reasonable suspicion” under even the broadest interpretation of whatever form of the mandated-reporter law was in effect at that time.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 547PM:
But we see here in JR’s oft-repeated story the echoes of a standard element in the classic Victimist ‘abuse scenario’, i.e. that ‘they did nothing’. No doubt, during whatever polishing sessions JR had with his counsel in the mid-00s preparatory to whatever maneuvers were pulled to include his and other cases in the massive Los Angeles case and settlement of 2006-7 (we recall that he recently complained here that due to the complications and time extensions required to effect that inclusion his attorney fees substantially increased beyond the usual one-third) every effort was made to conform his allegation to the classic Victimist ‘abuse scenario’.
On then to JR’s of the 8th at 542PM where he is apparently going to try to evade all the problems with his story or stories by now insisting that from now on his “only response” will be to put up the link to some “evil person” bit he found on the internet.
Regular readers may recall that for quite a while he was on about my being a “sociopath”: his thinking or logic – so to speak – was apparently that lack of sympathy for other humans’ suffering was one diagnostic indicator of sociopathy / I didn’t sympathize with JR (nor – of course – unhesitatingly accept his stories) / therefore I was demonstrably and definitively a sociopath.
Beyond the basic irrationality – conceptually and clinically – of such ‘logic’, there remains the problem that the diagnosis requires that the subject be unsympathetic toward some ‘suffering’ that is generally recognizable as worthy and deserving of sympathy. But JR’s entire story can quite legitimately be seen as not qualifying on that score, thus undermining his ‘diagnosis’ of my sociopathy (which diagnosis also requires other indicators as well).
I found your sorry ass on the internet too P. So when I find the mirror that reflects you clearly. I share it.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 542PM:
He has a new chew-toy now, i.e. that I am “evil”. And that just tickles ‘Dan’, his pod mate, as well, who usually has nothing but this or that bit of Scriptural or ‘prophetic’ grumbling and growling to put up along those lines.
Readers may judge as they will.
Mirror mirror on the wall Publiar is the most evil sociopath of all.
He says Barbra Dorris is dead. A BIG FAT FUCKING LIE. Or just an error that he like his president must never admit to?. When has P ever admitted a mistake here? Why won't he? Why can't he? Why daren't he? Only a fool or a demon never admit when they are wrong.
Dan. glad you find the 12 warning signs applicable to Pliar. When I read them I thought nothing could be more accurate about the ahole.
Dan, Why would you and I be called peas in the same pod. You the believer and me the atheist. Because we agree the church is at fault here. ( All religions save Buddhism are cults, to my mind but calling Catholics cultists seems redundant and off putting to me. I wouldn't do it) but you have your reasons to be here. They are not mine. Yet we both hit the Pliar stonewall and have reacted to it very similarly. He/ its disgussting.
Dan, I am your twin when it comes to hating bullshit from asswipe. Your critiques of his horrific behavior are the same as mine. So I've decided not to deny you as a twin. Your flaws make you human as do my own make me human too.
P is above us all. P is the problem with this world. Not because he questions victims but because he still pretends that I am a liar about what happened in my life. Victims can always be questioned but when we are never believed. We hold up this mirror to the turd who feigns decency.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
On the 7th….I made the comment that the court system is loaded and biased against Catholic priests. A week or so before that, somebody on another site, told us that nearly all Court Judges are themselves former prosecutors. But that any former public defenders were hardly ever considered for elevation to Judges. And that this caused a built-in empathy between a Judge and a Prosecutor. Perhaps even a sub -conscious bias in favor of the prosecution. The Judge himself does the sentencing…deciding the length of prison term. So how is it that a Judge would allow his right (to decide the sentence) to be boldly assumed by a prosecutor? In the trial of Fr. Gordon MacRae the prosecutor offered him a plea deal… of 12 months prison… if he would change his plea to guilty. Otherwise a jury guilty verdict would cause the book being thrown at him.That's what happened..he was given 33.5 years to 67 years…a life sentence?. But how did the prosecutor know that he could safely offer such a plea deal?. He must have known that the Judge would go along with him?. I suspect empathy…. as though the priest was contending against a tag-team.
I’ll go down the most recent comments as they appear on the site.
On the 8th at 630PM JR opens with a statement that is ungrammatical as written and makes no more sense if you ignore the periods and treat everything from the opening “It’s” to “one” as a single sentence.
He then falls back on his well-rehearsed dodge that I wouldn’t “believe any of us anyway”.
First, the key is to put up believable material in the first place – not to go and blame those who note the numerous veracity issues with the material one has put up.
Second, this “us” is gratuitously and manipulatively self-serving since there’s really been no convincing demonstration of JR’s membership in any genuine-victim collective.
Third, we see that JR has now retreated at last to the point ‘Dan’ retreated to quite some time ago in his life: JR will declare anyone who doesn’t buy his stuff as “evil” and – marvelously – “Satan”. It remains only for JR to pick up the God’ll-getcha trope from ‘Dan’, which, of course, will raise a problem of incoherence for as reliable an atheist as JR but when has coherence ever really given him pause?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 630PM:
As for the rest: he tries hard to preserve the classic Victimist-Stampede narrative from the revelations and dynamics that are now finally coming out. And surely if JR’s own story cannot even stand up to the type of questions put up in the internet setting, then the story wasn’t going to stand up under far more acute adversarial questioning if the Insurers and assorted Church defendants hadn’t – as he nicely puts it – “caved in”.
In fact, given that by JR’s own admission his story got him nowhere until the tortie shenanigans that were pulled off to get him onto the 2006-07 LA lawsuit gravy-train were effected, then the dynamics now coming to light appear even more probable.
And he tries to top it all off with some sort of faux-legal indictment that “you are all accessories after the fact”.
Whatever the “we’ll stop you” threat means, it certainly doesn’t apply to the examination of JR’s material, which gets more mushy every time he tries to fluff it and puff it up.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 630PM:
And we also see an echo of the type of excuse that allegants made to themselves: the money’s going to come from insurance anyway, so it’s not that bad and they’ve got plenty more where that came from.
Bonny and Clyde – and others in their trade – might have said the same thing, if they had been concerned for keeping up appearances.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1036PM:
‘Dan’ – the other pea in the pod – also tries to preserve his own preferred cartoons in the face of the statements and dynamics that are now coming to light.
Thus he tries to put his own spin on the weight of the dynamics that we now know were active in the Stampede: dioceses were reluctant to question the claims … but only – brays ‘Dan’ – because they ‘knew’ that “in the majority of those cases there was truth to every accusation”.
And how does ‘Dan’ ‘know’ “that in the majority of cases there was truth to every accusation”? He doesn’t know, of course, much less can he demonstrate it. But it’s the only thing he could come up with.
And the comment then trails off into a quickly-introduced distraction based on ‘Dan’s 3×5 pile.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1013PM:
Here – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – ‘Dan’ tries to evade all my material and points put up on the 8th by merely waving them away as “lyin’ longwinded ignorance, stupidity, and nonsense”. As usual, he thinks that he has thus made a “response”.
He then tries – slyly – to distract by changing the subject, going for the idea that I am trying to ‘impress’. I’m just asking questions and pointing out relevant points. “That’ll be the day” – as the saying goes – when I need to ‘impress’ the likes of the Abuseniks we see on this site.
If ‘Dan’ – again trying a variant of his old I’m Not/You Are bit – can put up any accurate quote from my material that demonstrates my “minimalizing” anything, he can do so.
And the bit trails off with word-play on “excuses” and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1013PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has to extricate himself from the mess he made for himself with his juvenile “nobody asked for your opinion” bit that he tossed at ‘Malcolm Harris’.
But – doncha see? – ‘Dan’s fine with “anyones honest opinion”, oh very yes and absolutely and truly.
It’s just that … ‘Dan’ doesn’t allow “twisted, pro-catholic biased opinion”. There’s a big big difference there – doncha see? – and it turns on the ‘fact’ that ‘Dan’ gets to say what opinions are “honest” and what opinions aren’t. In ‘Dan’s sandbox – doncha see? – he gets to make those calls.
TMR isn’t ‘Dan’s sandbox and neither is the comments section. His sandbox is in his bathroom with the mirror and such ‘prophecy’-spewing friends as join the séances there.
Back then to his ‘impress’ bit, apparently irritated at my use of the “Scylla and Charybdis” reference. Did he have to look it up? He can blame the séances where he was told he didn’t have to know no stinkin’ ‘worldly knowledge’.
And then – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr itttt – the one pea gives a shout-out to the other pea, with both of them up to their elbows in their currently favorite bit of juvenile scatology.
And they wonder why they aren’t ‘believed’.
On then to JR’s of the 8th at 607PM:
Here JR informs me that I was inaccurate about his story: he had actually lost his scholarship a year and half earlier. But if he was a junior when the alleged abuse happened, then that means he got to school and lost his scholarship his freshman year. And that status was achieved without any abuse at all.
But since the story changes over time, who knows? Either way, it’s not pretty.
On then to JR’s of the 9th at 538PM:
The key point is not who was dead; the key point is that JR said that it was both a suicide and a murder, and further that the Church was behind it all. Which bits he tossed up with not a shred of evidence.
Then a bit incorporating JR’s latest smokescreen about my being – now – “either a fool or a demon”. He’s been hanging around ‘Dan’ too long, it would seem.
Then the one pea shouts-out to the other pea about those “12 warning signs” in whatever piece of internet ‘knowledge’ they’ve glommed onto. But since he brought up the subject, I’d say that the “warning signs” of JR’s abyssal lack of veracity are in his material, and he can thank himself for his not being ‘believed’.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 538PM:
Then JR further expands this now-familiar, catty little just-entre-nous shout-out by – yet again – ‘wondering’ why he and ‘Dan’ are two peas in a pod.
I would say he has hardly scratched the surface of why they are two peas in a pod. I would say that they are both deranged by their self-serving purposes as well as by their lack of veracity (‘Dan’s stemming from delusion and JR’s from a rather basic and long-standing character flaw / their queasy and repellent un-ripeness as mature adults / their manipulativeness (truth being to both of them a rather play-dough like thing) /and – never far from the surface – their deep tendency to deploy violence and threats in order to impose their deranged and un-veracious and unreliable cartoon thoughts on others and to get their way.
And his comment trails off along those lines.
Publiar, Evil Incarnate, Calling opponents deceiving, delusional, deranged, manipulative, untruthful, un-veracious, unreliable, while he's the worst lying, deceiving, manipulative, accusing catholic creep I've ever come across, and boy have I run into quite a few. If it talks like the Devil, walks like the Devil and acts like the Devil, well it surely must be the Devil. Remember that the Devil came as an Angel of Light. He is the deceiver, father of all liars and Accuser of the brethren. Don't allow his followers the chance to blind you from the truth and prevent you from the true riches of the Lord. Publiar is truly the lying, hypocrite snake of this forum. Read the Word, know the truth and it shall set you free from the lies of this world.
And do explain to us how I'm "deranged by [my] self-serving purposes and lack of veracity". The only purpose I have here is to let catholics know they are being terribly deceived by an unbiblical, anti-Christian, goddess worshipping religion, filled with a hierarchy of pedophile, porn addicted perverts and pederasts, their excusers, deniers and liars of the false faith. If anyone disagrees with that truth, then they are some of the above, all of the above or so blinded and brainwashed that they have lost all sense of truth and reality.
Now tell me, publiar, how and in what way this is "self-serving" or "un-veracious" and how my job of bringing souls to Christ is of any benefit to myself. I'm sure you have a slew of outright lies and manipulations in order to deceive and mock my beliefs and my mission of following the One True God. If I have no false church I'm asking anyone to join, not asking for anyones money, not selling idols or icons, books, DVDs, etc. and definitely not interested in raping innocent children, then tell me again how I'm the one who is "self-serving". What an organization of lying, hypocrite, perverted creeps, pointing their guilty fingers at others while truly behaving like the scum of the earth. Judgment Day draws near. Repent and seek the Truth or pay the consequences. servant of the Just and Forgiving God and Savior
What's your purpose here P? To tell us Dan and I that we are not adults?
I never wanted to be that. And if you are what you think a mature adult is? Well I'm glad I feel the way I do.
How long have you been a compulsive liar P? The pot calling the kettle un-voracious.
What's an unreliable cartoon thought? What's a reliable cartoon thought? What's a cartoon thought? I'm not 2 dimensional. Dan's not 2 dimensional. Cartoons are 2 dimensional. The only 1 dimensional person here is you.
Hey, Maybe cartoon thoughts are like farts? He who smelt 'em dealt 'em
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Threatening to kill an evil person. Is no crime. It's a pleasure. A moral duty if you will. You crossed too many lines. Lines of truth and virtue. Violence is all you've left me to use. Never once have you shown the modicum of respect I am due simply for being a person, your fellow human being. And for that lack of kindness you deserve to die. Who will miss you when you're gone P? No body here. You are not a nice person. You've never ever tried to behave like one here. Requiem in Pacem, Baby.
P, Who do you serve here? The Lord? If so then you and Dan are peas in a pod. (Sorry Dan) If he's not working for the Lord who's he working for? What's in it for him?
What part of your self is being served here, P? The sociopath? the liar? You work those parts of you every day here. and that's all you do.
I lost my scholarship because I was molested twice in high school. The first and lesser abuse (comparatively, if one can compare levels of betrayl) was when I first arrived. my freshman year by a Marianist brother, my 9th grade Algebra teacher, squating next to my desk and rubbing his forearm accross my groin over my pants. Back and forth. Back and forth 5 or 6 times, rubbing like he was trying to engourage a boner, while cuddling my shoulders in a hug with his other arm. in front of the whole class. He did it to two other boys also over the school year.. I knew after that I was through the looking glass. This was nothing like the nuns. I was 13. My grades plummeted. Scholarship withdrawn.
Here's what P will do next.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Sorry Jim, Totally different God, different Savior, different belief system. Catholics serve "the Church", the religion and worship the goddess and savior of their Catechism, Mother Mary, "Queen of Heaven". They can claim that they only honor, adore and venerate her, when in reality those are all synonyms for worship, especially the way in which they pour such admiration upon her. She's only a human and they've bestowed her with the blessings and honor given only to Christ and God. So if you don't worship the One True God and yet adore, venerate and worship false gods and goddesses, then you're of your father, the Devil, Accuser, liar, deceiver and father of all liars.
Whenever I hear of these alleged scandals, especially the pile on accusations, I remember the McMartin Pre-School in California in the 90s when dozens of people had their lives ruined by false accusations and prosecutors with agendas. I feel sorry for real victims but theses days it is difficult to tell who they are.
And another catholic excuser joins the fray. When are you catholics going to stop the denials, excuses, lies and blindness. Wake up to reality and face the truth. Your insistent deceptions only add to your many repetitive sins. Do you think you're just forgiven and can continue in your deceiving ways. There are way too many horrible cases of pedophilia, pederasty and perversions among your hierarchy to just whisk it all away claiming it's "difficult to tell" who the "real victims" are. Remove the blinders to see that there are vicims everywhere "the Church" stepped foot. servant of Truth
Donald, Seen any victims at your church or in a court room telling what exactly happened to them? No me either.
There's a very good reason why claims are settled out of court. Public testimony only hurts the abusors and their backers. So the church and its insurors settle. And maybe they even settle with a few lying victims (who really aren't victims) John Jay report extimated 3% were false claims and so what? If the system screws up by 3% getting through unjustly. Well that's just the cost of doing buisness when you get caught fucking kids.
If you expect me or anyone else to feel sorry for the church or to somehow feel guilty that 3% of claims maybe false? I don't. We don't feel guilty. You are the ones who should be feeling guilty that the abuse happened at all. But you are too busy trying to make the oppressor out as the "true" victim in all of this and that, my friend, is a failing proposition.
I’ll go down the most recent list as they appear on the site.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1031AM:
I think it’s now clear that ‘Dan’ doesn’t write comments to ‘be believed’ or to maintain any sort of identity as a rational adult. Rather he is simply a) ranting as if at his TV while also b) living in his cartoons whether he is aware of it or not. Thus his opening, addressing me as “Evil Incarnate” (the poor thing really does need to get out more).
That is followed by – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – another variant of the old I’m Not/You Are bit.
No doubt ‘Dan’ has run into “quite a few” of the “lying … creep” types, especially as we know that his definition of same is basically anybody who doesn’t buy his stuff and thinks he’s gone a bit off.
And the comment trails off with a riff on the Devil and so on and so forth.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 222PM:
And then – as if the point hadn’t been explicated at great length a number of times – he bleats the query as to how he is supposed to be “deranged by his self-serving purposes and lack of veracity”. Regular readers can consult the record here; any reader who would like me to repeat my points raised on this particular bit can put up a comment requesting repetition and I will provide it.
But I will say again: “the only purpose” ‘Dan’ has here is to further his delusional cartoons and impose them on others at the risk – he would like to think – of God punishing anyone who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff. That’s the game he plays in his sandbox and that’s the game he’s trying to play here.
And then – with a sublime lack of self-awareness – he recites a bellyful of his now-familiar assertions and claims for which he has provided no demonstration that they constitute the “truth”, and certainly not ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ – as the saying goes.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 222PM:
As to the second paragraph’s opening question: all his stuff is “self-serving” and “un-veracious” because it is all designed to further his delusional and vengeful agenda (against the Catholics who called the police and had him haled into court and so on). And if that “goddess-worshipping” bit is not “un-veracious” then nothing is.
‘Dan’ serves nothing but his delusional and vengeful agenda, and that’s how he serves himself.
And then – with a sublime lack of self-awareness – he recites another God’ll-getcha threat, while posing himself as a Biblical prophet or apostle with that injunction to “Repent and seek the Truth or pay the consequences”.
On then to JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:
JR had a problem: how to keep commenting while evading the several points I had raised that render his favorite ‘narrative’ of his alleged travails something rather notably less than credible.
Whatever will he do?
Why, he changes the subject. Neato.
Thus he opens with the query as to what my “purpose” here might be. He’s going for the idea that my purpose is to “tell Dan and [JR] that [they] are not adults”; that would make them both – had you been waittinggggggg forrr ittttt? – victims, victims of some personal smear campaign and nothing else.
Their own material has demonstrated the point about “adults”; all I have done is note the fact and explicate it at some length (as they both always complain about).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:
JR then – and marvelously – doth hereby declaim, pronounce and proclaim that he “never wanted to be that” (i.e. an adult). Well, I can certainly congratulate him on his success in that endeavor.
But actually, he was simply trying to lead up to an epithet; his rather unsettlingly revealing admission was just an unwitting revelation provided while he was trying to work up to an epithet. Did it backfire on him? He would like to think that it would be insensitive and ‘re-victimizing’ to notice the fact.
At that point – and again borrowing one of ‘Dan’s signature bits – JR will then launch into the “compulsive liar” bit (about which see more below when I get to JR’s following comment).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:
Then a bit of a romp through the semiotics of ‘cartoon’, leading up to nothing more than a bleat that he and ‘Dan’ are more than “2 dimensional”. I described their thoughts as cartoons, not they themselves. I have no doubt that they are 3-dimensional; I did not ‘victimize’ them by claiming they were minus a dimension. Their poses, of course, lack a certain 3-dimensional credibility, but the poses are not the real ‘them’ either.
And then – had you been waitttingggg forrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – from this 70 year-old who seems to think he doesn’t get the respect he deserves we get … a fart joke.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:
But wait. There’s more.
JR now shares with us an example of his self-serving capacity to turn reality into his own personal play-dough: “Threatening to kill an evil person is not a crime”. That’s breaking new ground in Western law (at least since 1692 or thereabouts)… although in a number of 3rd-world countries even today one can be brought to court for witchcraft and being “evil” and such.
But wait. There’s more.
In JR’s self-serving manipulation of truth-and-reality-as-play-dough he goes even further and asserts that making such threats (such as he has recently made on this site) is “a pleasure” and even (cue the trumpets) “a moral duty if you will”.
That “if you will”, of course, is JR’s stab at imitating a knowledgeable and informed adult. That the content of his statements leads precisely and vividly to the opposite conclusion utterly escapes him. No surprises there.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:
But wait. There’s more.
JR is a victim – doncha see? Because “violence is all” I’ve “left [him] to use”. Actually, truth and rationality and coherence are still available for him to use, but those aren’t things he’s really familiar with; one might imagine that he is positively averse to them.
And more in the victim line: He has had to resort to violence – doncha see? – because he gets no “respect”. And he cawn’t think why. And anyway, it’s his material that doesn’t get the respect, and it doesn’t because it is not credible and his efforts to insist upon its credibility just dig him in deeper.
And he tries to bring it all home with a bit of Latin – which is clearly not a subject in which he is competent. The familiar Latin phrase is requiescat in pace or – in the plural – requiescant in pace.