FACT: The Boston Globe has a history of defending sex between adults and the underage
In January 1978, a judge's ruling shook the country. A New York City judge, Judge Margaret Taylor, ruled that a 14-year-old girl did not commit a crime when she sold herself for sex with an adult. The judge reasoned that because the girl had done something that had become perfectly allowable for adults in an age of "recreational sex," she should not be criminally liable just because she was a teenager.
Most of the country looked on in disgust at the judge's ruling, and an angry New York City Mayor Ed Koch vowed to fight the decision.
But there was one forward-thinking newspaper that applauded the judge's thinking and indeed agreed that teens should be able to sell their bodies for sex to anyone whom they choose: The Boston Globe.
In a January 31, 1978, article (pdf), Globe columnist David B. Wilson wrote:
"Mayor Koch is quoted as saying that the state 'can't just look aside when a 14-year-old girl decides to sell her body.' In fact, the state can and probably should. To fine her is to participate in her business. To punish her is pointless. To 'rehabilitate' her may not be impossible but is certainly beyond the competency of the state.
"Unless society is ready to have the government resume its ever-futile attempts to regulate sexual behavior, prostitution full- and part-time, will continue to flourish."
And don't forget, as chronicled in the book Sins of the Press (by TheMediaReport.com's David F. Pierre, Jr.), only three months after Wilson's article, the Globe published an article from a man named Thomas Reeves. In Reeves' article, "Fairness for all" (click to read, pdf), Reeves passionately argued that arresting gay men for having sex with underage boys was a "witch-hunt against gay people." (Tellingly, the Globe never published an article in rebuttal to Reeves.)
And a mere six months after the Globe gave Reeves its powerful platform to promote his views, an emboldened Reeves co-founded NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, a notorious organization that advocated for the abolition of age of consent laws.
The articles from the Globe in 1978 were not just an aberration. Indeed, in 1974, a Globe article even suggested that the age of consent be lowered to the age of 14 "in recognition of the greater sophistication of today's young females."
So the next time you observe the Boston Globe moralizing about the Catholic Church and its handling of abuse cases by priests many decades ago, remember the critical role that the Globe itself played in creating a culture in which the sex abuse of minors was normalized.
Well, that's the globe for you! Such perversion promotion! I suppose, also, if judge Taylor had a 14 yr old daughter, selling her body, she'd certainly allow her daughters clients to her home, as its just recreational sex.
It’s telling that the globe would be sympathetic to no sex laws, yet have the protracted hypocrisy to continue rabid attacks against the church! Oh! I forgot! No money to be had from NAMBLA!
"p" c
The Boston Globe (which – if I am rightly informed – has recently had to sell its big combo plant-and-offices and is moving to more modest accommodations) seems to have been caught in the inevitable trap of its own making: by embracing whatever the PC dogma of any given moment might require, the paper thus cannot afford anyone to be ‘remembering’ or looking-back-at what it had previously so breathlessly and officiously ‘reported’.
PC dogma will do that to you when you try to embrace it. A familiar example would be this: on the one hand, gender is merely a ‘social construct’ and ain’t but a patriarchal and oppressive illusory thang; on the other hand, if somebody decides that he/she/ze/xi/whatever is a person of the opposite (or some other) sex trapped in an incompatible birth-body, then such an individual’s ultimate meaning and authenticity and so forth must be rescued by gender-reassignment interventions.
Even the most modest application of clear thinking will soon reveal to an attentive observer that both of those positions cannot be true; they are contradictory and mutually exclusive.
It's good to hear that it all catches up to them!
This TMR article deals with the media characterization of ‘sexual activity’ as (depending on when one might have boarded the bandwagon) a) ‘liberation’ and sassy self-expression or b) as ‘victimization and oppression’ (perhaps even to the point that ‘all heterosexual sex is rape’, as the late Andrea Dworkin declaimed, the implication inferred by some as being that eschewing males and embracing lesbianism is the only thing a decent – or at least liberated – girl can do nowadays).
One would have to be familiar with the intellectual contortions of the old Soviet apparatchiks to keep up with the moves necessary to stay au courant with whatever might be the (currently) Correct position on the subject.
And such familiarity would also quickly impress upon one the fact that one of the most dangerous statements any apparatchik could ever conceivably utter was ‘this catastrophic outcome should have been obvious to anybody with half a brain when the policy was first instituted’. You don’t get to say that in a totalitarian system where ‘the revolution’ only does the right thing (and never the wrong thing) because ’the revolution’ is the sole source of identifying the right thing in the first place.
And thus to notice the mistakes made by ‘the revolution’ simply proves that you are a reactionary, counter-revolutionary troglodyte who is merely using thought and reason to interfere with ‘the revolution’. Which point was expanded-upon by Catharine MacKinnon in her late-1980s book ‘Towards a Feminist Theory of the State’ where she declared thinking and reasoning to be mere tools of the oppressive patriarchy and called for the substitution of female (or, more specifically, feministical) ‘feeling’ and ‘intuition’ for patriarchal reasoning and thinking.
It’s not a long jump from MacKinnon to the demand that evidence (and the reasoning and thinking that would consider evidence) be greatly downplayed (if not actually eliminated) in trials concerned with issues close to the heart of the revolution’s objectives and purposes. One also recalls Hitler’s approval of the star Nazi jurist Roland Freisler (himself an ex-Communist who saw which way the wind was blowing and embraced a more useful ‘ism’) because what was required in a Nazi judge was not dispassionate rationality but rather, as Hitler said, “National Socialist ardor”.
(That Freisler died when the courtroom in which he was officially venting his “National Socialist ardor” was obliterated by an Allied bomb has always struck me as one of God’s perhaps far-too-infrequent but encouragingly obvious interventions.)
It’s no wonder then, I would say, that in that same era of the late-1980s Jeff Anderson saw what a bonanza could be garnered from all this moosh. He engaged the collaboration of SNAP; the media were already largely predisposed to go along, and thus the Stampede – fueled by the prospect of cash payouts for claims that did not require evidence – took its course.
The Globe positions noted in this TMR article also remind me of an even sharper example of the perils of trying to ride the back of the tiger of Correctness: in order to feed the factory workers whose labor would propel the USSR into the 20th-century, the Soviet government had to maximize its extraction of the grain and foodstuffs produced by the peasants. For maximum efficiency in this project, the peasants would have to be collectivized, forced from their individual small-holdings onto state-run farms where they could be exploited for their labor the way dairy cows could be chained between stanchions to maximize collection of their milk.
But the most successful peasants, the kulaks, defined as those who owned a few livestock and made at least a little beyond subsistence level which could be sold for a small overall profit, didn’t want to leave all that to live like chained cows on a state-run collective. So they had to be eradicated as a class (as Hitler would, a decade later, seek to eradicate Jewish Europeans). Those kulaks who were not shot outright were put on unheated trains with their families in the dead of the Russian winter and shipped from Ukraine to Siberia.
Well, in what should have come as a surprise to no one, the result of all this was famine in the Ukraine – the fabled historical breadbasket of Russia – and somewhere around six million died of starvation.
The Soviets’ programme created so profound a catastrophe in the Ukraine that they were then forced to pepper the place with huffy, haughty billboards declaiming (to the starving masses whom the Soviets themselves had created) that “To eat your own children is a barbarian act”.
No doubt the Soviet elites would have then consoled themselves with this thought: having to work with such barbarian peoples as this, is it any wonder our glorious plans don’t work right and we are forced to force them to do the right thing … ?
Wow, and you call me a "whackjob", the term I first used to describe you, which is definitely on full display in your last 5 posts. Me thinks you think you know too much, Mr. Know-It-All. Or maybe you're just some "troglodyte [troll] who is merely using thought and reason to interfere with" anything rational or of common sense. Your unsolicited history lesson on Nazism, Communism or Socialism most likely impressed some dimwitted catholics, who would be easily swayed by longwinded nonsensical babble of nothingness, much like their repetitive babble and worship of their "Queen of Heaven" and sinless "Mother of God".
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debator of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 1 COR 1:18-21
I believe I gave you this quote before, and didn't want you to think that it wouldn't apply to those like yourself, who only think they are wise and show pride in displaying their worldly wisdom.
Ooh! Now don't forget to correct "debater" so you can display your spelling wisdom. Sorry, I didn't realize I corrected it for you. Wow, I must be as wise as you! Maybe someday I can become a catholic philosopher, apologist or lying excuser? No thanks!
And Dave, nothing that the Boston Globe reports on and no one they've interviewed, no matter how perverted they may be, changes the fact of systemic immorality among the hierarchy of "the Catholic Church and its [terrible] handling of abuse cases by priests" and bishops, whether "many decades ago", today or in the future. Corruption and perversions still exist in "the Church" and protecting guilty priests and bishops is still being handled in house and by the Vatican. The catholic church "creat[ed] a culture in which the sex abuse of minors was nomalized" way before the Boston Globe ever existed. And I am not condoning the immorality of the Boston Globe or it's reporters. All I'm saying is that their sins do not discount or diminish the culpability of your hierarchy or the guilt of your church. I also agree that if they are sexually immoral then they have no right pointing their fingers at others, but the same would apply to your church and its excusers, deniers and accusers. Works both ways.
should be "normalized"
On the 17th at 504PM ‘Dan’ has to somehow come up with something to say about something which he clearly knew little – if anything – about.
Let’s see how he digs into his manipulative bag of deceptive tricks to solve his problem here.
First, he claims pride of invention for having actually called me “whackjob”. Readers may consult the record on this site to judge the accuracy of that bit.
Then – building on that bit – he tries the epithetical route: my “last 5 posts” were all sorta whackjobby, he doth declare.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 504PM:
Then – finally forced to face up to his ignorance of history – he tries this gambit: if I have some knowledge of history then he doth think that I think that I “know too much” and that I am thus “Mr. Know-It-All”. ‘Dan’ did this to himself, or perhaps his bathroom mirror did it to him when it assured him that he didn’t need to know ‘worldly’ stuff because all ‘Dan’ needed to know (so to speak) would be coming from the mirror.
Thus, in effect, his bathroom mirror gave ‘Dan’ the old Dr. Goebbels advice: “Mehr als dieses braucht ihr nicht zu wissen!” (tr. “More than this you don’t need to know!’). ‘Dan’ often deploys the gist of this advice: if he doesn’t know it then it’s not worth knowing because he only needs his bathroom mirror to “know” stuff.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 504PM:
He then – marvelously – deploys Catharine MacKinnon’s late-80s rant bit about “merely using thought and reason to interfere with ‘anything rational or of common sense’”. That he finds MacKinnon’s highly-questionable stuff to be of use to his own purposes … pretty much says it all. Readers can savor it at their leisure over some fine popcorn.
Still trying to somehow evade the relevance of the historical examples (about which he knows little, if anything) ‘Dan’ then puffs up his pinfeathers and huffs that my examples were “unsolicited”.
What’s his point? If we waited until we were ‘solicited’ by ‘Dan’s abyssal ignorance of anything except his own cartoons … well, we’d be waiting a long time indeed.
Anyhoo, one and all may rest assured that ‘Dan’ is not “impressed”. How true. Almost nothing can make an impression on the adamantine and self-confident ignorance which ‘Dan’s bathroom-mirror cheering-section constantly reinforces.
But he does manage to drum up a cutesy if somewhat breathless and overloaded epithetical to try to wave it all away: “longwinded nonsensical babble of nothingness” … oooh.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 504PM:
He then indulges himself in a little Biblical imitation (or else he is quoting Scripture without using quotation marks, since when it comes to Scripture and God’s Word ‘Dan’ really isn’t clear on where God’s material ends and ‘Dan’s stuff begins).
And that – marvelously – leads straight to ‘Dan’s deployment of that hoary old fundie attempt at come-back when confronted with its own ignorance: the familiar pericope from First Corinthians.
But when Paul speaks of “worldly wisdom” he is referring to any secondary knowledge that rejects the primary knowledge contained in the Gospel. My points (and the historical knowledge underlying them) were not made to reject the Gospel at all.
But of course, in ‘Dan’s fantasy-cartoon world, his stuff and the actual gravamen of the Gospel are pretty much one in the same; this ‘Dan’ doth know, because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
In regards to your first paragraph, I explained for you how it's "easy-peezy" for you to figure out that if there are quotes around a verse and/or the Scripture verse designated ( Matthew 23:9 ), then that would mean these are the Lord's Word's and not mine. Like I've stated more than once, I have no desire to waste my time on the rest of your ignorance, mocking, lying, childish name calling and/or stupidity. You are not a Christian, "easy-peezy". servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 550PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ tries to wave more stuff away by simply declaiming and declaring that “systematic immorality” in the Church is a “fact”. For ‘Dan’s cartoons to work – of course – that has to be a “fact”, i.e. it is the foundational presumption without which ‘Dan’s whole house of illusory cards (and the Stampede itself, for that matter) will collapse.
And as a supporting “fact” ‘Dan’ then slyly slides in that “corruption and perversions still exist in ‘the Church’”. Again, they have to “still exist” or else – the horror! – ‘Dan’ is out of a shtick and has to face only himself in his bathroom mirror.
This foundational aspect of ‘Dan’s game here is made even more clear when – under the guise of soberly pooh-poohing any integrity problems with the Globe’s ‘reporting’ – ‘Dan’ yet must presume that whatever its integrity problems in ‘reporting’, the Globe was utterly reliable as to all the stuff it ‘reported’ about the Church and so on. He has to, or he’s out of a shtick and stuck with just his own whackness.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 550PM:
And then he tries a more sly and subtle gambit: purring deceptively that he doth “agree” that if the Globe staff “are sexually immoral then they have no right pointing fingers at others”, he then quickly tries the old tit-for-tat switcheroo, i.e. that “the same would apply to your church”.
Of course, that doesn’t apply to the Church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-Bathroom-Mirror – doncha see? – because … well, because why … ?
Well, because ‘Dan’ is not “sexually immoral” … so – doncha see? – that means he can do it.
And this is the tip of the massive iceberg beneath ‘Dan’s hardly untroubled surface: a) crazy though he may be, he’s not “sexually immoral” and b) crazy though he may be, he’s also speshully-Deputized by God to be God’s Voice in the world in a way nobody else is or was or ever can be.
Once again, and with thanks yet again to Dame Margaret Rutherford’s superb Miss Marple: “that must console” him.
But it doesn’t make him a whit more reliable.
Where's Jim Robertson.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 130PM, referring to mine of the 23rd at 208PM (in which comment I noted that ‘Dan’ had apparently confused his own stuff and actual quotations from “Scripture”, which is “God’s Word”).
Here ‘Dan’ now tries to dance around his blooper by sniffing that if there are quotes around something then that means that they are from Scripture.
But on the 17th at 504PM he had put up For the word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God without quotes, yet the passage is lifted straight from 1 Corinthians 1:18.
And he then tries to get out of town quickly in a cloud of huffy dust, declaiming – as so often – that he hath “no desire to waste [his] time on the rest of [my] ignorance, mocking, lying” and so on.
And – having apparently forgotten that he hath already declared that he hath not the power to declare who is and isn’t a “Christian”, he doth declare that I am not.
Don’t buy a used car – or used pericope – from this guy.
What exactly is your problem? I stated, plain as day, in a separate paragraph the quote from "1 COR 1:18-21". I also, again plain as day, on 2/24 @ 1:30pm brought your attention to the fact that if you should see "quotes around a verse and/['OR'] the Scripture verse designated (Matthew 23:9), then that would mean these are the Lord's Word's and not mine". What is up with you with these stupid little childish games you play acting dumb, unless it's not just an act? Is it just more smoke or do you enjoy playing the annoying stupid twit? servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 720AM:
Having run through a whole lot of his usual evasions and distractions, here he tries a new tack: the Wig of Exasperated Confusion, i.e. “What, exactly, is [my] problem?”. (Which, but of course, instantly positions ‘Dan’ as the victim of whatever “problem” it is that he would like it to be presumed that I have.)
He’s yet again trying to waltz around the fact that he put up a direct quotation from the Bible without quotes – thus demonstrating my point that in ‘Dan’s mind his stuff and God’s Word are pretty much sorta all the same thing.
And he further demonstrates that he is either a) greatly impaired in his grasp of grammar and usage or else b) he is deliberately trying to cover-up his blooper: while he here insists that he had clearly marked the quoted pericope with quotation-marks and by identifying its source (i.e. 1 Cor 1: 18-21) yet he utterly ignores the fact that the first sentence of his comment’s paragraph – which was not in quotes – was also a part of the pericope and not ‘Dan’s own stuff. We aren’t supposed to notice that.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 720AM:
He then tries to further lard on his usual bit about not needing to demonstrate “the wisdom of the wise” and so forth (because when you’re God’s oh-so-speshull Deputy – doncha see? – you don’t need to know stuff … such as how to accurately distinguish your own stuff from God’s Word).
And he also claims – again– that Matthew 23:9 will further absolve him of any taint of error or deception.
For readers who don’t have a reliable version of Matthew available, here is the text of Matthew 23:9 (from the Jerusalem Bible): “You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven”.
Any reader who can determine the relevance of that pericope to the material on the table at the moment is welcome to share that illumination.
What then is ‘Dan’s problem? It’s that his game plan won’t work because i) he is setting himself up as God’s speshull-Deputy yet he doesn’t really have the chops to pull off that masquerade and ii) his own actual agenda must hew not to God’s Word but rather only to the purposes of that self-serving masquerade.
What is your problem? a) Are you dense? b) Is your reading comprehension problem worse than we could have imagined? or c) You're just blowing smoke and being an annoying twit in order to attempt to take us off track of the real travesties of your cult, the obvious fact that it's plagued with pedophiles and perverts and nothing terribly positive is being done to change or correct these malfeasances? Same old business as usual.
I never stated that I "clearly marked the quoted pericope with quotation marks". Why must you insist on lying? I explained that a quote from the Bible can either be denoted with quotation marks and/OR, (emphasis on OR), the Scripture verse designated (John 8:44). I ended the verses in question with "1 COR 1:18-21". This would mean that verse 1 COR 1:18, beginning with "For the word of the cross …" would be included if I end the paragraph with 1 COR 1:18-21. I feel like I'm teaching a two year old how to use the Bible. Like I said, "Are you dense?" or purposely "just blowing smoke", thinking this is some game to play?
Catholic writers use quotes around the full verse, but even so-called christians leave out the quotes and denote the verses at the end of the quotes (i.e. 1 COR1:18-21). I feel either method works for anyone who understands and reads the Bible. For some reason you and your catholic hierarchy seem to think everyone has to do things your way. You seem to enjoy having power and control over others, like your cult had over the little boys they sodomized, molested and raped. servant and teacher to the Biblically ignorant
I only used "Matthew 23:9", just like I used "John 8:44", as examples of how one would designate a quote from the Bible. How you claim I think "that Matthew 23:9 will further absolve [myself] of any taint of error or deception", is stupid and irrelevant. It does show that apparently you know the verse, it's a shame your cult of idiots, and that would include yourself, have absolutely no idea on how to follow what Jesus asked. They think it's fine to call their leader Holy Father and their perverted priests Father, just because they 'sleep' with children. Then they have the nerve to claim the Holy Father represents Christ on earth and pedophile priests are little Christs. Absolute blasphemy. Are you not aware that Christ lives and Spiritually among us and is in no need of having charlatans representing Him, let alone statues of Mary to mediate, venerate, honor and adore in place of Him. Wake up, catholics, be not deceived.
While we're at it, let me quote John 8:44, describing you and the others liars of your cult, "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and lives not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of all lies and liars." John 8:44
Are you happy now that I put quotes, so little peewee knows it's from the Bible, and not my words? Thanks for quoting Matthew so I could elaborate on more of your cult's lies and deception. I think we make a good team, giving me more opportunities to expose your false cult. servant of the All-Knowing and Only True God, not one of the many catholic pagan gods
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1131PM:
Here he is again faced with the problem of trying to evade a mistake, and this time in an area where he is supposed to be reeely reeely well-informed, i.e. Scripture.
He opens with a babble of epithet to see if he can kick up some dust and confuse the issue at hand (i.e., that he screwed up). He also tosses in the ever-handy “pedophiles and perverts” not only for purposes of confusion but also for purposes of distraction.
Then we come to his more direct evasion: he’s being victimized – doncha see? – because he “never stated” that he had “clearly marked the quoted pericope with quotation marks”. ‘Dan’s deception here is that he implies that accurate use of quotation marks (especially in an area where it is very much an issue whether he can even mentally separate his own stuff from God’s Word) is purely an optional sorta thing and he never said he was going to exercise that ‘option’.
Thus he carried the ball for yardage in the game but never said that he wasn’t going to use a golf-cart to move himself down the field and now he is miffed and bleaty because he is being held responsible for an ‘option’ that he just happened to have chosen not to exercise.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1131PM:
He continues his deception with some nonsensical ‘explanation’ to the effect that – according to ‘Dan’-verse rules of play, one can denote a Scriptural quotation “either” by quotation-marks “or” by putting the reference chapter-verse notation at the end of the “quote”.
First, that’s not how grammatical quotation protocols work and second, he had actually used quotation marks anyway but as I had pointed out, he didn’t put the quotations around the entire pericope text that he used (demonstrating, I said, that he doesn’t seem able to distinguish his own stuff from the text of Scripture).
On the basis of his nonsense, he then indulges himself in a self-serving concluding flourish to the effect that he doth feel as if he’s “teaching a two-year old how to use the Bible”. But the rules of grammar are what they are and he himself gave a stab at following them but blew it.
We are dealing with a delusional and yet deceitful whackjob who seems quite set on a) posing and imposing himself as quite reliably competent in his declarations and declamations yet also b) immediately capable of making the most ridiculous excuses for his actual incompetence.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1131PM:
But wait. There’s more.
He breaks new ground by then declaring that while “Catholic writers” follow the grammatical rules of quotation, yet “even so-called Christians” don’t. Readers who can follow that bouncing ball are welcome to share their illuminations here.
And then – hastily donning the Wig of Knowledge – ‘Dan’ then doth sniff officiously that he doth “feel that either method” would be OK, so long as the reader is “anyone who understands and reads the Bible”. Readers who can follow that bouncing ball are welcome to share their illuminations here.
And then he tries to bring this vaudeville bit home by trying to blame – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – “your catholic hierarchy” for following the rules of grammar in regard to quotation and bethumping poor divinely-guided ‘Dan’ for doing something else.
And – apparently realizing what whackulent whoppers he has just typed – he instantly goes back to the trusty and here utterly irrelevant bit about “sodomized” and so on and so forth, in a pathetically obvious replay of his effort at deceitful distraction from the point at issue, i.e. his screw-up.
I'm not going to play your little childish, manipulating games. You act like my omitting quotes was an unforgivable mortal sin, while your cult harbors, enables and protects some of the most disgusting perverted pedophile creeps to walk the earth. Then you claim I'm "making an effort at deceitfull distraction from the point at issue, i.e. his screw up"? Gee, I didn't put quotes, because the 2 year old wants to dictate how catholics denote Scripture verse. Remember, I'm not a brainwashed catholic groupie of yours, and not one of your dumb sheep you can push around, you cowardly bully. You are such a deceiving disingenuous lying creep and nothing but one of Satan's slimy snakes. A royal waste of my time. servant of the Truth
P.S. You think your last sentence (3/5 @ 10:57pm) is grammatically correct, Mr. Know-It-All?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1213AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to finesse his effort to distract by tossing up “Matthew 23:9”, which – as I demonstrated – is utterly irrelevant in the context of the issue at hand.
He had only put the reference up – doncha see? – as an ‘example’ “of how one would designate a quote from the Bible” … got that? Again, the standard grammatical rules of quotation would require both the marks and then the identifying source-reference. This, he doth declaim – and had you been waittingggg forrr ittttttt? – doth “further absolve” himself. Thus that any observation as to how he blundered is just “stupid and irrelevant” (the epithets here supposed to do the job of both waving-away and distracting-from the overt fact of his own incompetence).
And then he riffs on trying to further distract and evade by blaming the Church and Catholics and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1213AM:
But wait. There’s more.
But it’s just another quotation of a pericope, which he references as “John 8:44” while then also using quotation marks as well. (He did it right this time; he’d like you to forget he didn’t do it right before.)
And it should come as no surprise that he is trying to use the pericope epithetically against the Church and Catholics and so on and so forth while trying to imply that ‘Dan’s the real McCoy in the Scripture game he likes to play.
‘Dan’ is in his own sandbox, where he it is blasphemous to suggest that he isn’t the king of the little hill he’s made for himself there.
Actually I was using, not "trying to use the pericope [John 8:44] epithetically" to describe you. However, if it makes you feel better that you're among good company with other catholic liars, then so be it. This must console you. Catholic readers can judge as they may, as the liar is willing to throw other catholics under the bus. My guess is that compulsive liars enjoy the company of other like minded liars.