All of which is thinking-too-much for such as Ecker, whose solution to this issue is simply to believe that all or most of the allegations are genuine. (I repeat here a point I made above in another comment: If just a few bad-apple priests can change the fundamental and essential valence of the Church from good to ‘evil’, then won’t a few non-genuine allegants and claimants also vitiate the valence of the victimists?)

So Ecker’s “solace” is – like so much else in his self/world-view, it would seem – somewhat not-anchored in reality.

The Wig/helmet also commands him to inform us that such thinking as he disapproves-of here is “of the minority and not the majority”. By what demonstrable evidence can that assertion be supported?

“Fancy words or the length of a comment” will not, he is further directed to inform us, will not “change the actions of catholic clergy”. But once again: we are precisely trying to get a grasp on just what “actions” that “catholic clergy” actually did (or did not do). And what we are trying to do – the way I see it – on this site is to deliberate and discuss, not to “change”.

And there is surely a difference between a) trying to discover what actually happened and b) trying to “minimize” what has already been demonstrated to have happened.

And then Ecker consoles himself with the thought that “the reputation of [the] church” will not “change” now. This, I think, is the key bit here: Ecker has sought – and sees himself as having led the charge for – an essential and permanent reduction in the “reputation” of the Church. This dovetails nicely with the overall secularist-liberal effort to reduce the public stature and credibility of its greatest rival and obstruction, i.e. the Church. An effort for which, in the final analysis, the Abuseniks have served that effort as fellow-travelers and even useful idiots, to use the old Soviet phrases. (Let me save us all some time here: I just said that they were made – whether they knew it or not – to play the same role as the “useful idiots” of Lenin’s gameplan; I did not say that all Abuseniks were idiots.)

And if “fancy words” and extended comments won’t change minds, does Ecker think that his various ex Wiggedra pronouncements will have any effect? Only – perhaps – on certain types of mentalities.

Ecker is further instructed to tell us that “when the future looks back at this time” … readers are welcome to take that bit from the tea-leaves for what they think it’s worth. I think that historians are going to be looking at the Stampede as a striking example of a Stampede, very similar to what the Nazi’s tried to mount against the Church in the later 1930s (see the link at the bottom of this comment, taken with thanks from the These Stone Walls site). And historians will have to consider just how a culture and society that considers itself so educated and competent could fall for a Stampede all over again in these oh-so-modern and enlightened times.

We are then given a quotation from somewhere to the effect that no matter how many things an individual or organization does right, it will only be remembered for “the one wrong thing”. I am not convinced of the accuracy of that thought, but even on its face it would seem clearly to support the idea that the Church has done a number of things right. Whether – as Ecker and the interests and forces (real, rather than imagined) that he serves hope – the Church’s final epitaph will be that it was “evil” because of the “one wrong thing” … that remains to be seen. Anybody who wishes to join Ecker on his hilltop waiting for that Glorious Moment to arrive is advised to bring their own Kool-Aid and to pack some loaves and fishes; it may be a very long wait. Entertainment will be provided by the comedic stylings of the various Wigs; event security will be provided by all of those who made a “career” guarding everybody’s lives during a hitch of military service that they spent in the sunny climes near the Caribbean counting the days until they could go do other things.

And thus to the faux-pious bleating of the Wig of Mature Sadness: those who disagree with Ecker will wind up with efforts that ultimately “will mean nothing”. As they Hebrew brethren and sistern say: from your lips to God’s ear. Let’s just wait to see what God says when He hears it.

http://www.cesnur.org/2010/mi-goebbels_en.html

This case disintegrated as did 2 others-not much defense needed. Anderson quitely went away and the press did not cover the defeat. What are you commenting on?

Anyway, since you like the ball analogy, I suggest that you read up on offense/defense (it can take up some of your idle time). Somehow, I feel that you did not play a sport.

"Sadly, in the end" (as you say) your words mean nothing because they are gibberish. Your quotes ( wherever do you get them?) are never appropriate to the subject at hand. It is your words that are meaningless, even when used correctly and spelled right.   

Don't you think that the anti-Catholic card is even more worn-out?  Your tack carries little weight with main stream Catholics. 

That there thinking is of the minority and not the majority. Their attempt to minimize or change the reputation of their church because of the actions of catholic clergy will not change because of fancy words or length of a comment.

When the future looks back at this time, it will be their church who will have the black eye and be known as the "bad guy"

So Publion be concerned because if the old statement " you can do many right things, but if you do one wrong that is what you will be remembered for" means that you and your friends have many many more words to write.

Sadly in the end those words will mean nothing.

Regarding the style of the left when their lies are exposed and they've no place left to go, but on either full assault or in full retreat (temporarily), just observe the antics of their politicians when busted; Clinton, Filner, Weiner, Obama, Roberts, Hart, Sharp James, Marion Barry, the Daly's and on and on – they will literally take the lie to the grave with them, but, not before brutalizing, with the help of an all-too-willing press, the opposition as liars.

This flame out was to be expected.

Again.

And, again.

Examining and questioning is “opposition” and “attacks”. What’s new here?

If there are any examples of “a web of deceit and mendacity” I’d like to see them (accurate quoted). I would submit an alternative explanation: “projection”, whereby what the speaker is actually doing himself is instead blamed-upon (or ‘projected-onto’) the interlocutors (who have actually been the targets of the speaker’s own – in this case – “web of deceit and mendacity”). We notice here yet again that we get no examples to explain or demonstrate the assertion; just the assertion itself.

And the epithetical: the speaker’s target is merely “passing itself off being a human being” [sic].

Curious bit though, that “they do not speak to each other or about what each other posts”: I certainly have never had any off-site communication with any other commenter. But I have noted on occasion where there does seem to be that very thing going on between certain commenters, such that various posts from various persons will almost simultaneously appear with either i) the same bits of content in them or ii) the same phrasing or usages. More projection, perhaps. Or a shared Shoebox.

I have never encountered material from JR and others in which it would seem accurate to characterize the material as “victims who dare to stand up to their lies and lying implications”. Indeed, we see again here no examples of such “lies” or – a rather vague term – “lying implications”.

But the assertion does reveal – once again – the mental dynamics in play: persons who have convinced themselves that whatever it is that they are doing is some form of heroic standing-up-to. It may be a consolation, even a needed consolation – but it cannot be given here the same free pass that the media have given such posturing for decades.

Just what does “conversation” mean for JR? Does that mean that rationality and coherence are not necessary because  – as we have so often heard here – “it’s just a blog” and we are all just blog-weenies killing time and blowing off a little harmless steam? And yet – surely – there is nothing “harmless” in the Stampede, and for my part I have always said that serious deliberation and analysis are or should be essential here.

If anything of JR’s has been “edited for the ‘safety’ of the readership”, then what could such material possibly be? Substantive ideas and demonstrative evidence to back them up? Or merely the usual expletives that are deleted not for the “safety” but for the respect of the readership (after all, who needs to have expletives tossed at them when they’re trying to consider serious matters?).

If JR was ever under the impression that ungrounded assertions and claims, epithets and expletives were reasonably to be construed as “efforts to reach” readers, then that was his (rather eye-popping) mistake in the first place. But – of course – the way the Game has been played for the past few decades (with the media’s hefty indulgence) that was precisely what was supposed to work here on this site as on all the others.

Once again too, the revealing phrase “your truth” – as if there is no objective truth, but only whatever ‘truth’ an individual or interest-group wants to claim is ‘truth’. Thus: ‘your truth’, ‘my truth’, hers-his-or-its truth, ‘their truth’, and ‘our truth’ and so on.

We are “lying evil frauds” and so forth. But after one of his earlier Farewell Concerts some months back, JR had returned to the boards claiming that it ‘amused’ him to traffic with us “immoral” types. Not so amused any longer? This site is no longer ‘amusing’? I for one am glad to hear it.

And we are informed that not only still-Father Doyle but also Jeff Anderson have “always worked for the Church”. No evidence or explanation as to how such a conclusion was reached in the matter of Anderson; but it would no doubt resemble the material proffered in proof of the claims that SNAP and the still-Father were also working for the Church. Or at least they don’t agree with JR or acknowledge his extensive brilliance – which may amount to the same thing according to the calculus book JR reads from.

A sweeping conclusion delivered with the full Wig of Victimization and a French sweep off the stage with the curtains rustling loudly in the wind as the storm swoops by on its way to the exit.

I am reminded of Tolkien’s Gandalf: “Thus passes Denethor … “

Meanwhile, we are all left to ponder the fact that for so many decades this type of mentality – or, if one wishes, ‘approach’ – was given a free-pass. And the Stampede came.

It's very clear a web of deceit and mendacity is continually being spun here between P , passing itself off as being a, a human being; and D passing it self off as a martinet in it's "church militant".. They do not speak to each other or about what each other posts. They direct attacks only towards victims who dare to stand up to their lies and lying implications.

And then there are Josie and Julie, the Dolly sisters, feigning honesty and innocence to back up the one two punches of Tweadle D,P, and Tweadle Dumber, D.

I've said before that conversation is impossible here because real free speach is edited for the  "safety" of the readership.

So I end my attempts to reach you. Where you are I've already been. You represent the small rulling minority of an old and evil and idiotic institution. One that has been built on fear and fantasy. That's what you want and that's what you've got. Fear and Fantasy your path to an afterlife that does not exist.

And don't pretend you are just average posters speaking your "truth". You are not.

What you are are lying evil frauds set up to guard the palaces and treasure of your princes. You are professional. I am not.

I quit this game. You are another Tom Doyle created cul d' sac. Maybe not directly controlled by Doyle but just another one of his "committees" to control victims and how we are to be seen publicly. SNAP and TMR and VOTF are all Doyle's "committees", all bullshit; all the time.

Jeff Anderson has always worked for the Church. He's yours not ours.

I have been used enough by your church; and I've had enough of dreck like you. Fin