Agenda-Driven Journalism: NY Times Refuses To Report Jeff Anderson’s Big Loss In Milwaukee Courtroom But Trumpets His Silly Motion To Disqualify Judge

Laurie Goodstein

Jeff Anderson mouthpiece: The New York Times' Laurie Goodstein


  • After the New York Times published three articles suggesting that Cardinal Dolan committed wrongdoing – possibly even criminal wrongdoing – as Archbishop of Milwaukee, the Times did not publish even a single story of a federal judge's later decision completely vindicating Dolan;
  • Weeks later, however, the Times' Laurie Goodstein published a story about Church-suing contingency lawyers filing an unimportant motion to disqualify the federal judge who had rendered the very same decision that the Times had completely ignored.

As we reported back in July, the New York Times published three different articles aggressively attacking its local bishop, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, for merely transferring diocesan monies in 2007, when he was Archbishop of Milwaukee, to a cemetery trust fund to ensure that the monies were going to be used as intended by the original donors: for the future care and maintenance of Catholic cemeteries.

The Times and other professional anti-Catholics, such as those at SNAP, claimed that the $55 million transfer to the trust fund was a part of a diabolical plot by Dolan to "protect the assets from victims of clergy sexual abuse who were demanding compensation" by moving the money away.

Jeff Anderson : lawyer Jeffrey Anderson

"Suing the sh&@ out of the Church":
contingency lawyer Jeff Anderson

To these folks, all archdiocesan monies must only be used to line the pockets of accusers pursuing claims and their wealthy contingency lawyers.

A few weeks later, a federal judge vindicated Cardinal Dolan and declared that Dolan's transfer was completely proper.

Yet the Times did not publish a single article about the judge's decision and the huge victory for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and Cardinal Dolan.

End of story? Not quite. It turns out that the main Church-suing lawyer in this case is the notorious Jeff Anderson, who has an extensive record of theatrics and questionable behavior in his self-described pursuit of "suing the sh#^" out of the Catholic Church.

In his typical bombastic fashion, the losing Anderson filed a meritless motion to reverse the judge's decision, claiming that because the ruling judge happened to have some deceased family members in some of the 100+ archdiocesan cemeteries, the judge somehow had a conflict of interest in the case.

The NYT carrying water for the usual suspects – again

Marci Hamilton

Professional anti-Catholic:
lawyer Marci Hamilton

Yet even though the Times did not feel the judge's original decision vindicating Cardinal Dolan was even worthy of any mention, the Times did feel that a story about a subsequent specious motion filed by Anderson to disqualify the trial judge warranted an entire 800+-word story.

And, not surprisingly, the author of the Times' story was none other than the predictable Laurie Goodstein, who always appears at the ready to lend the Times' reputation to advance Jeff Anderson's legal career and raise money for SNAP.

To lend credibility to Anderson's silly, attention-getting motion, Goodstein turns to none other than lawyer Marci Hamilton, a well-known anti-Catholic bigot, who also happens to be financially involved with Anderson in the case.

Goodstein waits until the very end of her article to quote Prof. Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law, who trashes Hamilton's legal analysis of Anderson's nonsensical motion to disqualify the judge:

"An appellate court is going to say, if you could learn these facts after the ruling, why couldn't you do it before the ruling? Why all of a sudden did you become interested in whether this judge could sit, other than the fact that you lost. That's something they have to explain."


Goodstein as Jeff Anderson's and SNAP's unpaid PR machine

Yet the most troubling aspect of Goodstein's article is that it was published at all.

Goodstein's never-ending obsession with old abuse claims in the Catholic Church makes it quite clear that she is nothing but a mouthpiece for Church-suing lawyers like Jeff Anderson and anti-Catholic groups such as SNAP.

In 2010, when Goodstein published a high-profile series of articles about a Wisconsin priest who abused boys over a half a century earlier, it was no secret that Anderson funneled court and Church documents to Goodstein, which she then dutifully published. There is no doubt that her reporting resulted in the value of Anderson's cases being increased greatly.

In 2012, when a judge ordered SNAP president David Clohessy to merely sit for a deposition involving a lawsuit in Missouri, Goodstein naturally leaped to the defense of Clohessy with a front-page story decrying that Clohessy was being unfairly persecuted for simply being asked to testify truthfully about his relevant knowledge.

It is well known that the New York Times' editorial policies stand in heated opposition to the Catholic Church on nearly every "hot-button" social issue, whether it be gay "marriage," abortion, or birth control.

And with every successive article, Goodstein – the Times' purported "National Religion Correspondent" – only makes it more evident that her main role at the Times is to endlessly recount old stories of sex abuse occurring in a single institution – the Catholic Church – in order to advance the agendas of contingency lawyers like Jeff Anderson and other Church haters.


  1. Roger says:

    Has Goodstein ever penned a single  article for the Times which did NOT involve alleged abuse in the Catholic church in 1964?

  2. delphin says:

    I wonder how Goodstein will resolve her inner conflict regarding her hatred for everything Catholic and the Church's recent liberal positions on food stamps (the other SNAP), Illegal Immigrant status and their standard opposition to war- on Syria (which creates a serious personality disorder scenario for the left; do we stand behind the benevo-leftist warmonger Obama, or with our usual lice-infested antiwar zealots)? Anyone heard anything out of the HollowWoodys, recently?

    Which reminds me, has anybody seen Cindy Sheehan lately? Better check her squatters campsite outside GWBs Texas ranch, she could be rather hungry by now.

  3. dennis ecker says:

    [edited by moderator]

    Is it truly the lack of media coverage, is it the large payouts that survivors are being awarded , or is it the way the world now looks down at their church because of no one elses fault but their own ?

    On this site and like others that I have wrote comments on their seems to be a very few, let me say pro survivors but a slew of pro catholics each trying to defend their church, and I use that keyword defend.

    Would it not be easier for a church that got caught in the cookie jar admit to their problems, do what is right and attempt to change the view as the world sees them.

    I give the example of Penn State and the Sandusky abuses. Here is an organization who has admitted to the wrong doings, faced those who were abused, is doing what is right and rebuilding their image one day at a time.

    These people must understand their church has hurt children for decades and because they are being Forced by the courts to spend money, and some of their parishes are being forced to close their problem will not be corrected overnight.

    Why would an organization who has stated to do everything possible to assist the victims of their clergy at every turn fight against changes that would make them look say more repenting. I give the example of the passing of SB 131 where already the leader of the catholics as he would like to think as himself as Bill Donahue has shot off letters voicing his non approval of the bill.

    On this sight there is only Mr. Robertson and myself with the once in awhile other supporter, and the greater amount of pro catholics. But looking back at old posts and what these so called pro catholics have to say, I would say it is an unfair fight, because I believe Mr. Robertson or myself could handle you guys by ourselves. I am even led to think that if we both left it would still be an unfair fight, because that would leave you with no one to vent your frustrations and that could only lead to in-fighting among you.

    Now I took that step back and deep breath as my wife suggested (how lucky I am to have her) but if you would like to continue business as usual that's fine with me, but if you would like to be no longer looked down upon by the majority I suggest you as parishoners need to get involved and tell your archdiocese their time is up, you the people who make up the catholic church are now stepping in.

  4. Publion says:

    Kudos to TMR for this report.


    I think there is also an interesting twig in the wind. In the NYT article to which this TMR piece links, at the very end, and without any comment from Goodstein herself, is a series of quotations from a noted law professor, Stephen Gillers.


    Gillers notes that it’s “strange” that an attorney would simultaneously file an appeal and a motion for recusal of the judge who decided the case. Says Gillers: it doesn’t make sense “unless they want to cast doubt on the integrity of the ruling by saying that this judge couldn’t look at it with disinterest”. In other words, as the Playbook says, if you can’t win on the merits of your argument, toss whatever plop you can at the person who doesn’t agree with you by insinuation and innuendo.


    The judge had relatives long-buried in some of the Archdiocesan cemeteries and had – as many plot owners do – bought some sort of perpetual-care contract for the gravesites. Anderson is trying to characterize this as making the judge a “creditor” of the Archdiocese and thus disqualified from sitting on any case involving the cemeteries. (I haven’t seen any documents in this matter, but one might wonder why Anderson doesn’t also simply claim that since the judge is a parishioner within the Archdiocese – or simply a Catholic – then he is thus automatically disqualified.)


    At any rate, Gillers says that the judge’s “financial interest” is insufficient “to merit recusal”.


    And also that there is a problem with Anderson’s “timing”: Gillers says that an appellate court is going to ask why Anderson has ‘discovered’ this information after the Decision was rendered, but couldn’t discover it before the Decision was rendered. I would add that one might reasonably conclude that Anderson did know, but held the information in reserve in case the Decision went against him, which it did. But Gillers covers that base: the appellate court may well ask Anderson: are you submitting all this now “only because you lost?”.


    What is of interest here – in addition to Professor Gillers’ observations – is that his thoughts were included in Goodstein’s article at all. Is Goodstein being forced by her NYT superiors to include material that – it would clearly seem – she would rather not include since it doesn’t make Anderson look so good?


    Thus: is it possible that the NYT is now trying to make its marquis religious reporter hew a little closer to some amount of balanced reporting rather than her usual hatchet-jobs? At any rate, I think we here should continue to press forward.

    • dennis ecker says:

      Sadly its alive. But it truly serves no purpose. A site that its only purpose is to post comments when THEY feel catholics, their church or their clergy are under attack. In its history TMR has done nothing to change how the media reports, the over turning of any court cases against their clergy, or any matters of importance. In addition it is only one of two of its kind that I know of with the exception of the catholic league. The other being the that is authored by Ralph Cipriano that is not totally dedicated to clergy sexual abuse or any church matters. The stories range from church matters, mob cases, the city of Philadelphia L& I department, etc. Simply a private editorial page with a comment section that has failed to make main stream media.

      And they too felt that their reporting would be a helpful aid to the last case of clergy members charged with criminal sexual abuse and we all know how those cases turned out.

      Now recently here on TMR a very outspoken commenter has been proven to be a _________. (do not wish to be edited) and having such a colorful imagination of knowing about me and my financial income.

      The one thing that people have noticed about this sight and others  is how come the majority of people who comment on these sights who feel the catholics and their church is being unjustly treated fail to admit who they truly are hiding behind a call name. All the while the other side has no problem informing the world who they are. Are they ashamed ?

      I might have the answer to that question.

       what happens when some groups get a small number of dedicated folks who adopt different screen-names to give the impression that the group enjoys a wider public support than is actually the case.

  5. Publion says:

    Well, fresh from his 30-minute retirement commenter Ecker re-continues to tread the boards yet again. A true trouper. Not reliable, necessarily, but a real showman.


    But what is the logical connection Ecker is trying to make (one presumes) between the lack of media coverage, the large payouts to the allegants (sorry – not using the queasy, cheesy “survivors” scarfed from the Holocaust), and “the way the world now looks down at their church”?


    For that matter, is it “the world” or is it Ecker (he seems so often to get the two entities confused) that “looks down” at the Church?


    I agree, however, that Catholics in the US – clerical and lay – need to accept responsibility for the general condition of the Church over the past half-century since Vatican 2. More importantly, and as I have said before here, they (we, actually) all have to take a more robust and spiritually grounded approach to the genuine Gifts of the Church (and the Gospel), so as to rejuvenate and embody them in the parlous secularist and Monoplane-flattened culture that has taken hold in the past half-century.


    Such abuse as actually and genuinely occurred was fundamentally a consequence of allowing that robust awareness to weaken.


    I note the odd mentation evident in the discombobulated sentence-paragraph beginning “On this site …”.


    However I have been able to salvage the thought about “that keyword defend”. Does Ecker see something odd in Catholics ‘defending’ their Church – especially in light of what increasingly appears to be, and to have been, some sort of deliberately-fomented Stampede against the Church? Does Ecker see something wrong in it? In what would such wrong-ness consist, if this is where he is going with it?


    The Church has instituted the Dallas Reforms, which have made it arguably the most abuse-sensitive and abuse-preventive major organization on the planet. Does Ecker not consider that an achievement of no small proportions? Has that not gone quite a way toward self-reform? (Ecker urges the Church to change its image (“to change the view as the world sees them”) but that simply reveals the level on which Ecker opeates: appearances. The Church, in contrast, has been working on actual performance.


    Beyond that, how (this question is not rhetorical) is the Church to accept or admit responsibility for what has not yet been established as actually having happened? And by that I mean: we do not actually know the genuine extent of the Abuse Matter; we only know the claimed extent alleged and claimed by the Stampede.


    I do not recall that Penn State has yet instituted any comprehensive organizational reforms that include bringing professional prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel into the allegation-reviewing process. I do recall that several senior officials of that institution are now facing investigation and possible charges for cover-up. But of course, Ecker is simply trolling for any examples – ‘factual’ or not – that can be propped up as a counter-example against the Church. But what’s new there?


    We precisely do not know how many children the Church has “hurt”. The Church, also, is being “forced … to spend money” by courts that, as we see in Philadelphia most recently, are clearly skewed – at least at the trial levels. The numerous Anderson-Axis settlements were the result of agreements between the contending Parties which the courts simply endorsed officially; the Church was not – in the civil settlements – “forced” to make the settlements. (But “forced” neatly leads to the inference that the allegations were examined and analyzed and found valid, and that the courts then forced the Church to pay as a matter of legal authority. Neat.)


    The parishes are being forced to close down because the age of the Great Immigration that gave rise to so many of them has now passed and the demographics are different. At the end of WW2 the Navy quickly started decommissioning numerous of its 1200-plus ship fleet, including battleships less than a decade old and many of the marvelous heavy-cruisers that were equally new (they were a class unable to defend themselves from the jets and the rockets of the immediate postwar era); but that did not at all indicate that the Navy was closing down because it was failing or weakening. (Even the fabled Iowa-class battleships were mothballed, although later brought back, with many improvements, from the Korean war through Vietnam and to the 1991 Gulf war).


    In regard to problems not being “corrected overnight”, the number of allegations lodged in 2012 as opposed to a decade before indicate clearly that corrections have had an effect over the course of a decade.


    In what way, then, does the Church “fight against changes that would make them look more repenting” (one notes again the odd mentation)? What “changes” would make the Church “look more repenting”? And to answer that one must first deal sufficiently with the question: for what genuine acts or omissions does Ecker expect the Church to repent? ) My own surmise as to the answer to that question: the Church must admit that every day, in every way, Ecker has been right all along (a position he shares with James/Jim/Mr. Robertson).


    We have already discussed at length the various serious problems with SB 131 and the weakening of Statutes of Limitations; problems to which Ecker has made no substantive response whatsoever.


    Ecker and “Mr. Robertson” … but then that sentence trails off once again into incoherence. (Goes to mentation, again.)


    But then but then but then: Ecker asserts that “I believe Mr. Robertson or myself could handle you guys by ourselves”. Really? Then why have you both … not? Would it be inaccurate to characterize your collective performance here as ‘being mopped-up-the-floor-with’? No substantive responses; no coherent and sustained focus on (let alone substantive responses to) the problematic issues that are presented to you from within the very material you submit. Just the same-old same-old repetition and Wiggery, and epithets and all the rest (expletives thankfully deleted).


    So in what way is this “fight” thus “unfair”? In fact, who is it that sees this as a “fight” in the first place? The site is set-up for deliberation and analysis and discussion; who has come with nothing but the attitude of going into a “fight”?


    The whole trope here thus makes no sense.


    And on what conceivable grounds does Ecker then go on to assert that if he and ‘Mr. Robertson’ left the site (how many times have they done that already?) then “we” would simply fall to “in-fighting among” ourselves? That certainly cannot be in any way demonstrated from the material on this site (during those few admittedly brief moments when one or the other of the pair have taken their Wigs and huffed off their stage).


    And if there might conceivably be differences of opinion among readers, such asymmetries go with the territory in open deliberation and discussion. That in no way constitutes a “fight” or “in-fighting”. Is this news?


    What “step back” has Ecker taken? His material doesn’t reflect any such maneuver.


    And what what what “majority” doth “look down” on us? The “majority” we saw in the recent photos or in the Boston Globe photos of a couple of years ago? (How very few photographs there actually are of large gatherings of Abuseniks … although the SNAP national/world Conference of January 2012 would have been a perfect opportunity.) Or does this “majority” only exist in Ecker’s head?


    And again this either-or, “fight” approach: that parishioners “tell your archdiocese their time is up”. What sort of progress do we get from such adolescent combativeness? Is it even necessary (in the real world as opposed to whatever world seems to exist in Ecker’s mind)?


    So I would propose that the site and the readership and commenters (those not simply looking for a “fight”) do indeed “continue business as usual”. Clear thinking and deliberation are the key to any resolutions and progress; more of it earlier might have exposed this Stampede for what it was and always has been, long before this point.

  6. delphin says:

    Warrants a quick revisit under current article heading-

    There were 'Judas sheep' in those European death camps, and there are  'Judas sheep'  in the media, as well as in the Church.

    We were fairly warned about them all.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin did the bible "warn" you about something or was it a cardinal or pope? I know a lot of victims who would have loved to have a special "warning" we should have had it  when abusive priests were sent to abuse again. No magical warnings came to save us but you get these decoded messages from god….. fine. these messages you spout are unfair; injust untrue but o.k., you seem to need to build this wall of myths to hide in. Why?

  7. delphin says:

    "…In its history TMR has done nothing to change how the media reports'…"

    Seem to remember the Star Ledger quite recently having to issue a correction to one of their biased slam-pieces on Myers, per a TMR report.

    "…No magical warnings came to save us…"

    Matthew 26:17-25: Jesus foretells of his own betrayal by one of His own Apostles, Judas. Matthew 7:15-16: Jesus warns us about wolves in sheeps clothing.

    He clearly warned us all, only some listened.

    The Bible has been 'decoded',  translation to English was initiated in the 7th Century. Pick one up, it's a Good read.

    The only myth we're dissembling here is that one that originates out of a dishonest media that claims there is a global conspiracy to practice and cover up the sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Church. Everything else is ancillary.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      13 year olds and 11 year olds and 16 year old victims never thought those wolves would be in priests' clothing. Did you?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If according to your religion's myths Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus you would have no redemption. The very purpose Jesus was made man for. So don't blame poor Judas for enabling what your god was sent here to do by god.

  8. Publion says:

    It would be more accurate to say that JR "knows a lot of" allegants. Neither we nor he can establish sufficiently the veracity of their claims.

  9. Chris Browne says:

    Perhaps it is time that the NYT and other Catholic bashers/haters start investigating the allegations of abuse in other religious and secular institutions – institutions which are probably dearer to their hearts, but which have escaped scrutiny.  The public school system is a prime example, as CURRENT claims of abuse in that institution are estimated at twice the highest rate ever recorded in the Catholic Church.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Chris Brown,

      The issue here is not child abuse but what was done to enable more abuse to occur. The transferring of known KNOWN diagnosed pedophiles and ephebeophiles to be in charge of the very children they desired. Transferred by the cardinals; bishops; and monsignors who supposedly were sane when they did these transfers. That's why your church is in the news. Get it? Got It? Good.

  10. Publion says:

    Commenter Ecker now responds (1229am) to the long-silent ‘Rondre’, self-proclaimed media teacher or prof who never had the time to explain her thoughts or assertions (yet an educational professional, she claims), and who has apparently taken time out from her busy course-load to deliver the patently absurd and contentless one-liner that she “really didn’t know themediareport was still alive” … then how did she know to go looking for the site to post this comment in the first place?


    Nicely, though, she offers an opening and Ecker quickly dons a Wig and heads for the footlights: “Sadly its [i.e. TMR] alive” [sic]. The Wig of Knowing Sadness, sigh.


    We are then informed that TMR “truly serves no purpose”. Why then does he spend so much time to toss so much stuff at the screen here? (Notice the “truly” bit – as if merely saying the word would make it so.)


    Apparently, Ecker has/had not realized that this is a site dedicated to the examination of the Catholic Abuse Matter and thus (while “it truly serves no purpose”) “its only purpose is to post comments when they feel catholics, their clergy, or their church are under attack”. [sic; exaggerated formatting omitted] So within the space of the same line of type we have the conflicting and mutually-exclusive assertions that a) TMR serves no purpose and b) TMR’s only purpose is … this is not a mind that is able to sustain contact with the train of thought. Or – possibly – this is a mind torn between trying to appear to operate on one level for one objective (truthful analysis) while actually operating primarily on another level and for another objective (taking potshots at the Church any old which way). Thus a juggling act (glittered up by the Wig collection) by a juggler who can’t quite keep more than one item in the air at a time without running into trouble. This is not a recipe for the production of sensible or sensical material.


    Ecker then yet again conflates/confuses the actual world with the world existing in his head by asserting that “in its history TMR has done nothing to change how the media reports …” and so on. He can demonstrate the veracity of that statement, can he? (Answer: Of course not, but he doesn’t have the time to “spell it out” for everybody and it’s not his fault if the readership and the site are unable to see the reality that clearly and vividly appears on the little movie screen behind his eyeballs.)


    And the Big Trial site is not actually reporting; it is simply “an editorial page” with a comment section “that has failed to make mainstream media”. Aside from a) the glaring fact that there is no way Ecker could possibly ground and demonstrate such an assertion, there is b) the nonsensical whine and jibe that the BigTrial site hasn’t ‘made’ it into “the mainstream media”. But what could (b) possibly mean? Does Ecker have reliable information that the BigTrial site was set up for the purpose of morphing into NBC or Slate? And if the BigTrial site is such small-potatoes, then why has Ecker expended so much time and energy in commenting on it? Once again, this is a mind not able to sustain (if it has ever discovered) a working-relationship with coherence and rationality, to say nothing of truth and accuracy.


     Ecker then again conflates his own thoughts (so to speak) and desires with the realities of the world that actually exists out here: he asserts – as if he could read their minds – that the BigTrial staff “felt that their reporting would be a helpful aid to the last case of clergy members charged with criminal sexual abuse and we all know how those cases turned out”. He knows this for a fact? Do all of his Wigs have a tin-foil lining (and how does he hide the antennas)?


    Also: we precisely do not know how any of those cases “turned out” since they are now in some stage of appeal. But one already-established result of the cases (and BigTrial’s analysis of them – which Ecker has nowhere substantively refuted on either site) is that the gross and multiform derangements of the whole priest-abuse-trial process has been revealed in a comprehensive and sustained way for the first time.


    Why would Ecker with-hold the screen-name of “a very outspoken commenter” who “has been proven to be a” and so forth, and which commenter has “such a colorful imagination of knowing about me and my financial income” ? More to the point, what “has been proven” about Ecker?


    And in that regard, I make two observations: first (and recalling both i) my recent comment about the actual identity of the ‘tomdoyle’ who occasionally posts here and ii) my long-ago stated point about the fundamental problem of establishing actual-identities on the internet) then we have yet to establish that the clearly-shaky ‘dennis ecker’ who comments here is the same entity as the sturdy-looking Philly firefighter-medic whose photo the entity ‘dennis ecker’ claimed was ‘proof’ of his (heroic) creds.


    As a matter of the integrity of the process of establishing ‘proof’, Ecker has failed to make the final yet utterly essential connection: not that there exists on the planet a Philly firefighter-medic named ‘Dennis Ecker’ but rather that the entity commenting here under the screen name ‘dennis ecker’ is the same entity as the person depicted in the photograph. (Ditto: is ‘tomdoyle’ the same entity as the actual still-Father Tom Doyle?) Because as a matter of pure logic, the possibility cannot be ruled-out that we might here be facing the internet version of commentariat ‘identity theft’.


    And while there is absolutely no way of dispositively resolving this problem/question on the internet, we also cannot fail to notice other ancillary factors. Such as i) the mentation and general self-presentation of ‘dennis ecker’ does not seem at all to jive with what we would expect from someone who is both a professional firefighter and a professional trained in making clear and accurate observations and equally clear, concise, coherent and rational written or verbal reports under pressure (think of it: would you feel good lying on a stretcher and having the mentality displayed by ‘dennis ecker’ give a précis of your condition to the trauma room staff?).


    And ii) readers who follow both TMR and BigTrial may recall a commenter who wrote that he had contacted ‘dennis ecker’ and set up an actual meeting, which ‘dennis ecker’ then failed to show-up for. The commenter had no reason to make up such a claim; but there is certainly a reasonable possibility that the reason ‘dennis ecker’ did not personally show-up was that he knew the risk of thereby proving that ‘dennis ecker’ looked nothing like Firefighter Dennis Ecker.


    I make no conclusory assertions but this is not an issue that can at all be regarded as settled. And if anybody thinks that such whackeries are impossible in the actual world – or in the internet world – then they might want to consider the depth and extent of various psychological and characterological dysfunctions that are encountered in the actual world. It was not an empty exercise when Congress recently passed a law specifically designed to prevent deranged and/or opportunistically manipulative persons from claiming the status of military combat service and awards. Perhaps the law should be expanded to include any non-military occupations that are currently on the popularly-accepted list of automatic or ex officio heroes.


    (So there goes Ecker’s claim that the photo-link was “the last time” he would ever “prove” anything on this site for the readership: a) he didn’t actually prove anything and b) I note his neat effort to sneak-in an excuse for never having to demonstrate proof for any of his future assertions – which assertions he will continue to make on what he insists is a small-potatoes site with no … and so on.)


    Second: many persons who may wish to hide what they feel (or fear) is their actual self embrace the consoling illusion that if they want to hide that self then they can actually achieve that and that thus nobody (of whom they do not approve) can “know” them. But it’s not true: people cannot avoid revealing various aspects of their ‘self’, even unintentionally (that’s why psychology and psychiatry – beyond purely medicating the symptoms – can and does ‘work’).


    And again then, Ecker tries to hide his personal conceptions behind an assertion stated as a general truth: “people” have “noticed about this site” [correction supplied.


    And what have those alleged “people” gone and “noticed”? That “the majority of people who comment on these sights [sic] … are hiding behind a call name”. A what? And “the majority of them”? But this is simply the old baloney we have seen so often from other Abuseniks here: that since some commenters (but not all of them) are not using their own – or rather: a – proper-name as a screen-name, then either i) their material is somehow rendered useless or ii) they are hiding something sinister (e.g. they are themselves some awful type of thing like a ‘pedophile’ or fill-in-the-blank), or both.


    But a) that problem has been refuted at length (the allegedly-proper-named commenters do not submit any better material than the others – indeed, so very often the opposite is the case). And b) the screen-named entity ‘dennis ecker’ has his own significant problems (see above in this comment) in establishing his actual identity (as do the others who have tried to run this play).


    But ‘dennis ecker’ – and any others who share the propensity to try to run this play – is not well-advised to raise the insinuating-innuendo issue of being “ashamed”. Whether one has attached one’s real name or some other handle to one’s material, one could not – if of a maturely and decently formed character – avoid being ashamed at such consistently refutable and questionable material as one puts up, along with the juvenile and transparent efforts to avoid engaging the problems with one’s own material (and – how can we forget? – the ludicrous frequent huffy leave-taking, only to return without explanation shortly thereafter with no rational explanation or apology for such a performance offered to the readership).


    But it’s another characteristic of derangement that ‘it’s always today’ and there is a blithe ignoring of one’s past (even recent past) actions and words. It’s actually an individual derangement which we saw publicly institutionalized, for example, when a new President – in light of the highly probable misdeed of his predecessor – simply dismissed it all with the upbeat (but still fundamentally flawed) burble: Let’s not look back and instead let’s just look ahead.


    But conceptually, if the problems evident in the past record are not addressed, then the self that created them then will continue creating them now. And in the future.


    The Church has now completed a full decade and more of what are clearly and demonstrably successful self-reforms. I could recommend her example to certain commenters with all best wishes.


    Lastly, we get the utterly nonsensical comment that the existence of commenters with non-actual screen-names is merely a ploy to “give the impression that the group enjoys wider public support than is actually the case”. How – pray – does the use of a non-proper-name screen-name give such an impression? What would possibly be the connecting dynamic underlying this sort of thing? Am I more ‘numerous’ as Publion than I would be as ‘Steve Smith’? Do I even appear more ‘numerous’ as Publion than I would be as ‘Steve Smith’?


    And – but of course (see above in this comment) – what is to prevent anybody in the webverse from putting up a proper name that is not their own? That ‘tomdoyle’ perhaps? Or ‘Pope Sylvester’ or ‘Cardinal Riario’? Or ‘Jack Jones’? Or ‘dennis ecker’ (as Dennis Ecker)?


    This ‘real name’ ploy is sleazy foolishness in the original package.

  11. delphin says:

    "Now recently here on TMR a very outspoken commenter has been proven to be a ________."

    Apparently, this amazing 'unnamed' feat, lost on the rest of TMR readers, was succesfully accomplished utilizing the same kind of 'proof' the looney fringe has been using to convict and condemn the Catholic Church, which consists of nothing more than their ideologically-driven hatred for Catholics, as expressed in their twisted and garbled words and concepts, with just enough of a sprinkle of hysterics and feined indignity thrown in for bad measure.

    Chris- these enablers of today's abuses against minors have no interest in stemming the current diabolical tide in the public sector, they only have eyes for our Church.

    So long as they insist that the media and the rest of their antiCatholic lackeys keep the focus on the Church, they will never have to look elsewhere. History will not look favorably on the lefts bigoted focus on old [hyped] news, which has been thoroughly and successfully addresed, while new victims are currently piling up to heights that far supercede anything that ever occured in the Church.

    I wonder who today's victims will blame for their abandonment?

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Dennis, P has you in his sights He has attacked every victim who has posted here bar none and you are anathama to him. You are a working class man and he is an ivory tower psuedo intellectual waiting for heaven.

    You would think if he was fair he might relate to or empathize with one of us victims but no. He's either incabable of empathy or just doing his job. Imagine a retired priest saving the church's wealth by discounting all legitimate claims against the church. Smearing with insults and innuendo and degrading the injured for his and it's benefit.

    And D accuses you of being a thief and a liar. Firing off cheap shots as rapidly and crazily as she can. (I say she because of how she fights. She's no gentleman.)

    Notice how 9/11 just disappeared from the conversation when you asked for proof of her connection to that disaster.

    When have either of us claimed all catholic priests guilty of abuse? When have we attacked all the catholic faithful or demanded that they not practice their faith? We haven't.

    Yet we are attacked here relentlessly. Mainly it seems for mentioning and working for the children who we once were and the desperate horror that we were forced to live through at the hands of their ill vetted clerics. And when we mention the attacks here; we are then called whiners, another attack.

    If there are any in this readership who are fair people they must see that these efforts to discount and dismiss the injured  are dispicable. I'm not asking them to not question any victims who come forward with claims against the church. Questions naturally should and are being asked when claims are made. P acts like the claim occurs and a cheque is written. That's just not the way it's done. Any fool should know that's not the way this works. But here there's a conspiracy of dunces attempting to turn back the tide of truth about the church's behavior towards their own children. Behavior that didn't start and end in a 30 yr period but in fact has been indemic to the clergy for centuries if not eons.

    . Sadly child abuse will,probably, always be with us. The important thing is what we do about it. Hide it and hope or tell the truth and help the harmed.

    That the real dilema; not false accusations and attempted fraud that rarely, if ever, occur.

    If they think it's so easy to fake a claim. Why don't they try it. Or are they like the republicans who squeal voter fraud. And it turns out that they were the only ones caught attempting to vote twice in order to prove their point. Roll a fake through the system and then expose that system. Go for it; see how well you do. 9 times out of 10 you'll be caught and shown the door or the jail.

    I'm not encouraging you to commit fraud, It's a crime to be fraudulent. But you have no proof of any victims being fraudulent either. If you do. Go to the police with your evidence.

    Dennis this whole site was created to send a false obscuring message to the world. We should never expect justice to be fought for here when the only ones fighting for justice here are this blogs oposition, us. The people who were harmed. I'm here fighting for my family. My mother went to her grave over this. I never told her about my abuse. So she blamed me and herself for my failures in life; and her health deteriorated accordingly. She died never knowing the cause of it all was a crime commited against her child.

    I'm not saying here that i couldn't have been a failure anyway if I hadn't been abused. What I do say Is because of that abuse at the age it occurred we will never know.

    Dennis, P;D; and Josie etc. are just frightened church people. They are afraid their palaces in heaven might collapse if the church loses face or has to pay it's victims. Theirs is a life based on fear not love. Their insults and degredations are defense mechinisims Any honest person will see that.

    The power their church had over non believers and other churches is ending. It's their Gotterdamerung, the twilight of their gods i.e. the church and god "himself"as they knew it.

    I say thank goodness and rest in peace.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's a link that will show Dennis was telling the truth about his connection to 9/11., The link Dennis put up in the last thread didn't work. Have you a link D that shows yours?

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    Here is another link Dennis would like you to see.

  15. Mark says:

    "Prof. Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law said he could not understand why the creditors would seek both a recusal and an appeal simultaneously, unless they want “to cast doubt on the integrity of the ruling by saying this judge couldn’t look at it with disinterest.”"

    Publion is right. The way Prof Gillers' comments are shoe-horned in at the end of the bizarre article – with no comment from the "journalist" herself is incongruous for a manifesto rag with the NYT's laughable agenda. The polite professor clearly finds Anderson's stunt ridiculous – and is probably wondering why he was asked to comment on it in the first place. Absoultely comical.

    Oh well, back to my Wall Street Journal and the real world.

  16. delphin says:

    Ok, you guys wore me down. You are right, I should show you that picture as proof of, well… my very existence.

    Here ya go – here's one of me and my partner-

  17. delphin says:

    "And D accuses you of being a thief and a liar. Firing off cheap shots as rapidly and crazily as she can. (I say she because of how she fights. She's no gentleman.)"

    Actually, I obviously accepted his claims at face-value, hence the triple-dipping into retirement observation. And, if it is true, he certainly earned it.

  18. delphin says:

    Oops, case of premature "post comment-ation" -sorry.

    To complete my previous thought, why the pot-shots at women at every opportunity? I have never given any indication of my gender, or sexuality for that matter (wouldn't you be surprised?), but, you and your side-kick go on search-and-rescue missions in order to find a way to take rather nasty swipes at the lassies. What's brewing there, fellas?

  19. delphin says:
  20. Publion says:

    As if the whole topic is brand-new to him, JR asks me at 331PM “have you ever believed anyone online?”.  Realizing that any number of the factors I have recently mentioned may be in play here, I will again explain: the internet modality is very problematic for ‘believing’ since there is no way to make – as we see here – the ultimate and decisive link between the entity with the screen-name and the entity in the news whom the screen-name claims to be. Ditto when a commenter is making claims or telling stories: there is simply no way to verify them.


    I go with ideas: if they make sense and if conclusions drawn from them are logically grounded, then discussion and analysis and deliberation on the internet can be very enlightening. Otherwise – to use an image I have often deployed – the internet simply becomes some cavernous hall of tuning-forks setting each other off, and not always on-pitch. And what good will that ever do? (Answer: it’s great for getting a Stampede going.)


    But at 104PM we get a most uncharacteristic type and style of comment, ostensibly produced by JR. It is extended, formatted in recognizable paragraphs, is more than modestly grammatical, and there are no expletives. One needn’t be Perry Mason or Columbo to wonder about the actual provenance of the document. (More on this below.)


    Anyhoo, rather than do a comradely lunch JR will counsel ‘dennis ecker’ right here in front of everybody. You’d think that anyone wanting to offer personal advice would want to keep things … well … personal, not to put too fine a point on it. But for some reason(s), JR will conduct his séance in full view of the readership here.


    Let’s tune in.


    I have “Dennis” in my “sights”. Again with the ‘attack’ and ‘fight’ presumptions, brought to this site by none other than ‘dennis ecker’ and JR. But – of course – if they are not ‘attacked’ then they won’t have any excuse-for and distraction-from their poor performance in the material they have presented.


     I have “attacked every victim who has posted here bar none”. Same old same old. So to repeat: a) we don’t really know who is and who isn’t a genuine (as opposed to not-genuine) ‘victim’; b) questioning is not attacking except in the Abusenik Playbook and its Cartoon universe; c) I simply take the material presented and offer my assessment and if this constitutes an ‘attack’ then we can see just how the Abusenik mind works (as it were).


    Then a sort of class analysis bit: “Dennis” is working-class and I am “an ivory tower pseudo-intellectual”. JR knows that for a fact, does he? He can prove that? (Time-saver here: Of course he can’t.) And once again he seems to be under the fixed delusion that since he knows what an intellectual is (being one himself?) then he is a reliable judge of what a “pseudo-intellectual” is. Ovvvvv coursssssse.


    I can’t very well “empathize” with persons who a) are not reliably established as genuine ‘victims’ and b) have themselves demonstrated consistently, frequently, and vividly that they are seriously challenged when it comes to truth and accuracy as well as rationality and coherence as well as honesty and … well  … sanity, not to put too fine a point on it. What am I supposed to do when faced with all this? Go along with the Game and applaud the Wiggery with sympathetic ooohs and awwwws and clucks?


    JR (or his ghostwriter) will have to provide quotations (accurate, please) as to where I have been “discounting all legitimate claims against the church” because I have never done any such thing. I have pointed out that all the claims we have managed to examine here fail to be entirely convincing and have explained my assessments at great length. But, No, I would not include JR’s still elusive claim as presumptively legitimate; and if ‘dennis ecker’ has ever filed a claim, then I wouldn’t presumptively credit it with no further ado. Not on the basis of the material I’ve seen from them on this (or the BigTrial) site.


    Thus I am not “smearing with insults and innuendo and degrading the injured” because we have not at all established that JR and – if applicable – ‘dennis ecker’ are genuinely classified as being among the “injured”. Or, more specifically, they certainly seem damaged, but whether that has anything fundamentally to do with any abuse by a Catholic cleric has yet to be established.


    This is not how Abuseniks have come to expect to be treated, of course; and my various interlocutors’ irritated distress here, while it may to some extent simply be the irritation of scam artists who realize their bit isn’t working, may well also be attributable to the fact that – being variously damaged – they were led down the garden path by the media and the torties and all the other elements of that pandemonium behind the Stampede, who set them up to be useful-idiots in the service of a congeries of ulterior agendas.


    But my interlocutors here seem to have embraced their role robustly, and have demonstrated that they will say or claim all sorts of things in the service of that role and to protect their status. So I am not moved to a great deal of sympathy on that score.


    I notice that JR and ‘dennis ecker’ differ on the gender of ‘Delphin’, giving JR an opening for yet another of his queasily adolescent gender-bender jokes.


    Nine-eleven “just disappeared from the conversation” because it was irrelevant – as I said a while back on this thread – to anything we are working with on this site. Since TMR is not a site involved with current events un-related to the Catholic Abuse Matter, then discussion of it constitutes a distraction. Unless, as I also said, we look at the way that it was used as a pretext for a Stampede … but if any point “just disappeared” from the interests of my interlocutors, that point surely was one of them.


    Following from that, I don’t see ‘dennis ecker’s claimed connection to 9/11 to be of any greater relevance to matters here on this site than JR’s couldn’t-wait-to-get-out military experiences (where, we might recall, he attempted to justify his less-than-heroic attitude by claiming in the end to the effect that “everybody else” in his barracks felt the same way; this is not an inner-directed or self-directed sort of statement – and perhaps the country and the Service dodged a bullet when it sent him on his way after two years).


    Now we are told – or rather, are allowed to tune in on this conversation between two Wigs – that neither of them thinks that “all catholic priests are guilty of abuse”. (It is put grammatically in a whiney interrogative format.) Well, that’s nice to know. Take this comment and put it on one side of the desk, and then pile up as many others as one has the stomach to compile from the record here on the other side of the desk and let one’s mind play over the possibilities.


    “Yet we are attacked here relentlessly”. (OK –  with this particular bit of lardy frosting on the cake you don’t need an advanced-level security clearance to realize that whoever the scriptwriter was here, it wasn’t JR.) The Wig of Exasperated Innocence but stiffened by the underlying Wig of Righteous Indignation (and both Wigs piled on top of the tin-foil liner and those artfully-hidden antennas). We had better watch our step.


    And again: ‘attack’ in the Abusenik Playbook is conveniently defined so as to include just about anything any Abusenik doesn’t want to hear. A seductive gambit indeed, for certain types.


    But JR and ‘dennis ecker’ are doing it all for the children. Or at least the children in Catholic venues. Or at least past children (“who we once were”) in Catholic venues. Ovvvvv courssssse.


    Since we haven’t established with any reasonable amount of certainty just who “the injured” are (and yet I certainly wouldn’t presumptively include in this category my interlocutors in this exchange) then the whole rest of this bit is rendered irrelevant. For the umpteenth time.


    Anybody who can figure out where the European “cheque” comes from here in the text is welcome to pass it along.


    But then we have a familiar breakdown in the coherence of the thought expressed in the paragraph: from a rather rational appreciation of the process of naturally questioning claims, the train of thought starts to wobble with the (oddly European) usage of “pacts” and “cheque”.


    And then suddenly at the end of that sentence the paragraph is now coming from some other direction altogether: “That’s just not the way it’s done” – and yet the paragraph had just gotten through making its (now oddly) rational appreciation of the process that should take place. And then suddenly, the rational discourse gives way to that “fool” bit and suddenly the Teeth of Nastiness are chattering from deep within the nested Wigs atop the tin-foil and the tastefully hidden antennas. (These are the delightfully revelatory moments that make military intelligence work worth it.)


    So suddenly we are supposed to accept that “any fool should know that’s not the way this works”. In other words, only a “fool” would think that the rational and open and honest approach of claiming and questioning until something is established by evidence is actually the way “this” (What is “this”? The Stampede and its piñata gambit, I would say) “works”.  So we are “fools” for thinking that the Abuseniks play above-board. It’s not their fault if we have all been so stupid as to imagine that the Abuseniks were ever playing above-board. (And isn’t this getting to be a revelatory little session indeed?)


    Then, attempting to avoid going any further down that queasy road (too late, alas!) the paragraph swings its battery around to fire on the readership here where “there is a conspiracy of dunces attempting to turn back the tide of truth” … but what “truth” has been established? This is precisely the problem we’ve been trying to determine on this site for quite a while, and with very little rational and reliably accurate help from the Abuseniks on the record here.


    And then – leaping a number of tall principles in a single bound – the paragraph tries to move things beyond the Abusenik-uncongenial past thirty years and makes a sweeping claim about that “behavior” (left undefined, nicely) which “in fact has been indemic to the clergy for centuries if not eons”. [sic]


    If the “behavior” means the attraction of older members of the species for the younger members, then that “behavior” has been endemic to the entire species – hardly restricted to the clergy or the Catholic clergy. Confucius himself as an old man is described as coming back to his tasks refreshed after swimming in a pool with young boys (which raises more questions than it answers, surely, but points toward a welter of complexity in the whole subject, and hardly restricted to “the clergy”).


    And while the Church has certainly been around for two millennia (equaling twenty centuries), the “eons” bit is rather overdone. ‘Eon’ is a division of geological or perhaps astronomical time, but definitely not historical time. (‘Era’ might have worked here, although not altogether well.)


    And if “child abuse will always be with us” then clearly whatever we “do about it” is going to have to take into account the depth and breadth of the phenomenon and temper its expectations accordingly. Lenin was a great one for saying that with just a little bit more of the Terror then the glorious Soviet future will be actualized; the Jacobins figured that with just a few more aristocratic heads chopped then the Revolution would be simultaneously established and fulfilled.


    Meanwhile, we are back to square one in the next paragraph since the Abuseniks have their own ‘truth’ and we still haven’t been able to figure out who was genuinely “harmed”. In fire-fighting terms, JR (keeping up the fiction here that this is a comment he has composed – see below) has failed to determine the location of the fire and the seat of the flames and the nature of the fire-load and the class of fire he is facing, and has simply hooked up his big-line, opened up the deck-gun, and is blasting away with a master-stream at whatever building he has chosen to designate as the fire-building. Not an impressive performance .


    Thus then I cannot seriously accept the (neat) claim that “the real dilema” [sic] is “not the false accusations and attempted fraud” which – it is slly and quickly added – “rarely if ever occur”. If JR or whoever is behind this comment can provide any grounding for that assertion, I’d very very much like to see it. Because otherwise it’s the same old baloney we have seen and seen and seen again from the Abuseniks here.


    “If they think it’s so easy to fake a claim. Why don’t they try it?” [sic] I take it that JR or whoever is behind the composition of this comment (‘dennis ecker’?) has already had experience in this area, upon which experience this suggestion is based. Lovely. Or has the author of this comment no experience along these lines, in which case why make the suggestion to try something of which the author is ignorant?


    I don’t grasp the significance of the “voter fraud” bit, but perhaps it is somehow connected to that whacky thought in a recent ‘dennis ecker’ comment to the effect that “pro-catholics” use non-proper-name screen-names in order to appear more numerous and so forth.


    But then the train of thought leaves the rails and the next couple of paragraphs address a “you” that doesn’t appear to be ‘dennis ecker’ (as advertised) but some other(s) person(s). Who knows? Perhaps the author has suddenly begun communing with spectral presences hovering over the keyboard – it seems to be a not-infrequent occurrence with Abuseniks.


    But if the author of this comment has any grounds for the next claim – that “this whole site was created to send a false obscuring message to the world” – then let them put that explanation and those grounds up here clearly, because otherwise this becomes nothing more than a Wiggy whine hanging up in the air like a bad note hit in a badly-sung opera.


    Then the now-characteristic bit that the Abuseniks are “fighting for justice here”; this is the familiar Cartoon of cartoon-heroes fighting (another familiar bit) for “justice” (or perhaps: “truth, justice, and the American Way”). But they appear to be doing their ‘fighting for justice’ without any regard for actual ‘truth’ and certainly with little regard for rationality or coherence and – I think – honesty either.


    Then an Oprah-like sharing of a just-so ‘story’ that can stay up where it has been put.


    And then the odd bit where JR(or the author of the comment) infers that he is “a failure”. Now that is an interesting bit. But not something I am going to pursue here.


    I will, though, note that as a matter of general principle, it is not reasonably plausible to presume that a single instance of ‘abuse’ (barring perhaps the most violently and vividly rapacious – and few allegations lie on that extreme end of the spectrum of the definition) can so thoroughly and comprehensively derange mentation, personality, and character such that one is justified in presuming that so multiply-deranged a person would have been more or less ‘normal’ if only the abuse hadn’t occurred. And yet the Stampede credits this very skein of presumption as common knowledge that ‘everyone knows’.


    Then a resort to the tin-foil, as always: the comment asserts that its enemies are simply “frightened church people” (as if we weren’t here in the room, so to speak … how much more ridiculously soap-opera-ish can this Wiggy performance possibly get?) and so on about “palaces in heaven” and other crack-dream bits.


    And then the almost weird bit about “the power their church had over non believers and other churches” – what power is that, pray tell?


    And then – mistaking his own crack-dreams for the actualities out in the world around him – the author of this comment tosses in the bit about Wagnerian Gotterdammerung (the classy effect unhappily marred by the misspelling).


    Well, what an adventure in reading.


    But I will express this final opinion: this comment is not primarily from the mind and hand of the commenter we know as JR. It does seem very close to the mentation, style, and approach of ‘dennis ecker’. Which offers us the possibility – and give some thought to the type of people we are dealing with here – that ‘dennis ecker’ communicated a draft to JR through off-site means which (with perhaps a few additions of his own) JR then put up here as his own. Why anybody would do this is a thought over which the readership is welcome to devote such time as they think it is worth.


    I also note that in a couple of other comments in this sequence, JR provides links “that Dennis would like us to see” … And here I ask again: do we see behind the material of ‘dennis ecker’ the type of forthright, working-class, hands-on, straight-forward and straight-talking character we would associate with a firefighter? The mentality behind all this seems to me, rather, to be something from daytime-TV talk-shows. And I’ll leave it at that.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The reason I posted for Dennis was because he'd written what I posted and when he tried to post it here. he could not. He'd get "403 forbidden message" and he didn't want his hard work attempting to communicate with you lost.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      46 paragraphs of insult and innuendo; attacks and lies. 46 paragraphs. Painting the roses red for your Queen of Hearts?

      My longest post is about 16 paragraphs [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You can look up Dennis. You can look up me. But we can't look up you or D. So so far you're the only ones hiding on the net in this debate. It seems everything you accuse others of doing i.e. faking who we are cause it's the internet. You seem to be doing on the internet Unless of course your whole name is Publicon. [edited by moderator]

  21. delphin says:

    Political-ideological bias in the media? What a ridiculous claim, well, except for the Proof.  Pudding, anybody?

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    In the world I grew up in you insult a person over and over again you're fighting with him. We are fighting you because of what you've done. [edited by moderator]

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    My mother was British. [edited by moderator]

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    That's where my spelling of cheque came from. [edited by moderator]

  25. delphin says:

    Publion: "… that ‘dennis ecker’ communicated a draft to JR through off-site means which (with perhaps a few additions of his own) JR then put up here as his own."

    Jim Robertson: "The reason I posted for Dennis was because he'd written what I posted and when he tried to post it here. he could not. He'd get "403 forbidden message" and he didn't want his hard work attempting to communicate with you lost." And, then: "…46 paragraphs of… attacks and lies…"

    Looks like Publion solidly 'nailed it', so to speak.

    The "wigs" are alive!


  26. Publion says:

    So what more have we got then? JR did indeed put somebody else’s (‘dennis ecker’s) comment up under his own name without attribution (until he was caught).


    And ‘dennis ecker’ was only trying to “communicate with” us? By addressing his remarks to himself? Yet the conversation is cast as being from JR to ‘dennis ecker’ … so who is trying to “communicate with” anybody else at all? This hall-of-mirrors approach is surely not an example of any simple, straight-forward, up-front, honest and direct discussion one might come to expect from any (alleged) decent, blue-collar, working-class professional.


    And what “lies” are in my comment? Accurate quotations, please.


    And as always, we see here that any comment having the temerity to point out the irrational or illogical or questionable or unsupported assertions and claims is an “attack” and an “insult”. I repeat Harry Truman’s point: write honestly and rationally and you won’t be talked-to like this. And if not, not.


    This is the type and level of presentation that the media raised-up as if it had serious things to say about serious matters. I do not spend time on these exchanges for the purpose of stepping into their wallow and mud with these two particular interlocutors. Rather, simply to draw out what are the characteristics of the general Abusenik approach.


    And in that regard, we are learning more almost every day.

  27. delphin says:

    The only lefty myth-making left out of this interesting article is the one that they and their e-gobblins have been fabricating against the Church.

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    And  for you to believe D? America"s very own blunder into alternative "thinking".

    But beyond follwing D's lead you literally thought I was carring on a conversation for Dennis with Dennis pretending he is me or is it me being me but voicing Dennis's opinions as my own? You're a goofball. Maybe you should take off your cleats and leave the field. Too many concusions, sunshine? Lol!

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    If you fear "WALLOW AND MUD" then quit making stuff up. You've created your own WALLOW and your own MUD and can be heard grunting blissfully by anyone who cares to listen.

  30. delphin says:

    Aw, now my feelings are hurt.

    Sticks and stones, baby.

    Just sucks when you provide the evidence of your duplicity in your own 'material'.

    Who to blame…your side kick seems to have abandoned ship (are ye Jolly Roger flagged, Matey)?

    There's is a conspiracy theory our there for every mans own foible- you just haven't looked hard enough for yours on this fumble.

    Keep looking, Blackbeard, we have faith in you.

  31. Publion says:

    And now JR"s of 1243AM today: Ummmmm, when you began 'your' post with "Dennis" and then went on from there, the only grammatically logical and honest conclusion was that you were addressing 'your' remarks to "Dennis". Is there something in that which doesn't ring any bells?


    But while we’re (still) on the subject:


    It struck me that the JR comment of the 14th at 455PM actually offers even more bits. The phrase “insult and innuendo, attacks and lies” seemed oddly familiar. (Especially when we haven’t had any further explication of accurately-quoted examples of the “lies”.)


    It’s a press-release sort of phrase. The type designed not to shed any light but simply to set-up one’s own spin and leave it at that (since both the Playbook and the claim itself do not allow for any deeper examination).


    Thus, what we are and have been seeing here is simply mentalities that are only using (or capable-of using) two plays: i) a press-release boilerplate bit or ii) the ‘story’ (unsupported by any evidence or even logical explanation).


    This is what the Stampede has raised-up or ‘valorized’ with the media’s help and with the particular limitations of internet commenting: persons who are already Wig-prone toward the fake and the histrionic are then given some space in the footlights to swing into the only act they’ve got (with the mainstream media studiously avoiding any questioning or criticism and simply providing good or at least nice reviews).


    With a) no limitations on fantasy and imagination and no limitations imposed-by and no possibility-of verifiable truth and accuracy, and with b) no actual consequences for being caught in a scam, such types can have themselves a field-day. And have for had one for so long.


    Thus the upset when (as on this site) those queasy cheesey rules are changed and all the spew is examined carefully. This is – with a huffy puffing-up of the ample but wounded bosom and a rattling of the nested Wigs and the Teeth of Nastiness hidden within them – nothing but “insult and innuendo, attacks and lies”.


    Thus the soap-opera-ish quanta of material that we have had to deal with here.


    Lastly, and yet again: the key problem for the Wigs here is not to establish the existence of an actual firefighter named Dennis Ecker, but rather to establish (and verify) the connection between that actual person and the entity (and mentality and character) commenting here under the screen-name ‘dennis ecker’.


    But beyond the ‘ecker’/Ecker matter and far more essentially, there is the truth and accuracy and honesty and verifiability Problem about all the assertions, claims and stories. Which is precisely the Problem that the Wigs are not able to address and yet which, in trying to swing into their act instead, they reveal ever more vividly their unfamiliarity-with or aversion-to rationality, coherence, truth and honesty.


    But TMR provides one of the few stages they’ve got and wouldn’t it be a shame to let the Wigs gather dust in their hat-boxes?


    How much of this has gone on in creating and sustaining the Stampede?

  32. dennis ecker says:

    I gave permission for Jim to post for me since I was receiving a forbidden message.

    Now to Delphin and Publion,

    If you have me in your sights. That must mean you are upset with me for some reason or another.

    If you are upset with me because I speak about your church in a negative way, do something to change it so it is not so easy for people like me to trash it.

    If you are upset with me because despite my past I was one of the lucky few who made it with only internal scares then I will take a line from other people like you "get over it"

    I do not apologize for anything that I earned, retirement at and early age, the ability to be with my family 24/7, the true meaning of watching my child grow, and ALL the perks and fortune of working hard.

    If what you are doing makes you happy, and your life consists of nothing more then the Media Report 24/7 and nothing else do not feel sorry for me, because it is me who truly feels sorry for you.



  33. Publion says:

    What conceivable difference does it make that ‘dennis ecker’ gave permission? And that still doesn’t explain why the JR comment began with “Dennis …” as a form of direct address.  And what is the relevance of that annoying service-provider PHP message that won’t let anyone post if – as far as I have been able to tell – they spend too much time in the composing box? But I think that calling it a ‘forbidden’ message makes it sound like ‘dennis ecker’ is – waitttttt for itttttt! – a deliberate victim of some TMR plot against him (which neatly absolves him of whatever scam he and JR cooked-up). All hands to Wig stations!


    Now as to the antiphonal material.


    If I question material that – as I explain my position – appears to me to be incoherent, irrational, or inaccurate, then what I “have in [my] sights” is incoherence, irrationality, and inaccuracy. So the Wig of Personal Woundedness needs to go back in the box. Even though, clearly, that Wig provides a nifty distraction from the incoherence, irrationality, and inaccuracy in the material. Don’t put up incoherent, irrational or inaccurate material and then your material won’t be “in [my] sights”.


    If ‘dennis ecker’ or anybody else puts up material that is incoherent, inaccurate or ungrounded, then that material is going to be questioned. Also note well the sly elision of ‘dennis ecker’s material as being presumptively true and thus that if we don’t like his material we should leave him alone and go do something about what he claimed. But what if we don’t see his claims as being accurate, rational or coherent in the first place?


    If you claim something you cannot prove then don’t blame me for not accepting it as stated in the absence of any verification. Nor I would It consider it wise to consider yourself ‘lucky’ overall, since these derangements are still there even if they didn’t come from any storied ‘abuse’; and thus you will not so easily be able to ignore them and pretend that thus you did “get over it”. The “it” is – as best I can tell – going to take an awful lot of work to “get over”, even if it cannot be established to have stemmed from the storied ‘abuse’.


    And it appears that your trade-mark refusal to “apologize” has been long-established – for what reasons,  I leave it to the readership to consider. And you are not being asked – certainly by me – to apologize since that’s not part of what this site or my focus in comments is about. Improve the quality of your material and you won’t have to deploy the Wig of Non-Apology.


    As for what is true and what isn’t in your self-reports, you will – I trust – realize that your own performance has greatly weakened your insistent claims to credibility. How you resolve this problem you have created for yourself here is up to you.


    Your attempt to reduce the readership or myself or anybody else here merely to the status of no-life persons who “do nothing more then the Media Report 24/7 and nothing else” [sic] fails utterly because it is inaccurate, cannot be demonstrated, and reveals a queasy if not actually reptilian proclivity to reduce (however inaccurately and phantasmagorically) the status of your interlocutors rather than to increase the quality and accuracy of your material.


    Thus your trade-mark bleats about ‘feeling sorry’ are – I find – also not credible, as well as once again demonstrating just another Wig in what is clearly a large and long-nurtured collection.


    But I will say that you are not alone. I think what we have seen so vividly demonstrated in your material is indeed a substantial element in the entire Abusenik approach and has been from Day One.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If anyone here has spent "too much time in the composing box" It's you, P. Waaaaaay too much time. With tiny results.

      Both Dennis and I have recieved 403 error responses after composing  what we want to say and attempting to post it. It would usually happen to me first thing in the morning with my first post at TMR. [edited by moderator]
      So if it's happened only to me and Dennis on this site and not to P and D; then what's with that?

    • says:

      If you get a 403 error message, like any reader you are free to email the message to us and we will post it for you (considering it does not contain personal attacks, mean namecalling, or profanity).

      contact ((((at)))


  34. dennis ecker says:

    I wanted to stress one thing that I said before so there is not a bunch of people trying to correct my spelling. The internal scares is what I call nightmares.

    Now since I'm here anyway I want to put a question out there to Publion, Delphin or any other doubting Thomas's.

    I have spoke about my abuse numerous times, I have named my abuser (Father Hermley), I have gave details of where my abused occurred (Father Judge H.S. and rectory) and I have givin the District Attorney the details of my abuse. The question is, don't you think if even for a minute if the catholic church thought I was a liar would counter with a law suit ? Not only the archdiocese because that is were Father Judge is located because they could say a student was reading the Media Report or Bigtrial and asked his parents to leave the school because of my account, or the OSFS because that is the specific cult Hermley belonged to, or any remaining family members for dragging his name through the mud his memory so deserves.

    Secondly, there has been concerns from some that the comments seem not to have anything to do with the blog posted. Have any of you asked the question why or how is it so easy to that ? For two people to have the ability to change what the subject is about and make the readership discuss what they want to.

    Oh, and since some here would like to call me a church hater, I think all my friends and family who are devout catholics may have something different to say about that.

    Y'all have a great week, when I get a chance I will read your responses, because I am sure they will be filled with YOUR reasons and excuses.




  35. Jim Robertson says:

    Have the lunatics completely taken over. i addressed a 16 paragraph open letter referencing the lying other posters here to Dennis. Correct?

    Dennis emailed me saying a response he had written was not able to be posted due to a 403 forbidden message. And would I post it for him? I did asking people to go to the link. Still with me?

  36. Jim Robertson says:

    I then read Delphin's huge ingenius insight that I was caught forging a post??? And Publicon agrees claiming the same thing. "JR did indeed post somebody elses (dennis ecker) comment up under his own name without attribution (untill he got caught)" JR indeed did no such thing.

    The fact you have to make up ,grasp at such, a non existant desperate lie and then pretend you didn't make it up to boot. That it's true? Still? without a retraction or acceptance of responsability, says it all about your "character" and your "morality". [edited by moderator]

  37. Jim Robertson says:

    On Sept. 13 at 1:59 pm. I gave you a link to Dennis's post. And that is all I did. If you two morons can't figure it out from there. You are hopless. But we already know that; you have no need to prove that one more time. We got it.

  38. Publion says:

    This morning at 101AM JR says he “addressed an … open letter” (and then the sentence trails off into grammatical incoherence but we see a reference in it to “they lying” – of, presumably, “other posters to Dennis”).


    The story keeps changing, doesn’t it? First it was simply a post from JR addressed to “Dennis”; then it was JR simply putting up a comment that “Dennis” couldn’t put up because he got that (not infrequent) “forbidden” message from the ISP; now it’s that JR addressed “an open letter” to Dennis (but yet it was Dennis’s own material – that’s clear from the content and formatting and from what JR has previously claimed).


    Let’s focus not on JR’s excuse-gyrations (nothing new there) but rather on the i) changing of claims and ii) of definitions at will in order to fit-in with whatever today’s spin is. This, I think, is an Abusenik Playbook hallmark and staple: there is no solid linguistic ground because there isn’t any solid conceptual or factual ground to their claims, allegations, and stories. Everything has to be kept fluid in order to enable them to cover newly-discovered bits of information that reveal their original claims to be … not quite what they said they were.


    This is, as I have said, more of a press-release approach than any sort of honest and accurate deliberative approach: just put up today whatever you want to spin, and hope that people will forget what you said previously. (There is a relevant element in legal practice: as a Party, you can get to amend (or ‘change’) your original submission if you feel you have to (and think the Court will let you get away-with)).


    And this is what we are seeing here, I would say. And I would also add that there is clearly a method to the madness here, so I am less inclined now to think that JR is simply suffering from some cognitive limitations in information-processing and expression; what we see here leans far far more closely to outright fiddling with accuracy in order to advance (or preserve) the appearance of integrity in the claims.


    But JR then undermines his own first-paragraph in his own second paragraph: “Dennis” apparently addressed a comment to himself (in JR’s current telling, “Dennis” had written a comment posting for this site whose text begins by addressing … “Dennis”). So “Dennis” is talking to himself in public. That raises even more questions.


    So: Yes, JR, we are “still with” you. But do you yourself realize where you have now gone and placed yourself (and – alas – poor “Dennis”)?


    So JR is welcome to demonstrate that he did not – as I said – “post somebody else’s” [proper grammar from my original text, not JR’s misspelled quotation] comment “without attribution (until he got caught)”. Specifically, JR can explain the assertion that “JR did no such thing”.


    He will then also have to explain where there is any “lie” in the descriptions that have been put forward of what he and “Dennis” cooked-up. And – as we see – continue to cook-up.


    Thus also we are not so “desperate” as to “grasp” at anything: we were confronted with a comment that clearly did not seem to come from the commenter who implicitly claimed to have written it (by posting it without attribution under his own screen-name) and the text of which clearly made no sense (“Dennis” addressing himself in a comment) as it appeared on the site. And continues to make less sense as the both of them now keep changing the story of just how the comment came to be put up as being from JR.


    But then JR neatly tries to mimic others on this site and claim that it is he (and “Dennis”) who are for all practical purposes victimized by such lack of truthfulness and “responsability” (is JR still proof-reading that book he claimed to be proof-reading a while back?). Can their show get any more repellently whacky?


    But again, I am not so much interested in getting into their personal mud as I am interested in pointing out just how malleable ‘facts’ and ‘truth’ and even honesty are to these Abusenik types. And how much could have been done by the mainstream media long-ago if the job of making even a modest critical analysis of their stories had been done.


    But if they couldn’t somehow turn themselves into the ‘victims’ here – by hook or by crook – then what would they have? They would be stuck with the whacky and queasy excuses they have made, plus the original whackness of the comment (whether from “Dennis” or JR).


    Which brings us to “Dennis” (or ‘dennis ecker’) at 1121PM last night.


    He redefines “nightmare” to mean “internal scare” – which is not in any dictionary I know of (if there is such a definition in an actual dictionary of the English language, I’d be happy to know about it). Thus it’s not primarily about his spelling (still oddly off for somebody who wrote official reports) but rather about his treatment of language as if it were play-dough. (As I said, a vital Abusenik gambit.)


    And then – since he just happened to be in the neighborhood here – he poses a question to me and others: having submitted his allegation to a DA (and how did that play out, if I might ask?) he now asks: why didn’t the Church counter-sue if it thought he was not telling the truth?


    Has ‘dennis ecker’ not been reading the material on this site? The reason there was no countersuit is that  in a Stampede such as has existed for the past thirty years, and in light of the Anderson-Axis multiple-plaintiff strategies, it would be impossible to counter-sue against each allegation that was made (10-11 thousand formal allegations as counted by the John Jay Studies). Thus his allegations slid by in the general complexity created by Anderson’s very inspired legal strategy (and legal-media strategy). And yet – as I have said – we see here now ‘dennis ecker’s effort to imply that his own allegations were truthful and accurate simply because he wasn’t counter-sued. And for what reason – we can only wonder – did the DA not bring Charges on the basis of the allegations lodged by ‘dennis ecker’?


    Thus too, as a matter of simple principle, ‘dennis ecker’s impugning of (the apparently deceased) Father Hermley assumes a queasy and repellent character as stated here in his comment.


    The comments sudden slide into references to unexplained persons (“Father Judge”) and events suggests strongly to me that ‘dennis ecker’ has once again mentally lost control of his thoughts and his material (and is this characteristic of a trained and competent reporting-professional – perhaps his Department dodged a bullet by letting him go?) (This question presumes, for the purposes of the immediate discussion, that ‘dennis ecker’ is indeed Dennis Ecker, former Philadelphia firefighter/EMT.)



    The bit about “the comments not having anything to do with the blog posted” is – ‘dennis ecker’ would like us to think – implicitly a testimony of the power of “two people” to “make the readership discuss what they want to”. To which I would respond that the comments by others have not so much ‘discussed’ the material that these “two people” have raised as it is a) to pretty much refute them and demonstrate their incoherence and inaccuracies and b) such attention provides merely an example of how anybody sufficiently deranged can require a group to take time out to correct their material.


    So – ‘dennis ecker’ – your characteristically ‘power’ oriented self-congratulations simply hang up there with the ability of a ranting homeless person standing in the middle of a busy intersection to attract the attention of the police and fire department … ever been on one of those calls? (This question presumes, for the purposes of the immediate discussion, that ‘dennis ecker’ is indeed Dennis Ecker, former Philadelphia firefighter/EMT.)


    We are then informed that ‘dennis ecker’, it is to be inferred, is not a “church-hater” because – waittttt for ittttttt – we can ask “his friends and family who are devout catholics” [sic] Is he not aware of the gravamen of his own comment material over all this time? Does he imagine that the readership is not aware of it? And who knows – really – if he has any such persons in his circle of acquaintance at all?


    But then we are suddenly being spoken-to by the Wig of Southerness: so ‘we-all’ are urged to “have a great week” because ‘dennis ecker’ has such a busy life (as opposed to us no-lifes on this site) that it might be a while before he will “get the chance” to read our responses.


    And so Stonewall Jackson’s personal physician (I kid) will be very busy with a ‘real’ life and that’s OK because he just knows that all he will get from the readership is “your reasons and excuses” [exaggerated formatting omitted], which aren’t so very important to a vitally engaged Wig of Affairs anyway. Yah.


    An alternative explanation for any delay in further ‘dennis ecker’ comments: he’s pretty much out of fabrications and needs some time to figure out some more. Doing lunch with JR might be the very thing to assuage his difficulty, then.


    And we note that he seems to think there is no qualitative difference between “reasons” and “excuses”. Which fits in rather well as an explanation of the quality of his own material on this site.

    • josie says:

      Publion-How complete your analysis is of the Ecker material!!. I will check back when I have a chance because I am fairly sure that the "abuse" he keeps talking about ("protesting" too much?) he claimed earlier was in some "sacristy" (of what Church I don't know) when he was in grade school. He wasn't 13 at Father Judge High School anyway.

      Recently, he noted that he doesn't distinguish between 'abuse' and 'rape', in essence, all the same to him

      He also commented early on that he would not sue. Then he said 'maybe I will' or something like that. It will take me awhile to find it.

      I have always been highly suspicious of Mr. Ecker.

       P.S. There were thousands who volunteered with the aftermath of 9/11; many are dead from lung disease and some are dying still or very sick. Why would someone point themselves out a a hero among so many who clearly were. He further gets fed by Mr. Robertson who says on 9/11 at 11;49P (around their e-mail discussions) "Dennis, was your disability connected to 9/11" (also says-"you don't have to answer"). Earlier, JR says "you have sacrificed your health". Mr. Ecker retired by or before age 50? Seems very shady to me.

  39. dennis ecker says:

    Get it right. Its firefighter/medic.



  40. Jim Robertson says:

    Evidently Dennis meant to write scares. I hadn't seen his latest post. When I wrote the above at 5:27. My most sincere apology….to Dennis.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What "substantial material"? The nonsensical drivaling demeaning blather that you over write?

      It never ends. Your idiocy painted to look like intelligence fools no one not even you. You know what you write is a load of crap. You can read it. It comes out in how you write it. And the readership knows you're a fake. You could care less about any of this scandal. Your job is to protect abusing priests from being held responsable for the crimes they've commited and the crimes they allowed other priests to commit. You and D are not even religious. If you were your approach to victims posting here would be very different.  A person of faith and humility could never say the outrageous lies that you two come up with about victims. Never.

      .From the amount of time you spend writing the junk you write. I know this is an avocation for you; if not a well paid part time job. There's no other explanation for your lies and overly complicated rationalizations.

      D's Daffy Duck-esque behavior (refering back to it's telling photo of itself with it's head under water philosophy.)has nothing to do with your christ. They are light years apart.

      So how do we connect your behavior here to the religion you pretend your defending?

      We can not. You both have burned that bridge; long ago. And for you there's no going back.

      I don't know what you think you'll get out of these disasterous un-christian rationalizations of yours but it sure won't be heaven.  Why? Because you are way too busy creating hell; right here and now.

  41. delphin says:

    "Both Dennis and I have recieved 403 error responses…So if it's happened only to me and Dennis on this site and not to P and D; then what's with that?"

    Perhaps it is a vast worldwide Catholic conspiracy, dating back to the ancients, that has now ensnared TMR into it's dastardly scheme to cover up the cover up of abused minors by clergy, all the way back to St. Peter and right up to Pope Francis. I sense another trashy Dan Brown novel in the making.

    Or, maybe it is simply a case of incompetency vs. competency?

    Either way, you and your fellow 'Cuckoo's Nest' cohort, 'Nurse Ratchet",  have managed to hijack the discussion/debate away from real victims, both minors and clergy, and back onto yourselves. How thoroughly boring (or devious?)-

    On the other hand, there is a Bugs Bunny quote I simply just can't pass up per the following speak-for-itself 'contribution':

    "If you two morons can't figure it out from there. You are hopless.."

    As the wise-cracking bunny would observe: "What a bunch of MAROONS….! But, thankfully, Bugs wasn't 'hopless'.

  42. Jim Robertson says:

    so julie and josie now you're quiet.?

  43. delphin says:

    "Get it right. Its firefighter/medic."

    Who gives a rats a@#?  If it isn't central to the deliberations here about the veracity of the claims surrounding the Church abuse matter or can't somehow address your bigoted tendancy to profile Catholics (such easy targets, heh tough guy?) only, and no one else – go tell it to the mountain, or Mohammed (if you can summon up your cojones), for all we care.

    Isn't there an elderly retired priest somewhere you can be terrorizing with your threats of pursuit and prosecution? Your act here is really old.

    Kerpling! Oh, there you go, another email just popped in to you from your partner in shame….toodle-loo, "Fireman", your "Prince Charming" awaits you.


  44. Publion says:

    As usual, JR’s faulty conclusions based on insufficient information pin the tail on him yet again.


    The error message is one that I have often received, and by experiment I discovered that if I don’t compose in the box, and don’t keep the link to the site active while I am composing, but rather compose on a word-processing system and then transfer that text to the box, then the message doesn’t appear. The key seems to be that if you keep the site open for too long (whatever that duration may be before the 403 message kicks in) then you are very likely to get the message. And – as DP notes – you can always send the text of your comment to him and he can put it up, circumventing the ISP error-parameters.


    Alas then: it isn’t happening just to JR and “Dennis” – so there goes their Wig of Victimization bit and the innuendo about being persecuted or dissed via evilly-targeted computer-messages.


    Then at 1052AM JR claims that he gave (one) link for “Dennis” on the 13th at 159PM. But – amazingly – the record of comments available to everyone (even to JR) shows that he submitted such links in comments at 145PM, 153PM, and 159PM. Is JR unable not only to keep track of his own comments, but also to read the record that is not far above the comment box when he starts typing? Or does he not really care about the factuality of what he is saying? Or am I wrong that we are dealing primarily with deliberate mendacity and instead are indeed dealing primarily with cognitive processing impairment? Either way, what does it say about the allegations, claims and assertions of ‘abuse’?


    If JR can demonstrate by accurate quotes just what “stuff” I am “making up” he can do so. I don’t “fear” that “wallow and mud” [Eckerian exaggerated formatting omitted]; I simply find it distasteful to have to wade-through. And since doing so means – as I said in the relevant comment – trying to enter into the interior ‘world’ which these two inhabit, then I refrain from doing so since it a) isn’t the purpose of this site and b) would surely make both of them even more agitated and unhappy than they are now. Which always translates into even whackier material in comments.


    Anyway, the typical JR come-back of I’m not/You are is just one of those few tools in his bag; it’s not an adult or mature sort of bit but it’s lasted quite a while apparently.


    But can we all see clearly how the use of his ‘real name’ really really really improves the quality of his mentation and material?


    As for the assorted and various thoughts about ‘dennis ecker’ and his history, another plausible possibility: having gone to NYC after 9-11, and noted the increasing possibility of getting a responder’s disability, he realized he could make a claim and did so; at which point, perhaps, the Department looked at his record and decided that the City would be well out of it if he were not on the roster and that a disability retirement was not too large a price for such a boon. This thought to be taken in conjunction with the making of an allegation/claim against the Church.


    And as I have said, the mind we see behind the ‘dennis ecker’ material here is not that of a professional trained in clear and concise assessment and communication of same through accurate reporting, both verbal and written. And did he ‘work well with others’ – a vitally necessary characteristic that any Battalion Chief or Company officer would have to consider? Well, he works well with JR – and that surely says something.


    However, we can only feel good for ‘dennis ecker’ that he considers it a BAZINGA-level success to correct (we are to assume) the particular Philly firefighter terminology in designating its specifically medically-trained personnel.  How nice for him, but of course. If he could only try his chops on addressing usefully some of the more substantial material here … that would be nice too.

  45. Publion says:

    I can’t help but notice:


    Now we are asked (or told) to believe that “Dennis” actually “meant to” write one thing but it came out as another thing … was it the same way with the allegation: he meant to say ‘not-abused’ but it came out ‘abused’? (Although there is also the point that he considers ‘rape’ and ‘abuse’ to be synonymous.)


    It’s a curious thing about the Abuseniks we have seen here: ‘Rondre’ is a journalism or media teacher or prof, yet demonstrates none of the characteristics one might expect from so educated a mind; for all the hoohah JR raises about ‘real names’ we have a double-whopper moniker (‘Boston Survivor’ then ‘Learned Counsel’) over whom JR went gaga; and yet in another double-whopper that commenter displays none of the characteristics or competences of either an elite Harvard Philosophy training or of a practicing (though ‘non-trial’) attorney; and we have ‘dennis ecker’ whose mentation and characteristics exhibit none of what we would expect from a sturdy, blue-collar, straight-forward, stand-up firefighter. And then there’s JR and enough said about that.


    And from all of them – when various discrepancies and oddities and outright difficulties with their material is noted – we get excuses and explanations that (as we have seen even here on this thread) do not and cannot hold together coherently.


    Is this a pattern with Abuseniks? Claiming to be one thing and yet … their claims and stories don’t stand up. And there is a very reasonable possibility that the old New Yorker cartoon (“On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog”) has more than glancing relevance here: on the internet nobody can see the Wig. (But – as we have seen here – that actually isn’t the case on the internet:  written material reveals a great deal more than the Wigs had imagined.)


    My thought is that if it hadn’t been for Anderson’s shewd Axis that he forged with the media (and so too with other torties, including especially the one up in Boston in 2002) then there would not – perhaps could not – have been a Stampede in the first place. The torties would have been left with a whole bunch of dubious stories and – quite possibly – a whole bunch of allegants they didn’t dare put on the stand.

  46. Jim Robertson says:

    P.S. Who are you comparing my "mentations and material" to? Give me your standard? Einstein? Wittgenstein? Shirley Temple? Who? Am I to pretend you are some Marcus Aurelius in your rationalizations? I'm not that good at pretending. So you tell me your standard (and why I should bother to agree to it), and I'll tell you mine..

  47. Jim Robertson says:

    My (and Dennis's) interior world is a muddy pig wallow? Thank you.

    That's Intelligence? That’s insight? [edited by moderator]

  48. delphin says:

    Just as an FYI: PFD appears to be under the impression that you are either a Firefighter or a Paramedic, as evidenced by their "How Do I" tab that directs you to info on each distinct position in their Department.

    Now, I am not accusing anyone of  'stretching" any truths, this is likely as much a language/terminology problem, as anything else, and not much more. But, it is still an interesting example of the many 'languages' or 'interpretations' of such one can experience on the same topic. If we mere 'admirers' (or was that 'wanabee's'?) of the legendary and heroic blue-line of defense can so-wrangle the inner workings and language of their parallel universe, could the not similar consideration be given to our laymen observations of an ancient Canonical legal system, executed by a similarly stoic heirarchy, that moves quite differently to the beat of the secular (and witch-hunting) drum?

    So, before the antiCatholic zombies pounce with their usual (unenlightened) ravings, the consideration to be undertaken is one of language and misinterpreations of intent, management and reporting requirements, handily presented and anayzed dozens of times here and elsewhere, that were distorted to support the all-to-willing non-believers and other antiCatholic critics to make their insane claims of conspiracy.

    Firefighter-medic/EMS/EMT/Firefighter/Paramedic; one could make the case for intentional duplicity, if so inclined. But, instead because these men are perceived and received in society as heroes, instead of suffering the villainization that has been purposefully directed against Catholic clergy, we give them all a free pass.

    It may be time to start profiling these men as viciously as our priests have been profiled. For example, the media and the 'whore's' cohorts in the general population have succeeded in defining over 96% of our priests (and our Church and religion) by the action of less than 4%. Yet, we know, based upon facts (those annoying FBI statistics) that minors are abused at a far lesser rate by priests than they are in the general population- the figures which range from the low end of 10-15% up to 25%. Fathers and firefighters (or whatever they call themselves in Philly) fit into the general population figure. If we can paint our 96% clergy with the sins of the 4% (admittedly, a high estimate), we certainly can, and should, do likewise for all other men in the general population. And, homosexual offenders of male minors skyrocket to over 30% of all offenders.

    So, Firefighter-Dad & Gay Guy, what assumptions, assuming no credible, tangible evidence against you, shall we make, today, and 50 years from now?

    I'll buy your profiling-based conspiracy theory when you buy mine.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm sure you know lots about witch hunting. Your church fathers created it.

      Villains aren't villianized, they're villains. Passing known perpetrators around and praying that they don't harm again is villainy. Nobodies making this stuff up. This is reality.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Zombies"? We are the living dead to you? Lovely!

      Excuse me but wasn't your lord the living dead for about 30 days post mortem?

      In your standards of reference are we "zombies" not then in good company with your god?

  49. delphin says:

    How interesting, holy eternal damnation, references to heaven and hell - all in one-fell swoop from an avowed Commun-Atheist.

    Didn't know anyone had to 'defend their religion', we have been told, after all, repeatedly, that 'no one is attacking your religion'. What to believe?

    Just because you can't follow the bouncing ball, doesn't mean it's "…drivaling [sic], demeaning blather….". The dialogue is obviously just way over your head, just as is the dishonest politicization of the Church abuse matter.

    "The further a society drifts from the Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it". Orwell.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      What is "HOLY" about "eternal damnation"? God's a sacred torturer? Sweet.

      How do you reconcile that to a god of love or a prince of peace?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Thanks George Orwell. That's exactly what is happening here. Orwell was an athiest, you know.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You do have to defend your religion if your religion is offering "holy eternal damnation" as a universal truth for all including the rest of us who think that's edited by moderator]. You "believe" it. Why not prove it? If you use such nonsense in your rebutal to real victims. Show us how you know this as "truth" rather than hearsay? You can not.

  50. josie says:

    The appellate hearing for Msgr appears to have gone very well. Excellent coverage by Ralph Cipriano. at "Appellate judges in Msgr. Lynn Case ask Philly DA Some Questions  He Can't Answer

  51. Jim Robertson says:

    Why don't you trot out the victimized priests? Take them on a speaking tour around the country. Have them talk about this "stampede". Really, Take your act on the road. I've suggested this before to you.

    Do it .

    You know why you won't and so do I. It would focus such outrage; not for you but against you and would be a magnet for victims who would meet up possibly, to fight you (verbally). With out having to go through the church's counterintelligence effort " The Project" also known as SNAP and the somehow ever present Jeffery Anderson..And if those 2 aren't running the show then the church (or at least a part of it )will be very very very unhappy indeed.

  52. josie says:

    My post may get lost in the nonsense that gets in the way here.

    Go to for complete coverage of the Msgr Lynn appeals hearing today (Philly paper is not a good source of news unfortunately)..

  53. Publion says:

    So much in the recent JR crop (1044, 1057, 1111) is mostly unsupported rant. But there are a couple of useful points for the Notebook on the Playbook.


    In the 1057 entry, we see the interesting effort to slyly avoid the real problem: trying to move readers to wondering whether my “standard” of judgment was the scientific  (Einstein) or the philosophical (Wittgenstein) or the ludicrous (Shirley Temple). When actually – of course – the “standard” is based on sanity and accuracy and honesty, which by amazing coincidence are the three categories and “standards” JR doesn’t go near. Yet it should have been clear from just my comments on this thread that my major concerns were in those areas.


    JR would be well advised not to waste what abilities he has in trying to “pretend” about me at all (he is, after all, “not that good at pretending”) and simply concern himself – to the extent he can – with the questions and substantive issues that are raised about his material. That would, I would say, be a much better use of his time and available resources. And actually, I think the not-good-at-pretending bit is – to put it nicely – a very hefty case of false modesty.


    The muddy pig wallow (I could live with ‘hog’ wallow if that would be more acceptable) is my assessment, based on – as JR so often notes – my voluminous observations and explanations of those observations. I stand by it.


    But now to the 1044 comment.


    If we subtract the epithets and un-supported claims (some of which are clearly impossible to rationally posit since they are impossible for JR to demonstrate) we have … almost nothing here.


    Unless we ask ourselves: when JR makes assertions about what I think and what I know about my material, does he do it deliberately or is it that he just can’t help himself? Nor do I have a “job” in connection with this site. I do have – as I have often stated – a desire and objective to cut through the various irrational or unsupported assertions since both a) their content and b) their method of deployment have both contributed heavily to the Stampede. The interesting consequence of this has been that the more the claims and allegations have been examined, the clearer it has become that the allegations – and, from what we have seen in comments on this site, the allegants – are not able to withstand very much analysis at all. And – I won’t be saying anything new to note this here – the various Abuseniks here do not impress, at least not in any positive sense.


    Of course – and from the ridiculous to the sublime – the same goes for JR delivering assessments as to who is or is not “religious”. And also – more interestingly  – that he derives this from his personal logic that truly religious people would buy the Abusenik bits hook-line-and-sinker, with sympathetic ooohs, ahhhhhs,  awwwws, and clucks. And thus anybody who doesn’t do that must clearly not be “religious” (as JR defines the term – and good luck with that). To say nothing of the fact that yet again for the umpteenth time we are slyly moved to accept as a fact that we have genuine victims posting here, as opposed to allegants otherwise classifiable.


    And this is not the first time – even on this thread – that I again ask JR to put up (with accurate quotations) any “outrageous lies” about “victims” that I have written. Still no answer. Just the Wiggy repetition of the assertion.


    JR knows how much time I spend writing my comments, does he? For all he knows, these are all first-drafts that go straight from the word-processor first time around and onto the site. (They are, actually.) This is not because I am Einstein but simply because the material I find myself dealing with is so bemusingly obvious. I say this again: if the mainstream media had done even a fraction of the work it should have done in examining these allegations and the types that made them (as we have seen them here) then this Stampede would never have gotten off the ground. Dealing with these types and their material isn’t rocket science – and I make no pretense at being a rocket scientist.


    Thus JR once again pins the tail on himself by then trying to mimic an ultimate and decisive conclusion: “there’s no other explanation for your lies and your overly-complicated rationalizations”. That assertion wouldn’t be accurate even if we factor-out the “lies” and “overly-complicated rationalizations”. But I’ve dealt with the “lies” bit above and “overly-complicated” is how my material may appear to poor JR, but that’s because of problems it’s not my business to do anything about.


    But if JR would care to demonstrate that he actually can handle material beyond the fry-fly level, then let him put up (accurately quoted, of course) some examples of “rationalizations” – he can do it while he’s also putting up some of the “outrageous lies” quotations.


    Also: something can’t really be simultaneously a “job” and an “avocation”.


    And what does and does-not have to do with “your christ” is hardly a topic area where JR can expect to be taken as a reliable judge. As I have said before, when it came to truth and honesty and going after their opposites, Christ could be remarkably assertive. None of the Abuseniks here have established any creds as truthful and honest (and we are actually now further back, to the level of wondering about sanity).


    But having already silly-putty’d his ‘facts’ – at least to his own mind’s satisfaction – JR then sets up the question: “how do we connect your behavior here to the religion you pretend your defending?” [sic]


    Well, I for one am interested to see that we are only ‘pretending’ to defend the Catholic religion. I think that once again JR has lost control of his material and his own words are taking him where he doesn’t want to go.


    Let me give a try and answer the question, though: we are trying here to separate demonstrable truth from stuff that is not demonstrable truth, so that in finding that truth (and rather unavoidably identifying the fomenters of untruth in the process) we can get a better picture of what needs to be done and what is the best way to proceed. If JR sees that as somehow un-Christian or not ‘religious’ (however that word is defined in his mind) then he can explain himself. There’s some more constructive homework for him.


    But in his own mind he has already formed his conclusion (because he has already set up his toy-block ideas to fall over in just the way he wants them to fall over): “We can not.” Yah, well we can, actually, simply be putting JR’s silly-putty play-dough blocks aside and working with the actual realities that both he and ‘dennis ecker’ seem confusedly convinced exist only inside their own heads.


    Then JR offers us his best shot on who’s going to heaven. That seems a whacky thing even for him to try, all things considered. But then we see why: in an uncharacteristically literary move, the ‘heaven’ bit is merely the contrasting set-up for the real money-shot, which is that we are “too busy creating hell” and so forth.


    Neat. Nice rhetorical balance. Not JR’s demonstrated level of competence though.


    But these Abuseniks – and atheist or at least ‘non-religious’ types – sure do like to deliver hellfire-and-brimstone sermons and declamations, don’t they? They do like to strut the Wig of Papal Authority (the actual Pope having, in their mind, forfeited his right to the Authority and the Wig being handy in its hatbox). If only they liked to deliver rational and coherent material as much. But fundamentally they’re in showbiz, and have been for quite some time.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      SOS from P. SOS from D. SOS from me.

      Like both sides in WWI, we are immobilized in our trenches. With nary a game of football played between us in no man's land on a christmas day. Continual war, the standard of our times repeated here.

      edited by moderator] In the big picture, you're losing.  Please show me where you're not.

  54. delphin says:

    "I'm sure you know lots about witch hunting. Your church fathers created it."

    Perfect example above of the absolute wanton ignorance (or is it willing lies?) of the opposition.

    This isn't hard work, a simple internet search could have ensured you weren't making a total ass of yourself, but, oh well, if you feel the need to be easily humiliated (which in some subculture circles is central to their "love" lives), you're certainly welcome to it.

    To lower the research standards to a Wiki reference/citation solely for the benefit of TMRs remedial audience of 'opposers' and 'posers' (aka chronic whiners and storytellers), see below. Do some homework before you waste our time and bore us with the usual bigoted antiCatholic tripe.

    There actually are innocent lives at risk which are central to this debate (take it easy Fire Marshall Bill, you're 'retired' from 'something').


    • Jim Robertson says:

      I followed your link to wikipedia. Thank you.

      According to what was posted there. You in large part are correct about your church fathers. Most of the witch burning was done by protestants. That does not excuse the executions of "witches" in Spain or Portugal or  Germany or Austria.;or the executuions of people for heresy.St Joan was executed by English catholics in catholic France.

      Murder by anyother name, (executions; wars) is still  murder.


  55. Jim Robertson says:

    Where else, but here, has anyone taken your arguements seriously? No where that's where.

    How are you intending to create your own counter-"stampede" if no one takes your arguements seriously?

    Could you possibly answer just that question?

  56. Jim Robertson says:

    May I ask any fair minded reader here to simply count the number of paragraphs I've written in this thread and Dennis has written here; and compare that to the number Pelican..pardon Publicon and Delphinium have written here. If you're right, why so many words to attempt to defeat us?

  57. Publion says:

    As a bit of comic relief here, I note that the Wig of Southern Manliness has suddenly found time in an (allegedly) busy week and schedule to get right back to commenting.


    But the effects of that Wig are now substantially undermined by what I suspect is something much closer to the actual ‘dennis ecker’: a juvenile myah-myah with a particular enthusiasm for his newly-deployed (or discovered) ‘Bazinga’ bit (exaggerated formatting omitted).


    Which goes to show that it’s hard – in the long run – for a fry-fly to keep up appearances, no matter how elaborate and varied the Wigs pulled from the numerous hat-boxes.


    Of course – and while this may be a useful addition for the Notebook on the Playbook it is also a gambit to anybody familiar with raising kiddies – the new come-back here is: Oh, I was just giving the (evil, dumb, dunce-like) readers what they evilly and dumbly and dunce-likey expect, so myah-myah to you all.


    Even a Wig needs some sort of personality underneath it if it’s really going to work. And now we see.


    And once again: I really can’t see a personality like this working-well over the long term in an urban firehouse setting.

  58. delphin says:

    TMR probably has this, already, here ya go anyway.

    As though we really needed more proof of what we all know to be true.

    Fr. Gordon is kind in his "F" word analogy. Three other "Fs", not nearly so genteel, come to mind.

  59. delphin says:

    And, the insanity continues….

    I wonder if the day is coming that if you are an accused abuser and ever even stepped inside of, or walked past a Catholic Church, you can sue an Archdiocese?

    A criticism I do have of the Church is their profound inability to fight or defend themselves and our clergy.

  60. delphin says:

    "edited by moderator] In the big picture, you're losing.  Please show me where you're not."

    In the Athiests ever-shrinking only here and only now 'small picture' world, it's a draw, for now.

    In the faithful Catholic's limitless universe, in Eternity-.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Now that is greed. You want it all. What greedy guts you are.

       However,the fact that the universe from every fact found so far is not bent to your mythology is a pity for you.

      Are only faithful catholics entitled to eternity and faithful catholics limitless universe. Is there a day pass for Mormons or Muslims or Jews?You know they believe their religion is the center of the universe also.

  61. Publion says:

    If this keeps up some might suspect that I pay JR and ‘dennis ecker’ to follow-up some of my comments with such pitch-perfect and spot-on examples of precisely what I was saying.


    I can only offer the readership my assurances that I do not.


    The on-word “bazinga” comment by ‘dennis ecker’ simply deserves to stay up there out on the limb on which it was put.


    At 1128 JR is now trying another interesting bit from the Playbook: we are all equals here and thus our equally-valid and worthwhile positions (and – but of course – material) are … equal. Thus also a few sugar roses on this lardy frosting: we are all just like the Central and Allied Powers staring across no-man’s land at each other from our respective trench-systems on the Western Front.


    Neat but no. To dignify the conglomeration of distractions, incoherences, inaccuracies, diversions, epithets and all the rest of their trick-boxes and hat-boxes with substantive discussion or deliberation is the same as equating the ketchup-splattered chit-chat down in the cafeteria with the exchanges taking place in the seminar rooms over in a classroom building. But – to borrow their own trope – I think that without these self-consoling and self-flattering delusions, these two (and others like them) would have nothing.


    “In the big picture you’re losing. Please show me where you’re not.” First, it’s these two who have brought their own self-flattering ‘war’ imagery to the site (for lack of anything more substantive).


    Second, I’d note the documented sharp drop-off in allegations (especially ‘current’ ones as opposed to ‘historical’ ones as documented by the Jay Studies; the utter failure of the war-crimes Complaint brought to the ICC in the Hague; the very recent curious tic in the NYT article mentioned on this very TMR thread whereby it appears Goodstein had to include material other than her usual hatchet-job; the remarkable reporting of the BigTrial site (which reflects a substantive change in the reporting approach); the failure of all the touted document-cache releases to stand up to examination on this site and the concomitant reduction in mainstream media coverage and discussion of those releases; the questioning of the DA’s office by the appellate judges in the Msgr. Lynn case (which is only the first of the cases pending appeal); and I point out that the CA state senate passed the new Statute of Limitation bill by only one vote, with many of the senators abstaining.


    Whereas – he can add this to the list of questions he has not answered – JR offers us … his crack-dreams (supported by “Dennis”). What indicators does JR present – from real life, please, and not merely from the little screen behind his eyeballs – to support his claims to the contrary?


    And in regard to the crack-dreams or delusions, at 1140 JR then asserts that nobody has “taken your arguments seriously”. How in any universe except the lunatic can JR demonstrate that? Ditto his brassily whackulent conclusion: “No where that’s where” [sic].


    I certainly am not “intending to create your own counter-‘stampede’”. The whole idea of a Stampede is that it sidesteps honest and rational and accurate assessment and that is precisely the dynamic I oppose. But it reveals a great deal about the mentality of JR’s ilk that the only alternative to the Abusenik Stampede that he can conceive is an anti-Abusenik Stampede. Down in the cafeteria, among the fry-flies, it all comes down to who’s throwing the most ketchup at whom else. That’s why they don’t bring books home, but merely their day’s empty ketchup bottles to re-fill for next day.


    And, but of course and marvelously so, JR then demonstrates his self-flattering presumption that what he thinks (so to speak) is what the world thinks.


    So there’s my answer to that question. And I am still waiting for answers to all of my questions, put up in comments on this thread.


    And then at 1233 JR proposes that the “number of paragraphs” of the comments is somehow relevant. From the fact that he and “Dennis” have written comparatively few (to say nothing of the quality of their content and the mentation behind them) JR – with this Thinking Wig on – comes up with the idea that they must be doing something right because it has taken so many “words” “to attempt to defeat us”. But as I have often said, it takes a great many “words” to rationally counter the whackeries they put up. And the record shows that they have rarely – if ever at all – come up with substantive responses-to, let alone refutations-of, the many “words” (which is all that ideas and trains of thought and concepts mean to them) that I and others have put up here.


    But I say again: their value here is in serving as vivid and sometimes florid (even with the expletives deleted) examples of the Abusenik mind and character and Playbook. And they have served and are serving in that cause very very usefully and well.


    With the material these two – among others – put up here, I think we can see even more clearly what a colossal media-failure (or treachery) was involved in creating the Stampede: when mentalities and material such as this – deployed in all the modalities we know as the Playbook – are not only taken seriously but accepted without examination, then we are a school where the cafeteria is considered as useful a source of thinking as the seminar and class-rooms.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But to beat us It does take, you in particular, buckets full of words.  Truth is much  easier to say.

      You actually did post today about some adult /underage person sex  not being harmful. You actually wrote that today. References please. Scientific studies please. Let's see your documentation for that lie.

  62. Publion says:

    To save us all some time here, let me point out another of the come-back plays in the Playbook: you toss up whacky (as well as untruthful and incoherent and unsupported) material; then if somebody points that out, you simply claim you have been ‘victimized’ all over again by having your material characterized (or revealed) as whacky; and thus you simply then claim that since you were ‘insulted’ or ‘attacked’ then you are under no obligation to explain anything to anybody. (Then: rinse and repeat, as often as necessary.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What material would you like from me? Something that I can give you that would end this war between the opposite sides here.What is it victims can do for you?

    • Publion says:

      In regard to JR’s two quickies of 231AM and 235AM today:

      First, we note the continuation of the “war” imagery. And once again we see the presumption that what is being carried out here on this site’s commentary is a “war”; the concept of careful deliberation and the examination of concepts, claims and assertions and the exchange of the resulting ideas is apparently beyond his comprehension or beyond what he wishes to achieve with the material he has put up here. 

      What I am against is inaccuracy, untruthfulness, shoddy thinking or – worse – the type of emotional manipulation that seeks to move people beyond rational deliberation in the first place; these are the elements of Stampedes. 

      Thus I am not in a “war” against anybody. The fact is that JR and similar others so fully embody those problems, and continually seek to deploy them; so in demonstrating inaccuracy, untruthfulness, shoddy thinking and emotional manipulation in the material they submit here I am simply required to focus on them because they are the sources (on this site) of all of those things. 

      But character and the quality-of-mind is inextricably intertwined with the material one produces. And yet that goes to the issue of exploring whether the Stampede in the Catholic Abuse Matter was fomented by truthful, rational, honest and – at this point it has to be considered – sane persons to begin with. 

      Because the gambits deployed here, in being exposed, cannot help but reveal the quality of character and mentation in the persons who have deployed them. 

      It may be in some queasily weird way ‘consoling’ to some types here that they are waging a “war” but that simply reveals the level of mentation and psychological need at which they appear bound to operate. This is – as I have said several times before on this site – a difficult boundary to deal-with: it is necessary to demonstrate the character and mentation of persons who put up this material because a) that character and mentation are bound up with the material itself and b) because those same types claim to be (genuine) victims and yet those types of claims are themselves cast into question by the material (and its revelations about character and mentation) they put up here. This site is not the place to conduct actual psychological diagnosis and treatment, but it is the place to note when the material submitted indicates the quality of the material submitted as comments and the veracity-challenging characteristics of those same persons in their capacity as self-proclaimed (genuine) victims. 

      Then in that 231AM comment JR asserts that “you actually did post today about some adult/underage person sex not being harmful”. I actually never did any such thing. (Accurate) quotation for this assertion? Once again we see an assertion from JR that reflects either i) a basic inability to actually read what others have written or b) a willful attempt to misread what they have written for his own purposes. So here’s the homework: read what I wrote, and then formulate the question you would like answered – the question that will be based on the accurate reading of what I wrote “today”. 

      It can be no wonder that JR sees so many “lies” all around him: he may well be unable to read accurately the material that is in front of him. And perhaps – having engaged in so much other-than-honest plop-tossing himself – he is now locked-into imagining that everybody else does it too. 

      The aphoristic “truth is much easier to say” is cute, but inaccurate (and in this case, self-serving): i) many people don’t seem able to tell the truth and it is indeed very difficult for them to bring themselves either to do so or to recognize it; ii) this little bit serves to bolster JR’s effort to insist that his one-liners are more than adequate for the task of examining complex issues, and that all the “words” other commenters put up are unnecessary and distracting. Neat. 

      Then at 235AM he plaints “what material would you like from me?”. Once again we have either a) an inability to read or b) a deliberate effort to distract from that fact that he has answered none of the questions put to him (if he needs his memory refreshed, he need only re-read the comments I made on this thread). 

      Then a repetition of the “war” bit that I have dealt with above. 

      Then the whine “what is it victims can do for you?”. To which I would respond:  I would require some evidence or at least high-plausibility that a) their claims are true and that they are consequently genuine victims; and b) that – again for the umpteenth time – we have no evidence that JR is a genuine victim and – as I have put the problem in numerous comments now – we even have substantial material leading to the high plausibility that he is not a reliable truth-teller generally. I would also add that none of what I have just written in this paragraph is “new” but instead merely repeats points I have often made, frequently in comments about JR’s material itself. So either he can’t remember from one day to the next or he doesn’t want to. 

      The request for scientific studies and documentation is – as I noted above – dependent upon the question JR has posed, which in this case does not reflect anything I actually wrote. Also, I am highly dubious that JR can or will read and then engage rationally the material in any study that is recommended to him. 

      However, in the general area of accurately assessing damage from sexual experience (which is not the same as JR’s claim about “sex” – which clearly can imply overt genital sex, which is the difference, in my actual comment, reflecting the appellate judge’s distinction between “fondling” and “rape”) I can recommend for openers:

      “The impact of child sexual abuse” by Angela Brown and David Finkelhor. Published in the Psychological Bulletin, Vol 99 (1), January 1986. This is a review of studies that have been done, and notes that studies have tried to “confirm the effects of child sexual abuse” and that the uneven results don’t allow any substantive generalizations. I also note that many of the studies rely on “reports” by the individuals themselves (as child or as adult); this brings us back to a) the entire “spectral evidence” problem (how can an an observer establish that the “report” is a true and accurate depiction of what is going on in the ‘reporter’ and b) the causality problem: how can one establish with reasonable certainty that the reported issues were caused by the abuse (which also raises the problem of uniformity of definition in the term “abuse”). The study also discusses the professional and scientific “controversy” as to the “impact of child sexual abuse” (although again, the definition problem is at play here). (See first link at the end of this comment.)

      This study raises and examines (but, of course, cannot resolve) the key difficulties in reasonably and reliably determining a generalized and comprehensive understanding of the effects of child sexual abuse. Those key difficulties are – to use my terms from the preceding paragraph here – i) the Reporting Problem, ii) the Causality Problem, and iii) the Definition Problem. Together, I would say, these Problems create a profoundly and formidably complicated triad for any honest and objective study. 

      Various studies can try to get around these confounding difficulties by only focusing on one of them or by simply making prior-presumptions that serve to simplify (but at the cost of undermining their veracity and accuracy) their research and their conclusions by that presumptive elimination of one or two or all of these difficulties. 

      Additionally, ‘interested’ or ‘advocacy’-motivated researchers can confuse the issue by simply making conclusory declarations and claims that are either a) not justified by their actual research results or b) ignore in some way the original and fundamental Three Problems. 

      The bottom line: there is actually very very little scientific evidence as to any well-established and solidly-grounded generalized vision of the effects of ‘child sexual abuse’. And lay persons (including the media) who are honestly under a different impression must deal with this reality. Persons who seek to dragoon ‘science’ for their own purposes (and this will include some researchers who for one or several reasons wish to do the same) are still faced with the problem of somehow avoiding the Three Problems (in their many forms and manifestations) in order to produce the appearance of a ‘scientific answer’ (again, for whatever purposes they might have). 

      So there’s more homework for JR. Perhaps he can put it on a yellow sticky over his computer, along with the questions I have previously put to him.

  63. Publion says:

    The appellate hearing on the Lynn conviction is discussed on the BigTrial site. I would like to make several points in the piece and the comments (link to the BigTrial piece at the bottom of this comment).


    A pre-note observation: Mr. Cipriano follows the back and forth of the actual exchanges between the appellate bench and the respective Counsel. And as it turns out, the actual exchange between the actual participants does not come out too well for the DA and the Abuseniks.


    Some commenting then tries to characterize Mr. Cipriano’s reporting as ‘biased’ – and this is a revelatory bit. Because it reveals that to the Abuseniks, anything reported which does not make them look good must automatically be biased even if it is accurate. Whereas then, anything that does make them look good is ‘good’, even if it is inaccurate. This is the type of play-dough game that has been going on and going un-challenged and un-checked for decades now, even in the mainstream media.


    First, and as Mr. Cipriano pretty much predicted, the appellate judges did indeed demonstrate concern over the vital question of Ex Post Facto: i.e. that Lynn was prosecuted for violating a law that was not in effect when he committed the actions for which he was Charged. My thought is that the willingness of any law-school trained District Attorney to try and circumvent this vital Western jurisprudential principle reveals either serious deficiencies in that official’s legal training and/or serious pressure being brought upon that official. I don’t see any other sufficiently  plausible explanations for such an action.


    Second, the appellate judges, unlike the Abuseniks and some of the public (and too much of the mainstream media) are well aware that Grand Jury Reports are – essentially and dynamically – products of whatever the originating DA’s Office wants them to be. And that they are primarily ‘prosecution theater’ and are not themselves constitutive of legal judgment.


    This confusion in the popular mind is not helped by the use of the term “jury” to denote both the activity of trial (or “petit”) juries and Grand Juries; the grammar would lead the untrained mind to think that the Grand Jury – being Grand – actually does what trial juries (civil or criminal) do, only more so. Which is not at all the case. Rather, the Grand Jury simply looks at the material selected and presented to it – with no opposition from any source; then the Grand Jury merely decides – on the basis of the information fed to it by the DA – whether an indictment is warranted and whether it wishes to make some recommendations – again, on the basis merely of what the DA selected and presented to the Grand Jury. But it remains for the “petit” jury – through the workings of an actual trial – to sift and consider evidence and deliberate on a Verdict, which it (and only it; Grand Juries don’t deliver Verdicts) then determines.


    (And, of course, appeals of the Verdict on any number of possible grounds are always an option.)


    So the appellate judges realize what too many people do not realize: a Grand Jury can be shaped – through the material selected and presented to it – to reach almost any conclusions a presenting-prosecutor would like to see.


    Third, the appellate level has to be concerned with whether or not the relevant law and the relevant jurisprudential requirements (which are the duty of the trial judge to oversee) were properly recognized and followed in the trial phase. Thus, if a particular trial-judge were to have failed in his/her responsibilities in this regard, then the appellate level would have to deal with that. Clearly, several issues in that regard arose in the appellate hearing exchanges.


    A commenter wondered how any law-school trained attorney could – as a DA – commit such an overt violation of fundamental Western and American legal principles as to undertake an Ex Post Facto-flawed prosecution in the first place. One possibility is simply that the DA here is hugely incompetent. But that explanation does not cover all the bases: why would an incompetent want to call attention to himself by undertaking such a flawed prosecution and then calling-further attention to the case (and making himself a target)?


    I would propose that what we see here are the consequences of what I have called Victimism in recent American culture and law. Thus a) law-schools now teach the (very accused-averse) doctrine that any elements of ‘traditional’ American or Western law that in any way result in making it harder for a ‘victim’ (presumed, not proven) to get ‘justice’ have to be ‘reformed’ (meaning: weakened or removed).


    This approach is easier for a prosecutor to follow when the public-mind has been Stampeded (with media help) along Victimist lines (i.e. that anyone claiming to be a victim must presumed to be truthful and accurate and ii) that the consequences of almost any crime can be ‘traumatic’ (a term that was once more carefully boundaried, as in a hospital’s ‘Trauma Room’ or ‘Trauma Team’). Which dynamics are then supported by a robust media focus on the vivid and ‘traumatizing’ and ‘outrageous’ aspects of a crime, to the exclusion of any sustained concern over whether an accused actually committed it.


    If then we add to this lethal mix a) a prosecutor’s ambitions politically and/or b) various political pressures placed-upon the prosecutor, then we can see where a Perfect Storm in the legal arena, fed by derangements in the cultural arena, can occur.


    This line of thought is further reinforced by the prosecution’s efforts to focus not on the legal principles involved in this case, but rather on the concern for which the derangements of law and principle have been committed. In this case “the welfare of a child”. Thus the prosecution’s basic pitch and spin to the appellate judges is: if we just concentrate on what we want to achieve, then we don’t need to worry much about how we have deranged legal principles in order to do it. But any tyranny of the early-20th century made much the same type of argument: our glorious ends justify our bloody and extralegal means; in order to ensure the welfare and glory of the (fill in the blank: Russian, Italian, German) people then nothing can be allowed to stand in the way or obstruct our glorious Cause.


    In Victimism, this precise same argument and dynamic are propounded seductively, not in the service of a particular national ‘people’ (as in the early 20th century) but rather in the service of ‘The Victim’. (In an oddly skewed symmetry, concern for the ‘victim’ in international law in the late 1940s was developed out of the Nationalistic focus on a nation’s ‘people’ by internationalist-minded folks who thought that they could neutralize divisive Nationalism by creating a sort of unitive ‘international People’ based on the shared experience of being Victims.)


    Lastly, an appellate judge noted that the early behavior of Fr. Avery (who was supervised by Lynn and who had earlier been accused of “fondling” boys  - which Lynn had allegedly not done enough to stop) “was not so bad”. The judge here was speaking in the context of “rape”, besides which “fondling” is – comparatively – “not so bad”. (Let me save us some time here: versus Abusenik dogma, there is a spectrum; if you were a parent (and granted you would prefer never to have to face any instance on the sex spectrum) you would probably rather have your daughter/son come home and say ‘I was fondled’ rather than ‘I was raped’. Neither is pleasant, but only to some reality-challenged mind could the two possibilities be deemed equal.)


    Now as a Catholic I don’t want to see priests doing any “fondling” either (presuming that term is defined as some physical contact done for the purpose of sexual-pleasure and not simply patting some munchkin on the head for saving the Paschal Candle from tipping over onto the casket at a funeral Mass).


    But as a Citizen, I don’t want to see the old-school dynamics of totalitarian police states of yore imported into American culture and jurisprudence as a matter of ‘reforming’ them. Because the legal consequences of that Abusenik dogma that all sexual-contact is equally traumatic and assaultive works out in the legal forum to i) mean that all levels of physical contact must be maximally treated and that then ii) opens the door to the old-school totalitarian dynamic that any derangements of law and principle are worth it in light of the putative maximal awfulness of the ‘evil which must be obliterated and/or avenged. And things inevitably go downhill from there.


    • Mark says:

      Excellent post, Publion.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P here is a link to a Boson Globe story on the life long effects on a victim of child abuse. read it please

    • Publion says:

      In connection with the issue of the damage of child sex abuse, I am advised by JR to read – waitttt for ittttt – a newspaper article … and one from the Boston Globe. For which he provides a link.

      So I note first that JR’s level of informing-himself about matters is to consult the media. No studies apparently come to mind for him. (My own comment responding to his demand for “scientific studies please” did not go up until 947PM but it includes a Study and my assessment of the Study – but apparently while JR can mimic competent investigation by tossing on the combined Wigs of Assertive Outrage and Scientific Chops by demanding “scientific studies please” yet there is a double-standard since the rule doesn’t apply to him. Neat.)

      Second, the article is about a Study to which the Globe does not provide a link (so we have to take the Globe’s word for it on what the Study says).

      Third, the article itself is entitled “Effects of child abuse can carry over, study finds”. We note two points immediately: a) this Study is concerned with “child abuse” and not ‘child sex abuse’ (which is the gravamen of the comment I made about the appellate judge’s statement) and b) there is the use of the subjunctive rather than the indicative in the verb of the title: can, rather than does.

      Which points also immediately raise the question: Before asking me to “read it please” did JR read it himself?

      Now to the article itself.

      “The damaging consequences of abuse can not only reshape a child’s brain but can last a lifetime”. Fair enough. But does the Study examine long-term patterns of physical and emotional abuse or a single incident (or several) of (low-on-the-spectrum) sex-abuse? It focuses on “child abuse and neglect”, as the article persistently repeats. So the topic of this Study is not limited to child sex abuse, let alone the discrete and mostly individual instances of it that constitute the largest part of the allegations lodged against priests, as the Jay Reports set forth in both words and graphs/charts.

      “The consequences can last into adulthood” says the article.[Italics mine] Yes. Especially, I would imagine, if there was an extended and pervasive patterned experience of it, and especially if there were a) deprivation of essential nutrients and other vital experiences necessary to healthy child-development and b) actual physical abuse either in a sustained pattern or in specific instances of assault that resulted in physical trauma to the head and brain. Yes indeed. But none of these are involved in the allegations of sex-abuse lodged in the Catholic Abuse Matter and most of all of this concern is focused on the family or parental-substitute child-raising as the site for this “child abuse and neglect”.

      Indeed, the government researchers find that “while rates of physical and sexual abuse have declined in the past 20 years, rates of emotional and psychological abuse, the kind that can produce the most serious long-lasting effects, have increased.” [Italics mine]

      So what is JR’s point in recommending this Study in connection to the material we are working with on this thread?

      I advise everyone however to be on the lookout for a fresh crop of excited claims that ‘child sex abuse’ or even Catholic sex-abuse have caused – using the articles numbers – $80 billion in health and related costs, and have resulted in 3 million cases being reported, involving 6 million children and that researchers expect that the actual number is much higher. The Study also notes that 75 percent of all US cases are Neglect and only 25 percent are Abuse.

      The article says that the Study discusses “parental” causes, either in parental depression and other internal difficulties or else mortgage and unemployment issues.

      So while this is an important problem, it is not directly and substantially relevant to the issue under discussion here.

      The article quotes the researchers as saying that they still can’t get a handle on the complexity of the issues and that much more research is needed. I can recommend that heartily. Even to some commenters here. And they might even want to read this Study itself. I include a link to start them on their way.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You know when I was abused my perpetrators had no interest in my "quality of mind." They just abused me. But now and here my "quality of mind" becomes important to you. interesting.

  64. delphin says:

    "You do have to defend your religion if your religion is offering "holy eternal damnation" as a universal truth for all including the rest of us who think that's edited by moderator]."

    Here's the first lie; Catholicism does not teach eternal damnation for non-believers. Pope Francis just recently provided a firm restatement to non-believers on this teaching. Read the Catechism- its in there in plain English (which could be your problem).

    "You "believe" it. Why not prove it?

    No one has to 'prove' their faith to anyone else, it is a ridiculous, typical Atheist fall-back debate position that doesn't work, logically. Look up the word Faith, then, have an adult explain the concept to you. It is interesting that your devotion (worship?) to claimed victims 'hearsay' is based upon your Faith, your Religion. Do you worship Danny Gallagher, is he your god?

    "If you use such nonsense in your rebutal to real victims."

    'Real' victims can only attest to what they claim happened to them. And, even then, evidence is required (regardless of the current suspension of all sanity to persecute the Church) to prosecute a man. No one can attest to conspiracies or anything else outside of their own individual experience, or involving others claims. Your own relaying of others claimed experiences are no exception. You know no more about whatever it is they claim happened to them than we do. Objective evidence is required.

    "Show us how you know this as "truth" rather than hearsay? You can not."

    I am as sure of the Truth of God, His Son and the Holy Spirit and their Love for me as I am that my parents Love me. I can't prove either, but, it is true according to my own experience (not others), and Faith.

    [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You've had an "experience" with the trinity? Okay I believe you. because you believe you. When I was 5, I "saw" Santa arrive with his reindeer on my front yard on christmas eve. Did it happen? No. Were there reindeer droppings on the grass? No. There was no evidence Santa was ever there. Evidence is the key The human imagination can be breath taking in it's range.

      When victims or their lawyers present the evidence they have to the church through it's lawyers and to the insurors through their lawyers; there has to be a range of believability that the accusation made is true or not. They are the one's, the people on your side working rightfully to avoid fraudulent claims, who become the judge and jury.  They know that the majority of claims are true and they also know that if a seated jury saw the truth of victims' claims in a court room; both the church and it's insuror would have to deal with very high jury awards. They settle leaving the air unclean and themselves "technically" off the hook.

      Our first experience after seeing a lawyer and signing with her/him. You are sent to a psyciatrist, who asses the validity of your claims. If you pass her/his assesment you are then subject to an 8 hour( more or less) written test designed to catch fradulent efforts. You are questioned again and again having to repeat what happened.

      This was all done to me even though i had a letter and a visit by the head of the marianist order in California both saying they believed me.

      Prior to that, I went to the church's lawyer and psychiatrist with no lawyer. The shrink said he believed me in front of the church's lawyer. (the church's lawyer sure didn't like that.)

      So anyone who thinks that it's an easy process to behave fradulently and walk away with a pile of dough needs to think again. They will be found out. There is a functioning system in place tocathch fakers.

      Here's another point: The majority of victims are male and since the majority of males are heterosexual, the majority of victims are heterosexual males. Heterosexual males on the whole( even if they experimented as kids with their peers) never Never want to appear gay ever. So it's very hard for them to come forward and speak about what happened to them. Some are still faithful catholics and parents themselves. They don't want the world to know about what happened to them but still they have every right to seek justce for their injuries. They too have to go through their lawyers, a psyciatrist's evaluation and tests just as we all have..

      If perhaps a fraud  got through that gauntlet? That's terrible and very rare. I remember going to SNAP "meetings, where we did not share details about our cases ; I saw (and I was looking for them. Real victims do not want to be around liars either) no false accusations. Just injured people. Truely injured people.

      Now to Fr. "These Stone Walls": a D.A.  believed he was quilty of a crime and a jury found him guilty of that crime. He can say he was innocent but the system says otherwise. I find it hard to believe that someone would testify to put an innocent man in prison for 50 years so they could get 200,00 dollars. !40,000 dollars really after a contingency lawyer get's his cut.  Just MHO.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      And purgatory has gone bye bye. So what happens to those who don't believe as you? Your version of god does what with the majority of mankind when they die?

  65. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey D, I admitted when I was wrong about church fathers and witch burnings.( But who invented the " devil" in the first place?) When will you admit you were wrong about my Dennis Ecker link and apologize for your lying about that ?

  66. delphin says:

    What 'he' claims I said:

    "When will you admit you were wrong about my Dennis Ecker link and apologize for your lying about that ?"

    What I actually said:

    "Publion: "… that ‘dennis ecker’ communicated a draft to JR through off-site means which (with perhaps a few additions of his own) JR then put up here as his own."

    Jim Robertson: "The reason I posted for Dennis was because he'd written what I posted and when he tried to post it here. he could not. He'd get "403 forbidden message" and he didn't want his hard work attempting to communicate with you lost." And, then: "…46 paragraphs of… attacks and lies…"

    Looks like Publion solidly 'nailed it', so to speak.

    The "wigs" are alive!"

    So, exactly what is IT you think I need to 'admit to"?  You and your cheerleader are obviously collaborating and corrsesponding 'off-line', and you obviously posted under another posters name without providing the proper context.

    And, if 'they' can get these facts so incredibly worng, how well do we think they're doing on aged claims of being abused (or was it just an accidental brush, touch or glance or anything else incredibly misunderstood or misinterpreted or intentionally criminally portrayed for financial gain)?

    And, this is why hard evidence is required to convict a man of any, but, particularly a heinous crime. There was a good reason 'he said, he said' was inadmissable in any US court of [sane] law; it was to protect the innocent defendent from the guilty plaintiff, whether it be the state – or your average criminal and bigot.

  67. delphin says:

     "…However,the fact that the universe from every fact found so far is not bent to your mythology is a pity for you.

    Which 'facts' do you want to go by; the ones from thousands of years ago when we thought we knew everything, or now, when we think we know everything? What the human brain is capable of 'knowing'  is estimated to be less than 10% of its full capability. So, what is it, exactly, that you think you 'know'?

    Are only faithful catholics entitled to eternity and faithful catholics limitless universe.

    You are entitled to whatever your beliefs or your 'facts' tell you, to what, you are entitled. I only speak to my beliefs.

    Is there a day pass for Mormons or Muslims or Jews?You know they believe their religion is the center of the universe also."

    My religion is the center of my universe. I dont speak for others, never have, never will. Again, my religion leaves the door to salvation (and all the rewards that come with it) open to all. If you have questions about Judaism or Mormonism or Atheism (your religion), I suggest that you probe their adherents for answers.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What is it I know, you ask?. I know original sin is bull. Why? because we evolved to human beings en mass. There was no one to commit the original sin that Jesus came to die for.

      No Adam; no Eve.  No snake; no tree; no fruit,; no sin = no god. That's one thing I know.

      And I also know that any god that handed down the sin of 2 people to almost 7 billion of the original 2's decendants for eternity, is not just.

      Innocent billions of human beings paying for  the sins of 2. is deeply unjust.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Excuse me, aren't you obeying mandates that are 2000+ years old? Is the earth flat in your  belief system?

  68. delphin says:

    "The human imagination can be breath taking in it's range"

    Yes, like making the body and a corrupt/weak/susceptible mind believe it was molested/abused/observed/oggled/?  by a priest for financial gain, and/or, out of pure hatred for Catholics, when it really wasn't….

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator]

      Was fr Rattigan just "observing" when he took his picture of babies genatalia? Those photos just landed his butt a 50 year sentence in prison.

      what's the oggling part?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How do you know what really happened? You don't.  Ask your hierarchs to show you what really happened.  They have all the histories of the victims who've claimed abuse plus all the abusers histories.

  69. delphin says:

    "…Orwell was an athiest, you know."

    Even a dead atheist can be right twice in a lifetime ("broken clock' analogy); once about the prospect of a Big Brother government, which thanks to the leftist-socialist-despot agenda Obama has implemented has become a reality, and also about the Truth, as has been, and is being expressed via the persecution of the Catholic Church.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Persecution is redefined by you to mean no masacres of catholics? No rules against catholics? Exercising your religious beliefs with no one stopping you, that's persecution?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Orwell was also a socialist.

  70. delphin says:

    "What is it I know, you ask?. I know original sin is bull. Why? because we evolved to human beings en mass"

    Your faith in the theory of evolution is far less 'knowing' than my faith in God. There is scant evidence (data) of interspecies evolution. You know nothing; you hope and wager that you're right. That is belief.

    Abrahamic religion believers have personal relationships and/or experiences with God, regardless of your opinion or acceptance of their beliefs. Do Atheists have a personal relationship or experiences with evolution? Of course not.

    What's in it for you (Atheists) if you are right?  That's rhetorical, we all know, absolutely nothing. Nothing before, nothing much good in the here and now (except materialism for the few self-aggrandizing 'idols'), and nothing hereafter.

    It does appear that 'something' is affecting the proportion of Atheists to believers, worldwide- they are on the decline. It is estimated that Atheists will comprise only 1.8% of the population in 2020 as compared with 4.5% in 1970 (Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, Mass. 2013).

    Perhaps your 'evolution', more likely intelligent design, is finally resolving that little Atheist problem that has so plagued the world, especially the 20th century.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      No I don't hope and wager anythig. But you do if you're betting on intelligent design as a scientific fact.  It's not. We humans  are not the center of the universe. If we were don't you think we'd live longer healthier lives? Lives longer that 80 or 90 yrars at best. And those years fly by.  We are the center of nothing. We need  fortitude to deal with the fact that  we are like microbs to the universe, completely incidental. Yet to ourselves we are unbelievably important. And therin lies the tale. Cursed with rampant self importance man kind projected it's own narcissisn into space or mountain  tops or woods or streams: god.

       We are not his image and likeness. He is ours. We made him in all his permutations like a child makes a toy out of anying handy. If you ask your kid to draw a picture of god; they'll comeback with something. We imagined it all and yet it has used us for ill on the whole.

      Faith against faith has left tons of dead real people. Your old testements ,parchments vs your other faiths parchments

      . You see it here in D with her anti-islam biggotry. Try and remember we have bases. America has military bases in their holyland. Imagine if they had bases here? How would you feel?  We've bombed  our neigbors to smithereens. Hundreds of thousans dead, for what?

      How is our fellow man not made in the image of god just as you were according to your faith? Yet he is destroyed. His children destroyed. While yours and mine are not.  All on us; all due to us. America's carried the flag of jesus through many foreign lands leaving many dead on both sides and we are the best at it. We're number 1! YAY! Go team!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Don't be stupid of course "athiests have personal relationships and experiences with and to evolution" we are those experiences. Our very existence is that evolutionary experience.

  71. delphin says:

    "Persecution is redefined by you to mean no masacres of catholics? No rules against catholics? Exercising your religious beliefs with no one stopping you, that's persecution?"

    Just as there are degrees/stages/spectrum regarding what constitutes 'abuse', there is a similar range of stages regarding religious persecuton. See below, we are clearly at/beyond Stage 4-


  72. delphin says:

    "Excuse me, aren't you obeying mandates that are 2000+ years old? Is the earth flat in your  belief system?"

    The Truth, such as living things need air, water and food to survive is an ancient 'mandate', age is immaterial. The Truth transcends time.

    No Christian thought the earth was flat. The Truth about Christian philsophers and Church Fathers was distorted for political gains as we entered the so-called Rennaissance period- sound familiar? Ironically, only non-Christians were ever in the "Dark Ages".

    Make sure you read Aquinas' own words in Summa Theologica (imbedded in links in Prof. Franklin's article).

    And, before you go there, the whole Galileo 'affair' was antiChristian hype, as well.

    You know, you would do much better to get your Catholic formation via RCIA , or a parish priest. You seem to require a very basic re-education, from the lies and distortions you learned (or pursued), to the Truth. A decision as important as one that will greatly affect your remaining life on earth and beyond should be made in faith, with historical facts and real science as your guides.

  73. Publion says:

    There are several points in the JR comment of the 19th at 246PM that seem useful.

    First, I doubt that JR’s personal experience as a participating-allegant extends beyond the 500-plus plaintiff case that – as we recall – turned out to be his own piñata. Therefore to the extent that he now claims (or implies) that he is telling us about how ‘all’ of these cases and procedures go, then we have to keep in mind JR’s particular reportorial and story-telling ‘tics’ (and enough said about that). 

    Second, is there actually some established Protocol that universally (in the US anyway) governs the procedures for allegants’ participation in formal pre-trial activity? There are legal requirements for the attorneys to huddle, but that the allegant has to be deeply involved in that strikes me as implausible (to say nothing of the fact that tort attorneys would most likely have some difficulty with it).

     I can see the allegant being deposed under oath, of course. (And here wouldn’t it be something to see that deposition?) 

    But the 500-plus case is – as I have said before – not a reliable demonstration of how things work in these matters, even if it is reliably reported. 

    Because the case is – over and above its fundamental whackness as a ‘historical’ sex-abuse case – so very unusually large in terms of the number of plaintiffs, thanks to Anderson’s acute strategizing. (This was not a class-action case, by the way, where – to save us some time here – some might wish to claim that there have been far larger numbers of ‘plaintiffs’.) 

    As I have said before here, the classic Anderson strategy (as demonstrated in its fullness in the 500-plus case) was precisely designed to logistically overwhelm any usual pre-trial fact-finding and credibility efforts. Specifically, it would tip the balance of the calculus made by the Insurers as to whether they would fund a trial or a settlement. And, of course, few if any Dioceses or Archdioceses could contemplate its own funding of the usual tort-case-defense procedures when faced with (Anderson’s shrewdly-assembled) 500-plus allegants. 

    Therefore, a) I am not sure that all of the usual procedures were followed in the 500-plus case as they would have been in a smaller case (to the extent – we recall – that any abuse-claim against priests can be defended in this time of Stampede). But even if they more or less were, then b) the size of the allegant/plaintiff pool most likely created a gravitationally deranging pull to the effect that the Archdiocesan or Church side simply ‘went through the motions’ in going-through the usual legal procedures for tort cases. (Because I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing was deranged almost from the outset: the Insurers took one look at the size of the allegant/plaintiff-pool and simply and quietly told the Parties Defendant at the outset that this whole case was going to be ‘settled’ if the Insurers were going to be paying for it; nor would that very probable outcome have escaped Anderson’s savvy calculations in bringing his ‘bundled’ lawsuit in the first place.) 

    Thus: having been advised that the case was going to be ‘settled’ even before they began interviewing the 500-plus allegant/plaintiffs, I doubt seriously that defense counsel were interested in actually establishing ‘credibility’ (which would only be necessary for a possible trial) at all, and merely went through the motions legally required. This is – again – a reflection of the brassy brilliance of Anderson’s strategy as it was deployed in this case. 

    I can’t help comparing Anderson’s strategizing to the German Sichelschnitt strategy of Manstein’s by which they invaded and conquered all of France: cutting straight through the upper center of France heading for the Channel coast, they completely cut off the Allied forces in the north of France who themselves had been heading further north into Belgium – and thus the battle was for all practical purposes lost by the Allies before it ever actually began. 

    Concerning the psychiatric elements here (and the idea of JR facing a genuine and comprehensive psychiatric evaluation certainly do give pause) I am therefore also dubious. From a tactical stand-point, what would be the purpose of painstakingly establishing the ‘credibility’ of an allegant who was never going to face a trial anyway? 

    And from a clinical viewpoint, there is no way any psychiatric examination can establish the causal-link between the allegant/interviewee’s present damaged condition and the actual tort which the allegant has claimed under oath. (See on this thread my comment  of the 19th stamped 937PM.) The clinician may well be able to put forward a diagnostic picture of the patient’s various present derangements, but the clinician could not establish the causal-link between the present derangements and the (alleged) past abusive incident. 

    And this is of course one of the simmering pots still to be uncovered on the Stampede stove: when you have, say, a characterologically or mentally or emotionally or behaviorally deranged patient, how can you clearly distinguish between i) a more or less ‘normal’ victim who was suddenly (and seriously) deranged by an abusive incident and ii) a patient who was deranged long before the allegation and whose allegation is actually a product of the derangements rather than a result of any actual substantive damage caused by the alleged abuse …? This is the Causality Problem. And – as you may imagine – it is a very difficult area that Anderson or any competent tort-attorney would dearly love to avoid altogether (which the Anderson Strategy enabled them to do). We saw all this in the second (Billy Doe) Philly case with its multiple conflicting stories and its drug-abuse and so on. 

    And – but of course – JR’s spin (we’ve seen it before; it constitutes his immutable Talking Points, as in standard Press-Release strategy) that “they know that the majority of claims are true” and so is simply his personal crack-dream, although shared by others of his ilk. 

    And again, the brilliance of the Anderson Strategy is that it would move the Parties-Defendant and their Insurers toward a settlement – which is the ultimate goal of all torties; their ultimate goal is absolutely not to abstractly establish truth of their Plaintiff’s claim and credibility – simply on the basis of how much money it would take to contest 500-plus allegations (or plaintiffs; some had multiple allegations) regardless of how the juries might rule (although in a time of Stampede as we have in the Catholic Abuse Matter, there is no small chance of major expenditures there too). 

    Thus, before we even get to the Abuseniks’ cherished bits – that their allegations clearly must have been true since the Church didn’t take them to court and fight them because the Church knew it was guilty as sin and the allegants were purity and innocence and honesty and virtue personified  – we see that the legal-strategy dynamics Anderson set in train at the outset pretty much could have (and probably did) determined that he was going to get his settlements and would never have to put his collection of allegants on the stand anyway. (An awareness which, if shared with any allegant(s), would have done nothing to improve the veracity of the allegations and claims, and may well have had precisely the opposite effect.) 

    I would also point out that if “you” are sent to see a psychiatrist after ‘signing’ (it is like signing a big-pay  movie or ballgame contract, isn’t it?) then the psychiatrist is no doubt chosen by the tortie precisely because s/he can reliably be counted-upon to put his/her professional seal of approval on the clinical ‘proof’ of the client’s claims – by (but of course) avoiding the Causality Problem completely. That’s how it’s done. Same as when torties ‘go shopping’ for ‘experts’ whom they know will deliver an opinion favorable to their case and client(s). 

    And think of yet another fine bit of Anderson’s work: his ‘bundling’ strategy is supported by his Axis strategy with the media: i.e. the public is already Stampeded to be pro-‘Victim’ and anti-priest or Church – because ‘everybody knows’ that priests are pedophiles and so on and so forth. 

    Now we are then informed that JR “had a letter and a visit by the head of the marianist order in California both saying they believed me”.  Was that the letter that was sent after the Settlement and – I expect – as part of the terms of the Settlement? And did that letter actually say something clearly along the lines of ‘we believe you’?  (And we do recall the utter blandness of the cache of personnel documents released in regard to JR’s “perp”.) 

    And now – presuming of course the basic veracity of JR’s telling of the story here – he went to see a Church psychiatrist. If that psychiatrist (like the tortie psychiatrist, if there were two of them) were simply to catalog JR’s derangements, then that would be well within the scope of professional clinical assessment. However, once again the Causality Problem comes inexorably into play: that clinician could not establish the causal-link between JR’s present derangements and the alleged sexual-abuse (an arm across the groin; although there was something else, apparently, involving underwear). 

    And on top of the fundamental dynamic of the Causality Problem, there is the inescapable fact that Victimist dogma – amplified by the Stampede – had made it a gross ‘injustice’ and ‘outrage’ to attempt to question any claims or assertions by those who had proclaimed themselves ‘victims’. So – as Anderson also would have known – there was really nothing defense-counsel could have done with anything that they or their clinical assessor might have found that would tend to cast any claim or ‘story’ into doubt. Neat again. 

    Thus – and again and again and again – there is utterly no way that JR or anybody else of such a mind and purpose can demonstrably ground the claim that “anyone who thinks that it’s an easy process to behave fraudulently with a pile of dough needs to think again” – No, I would say that it doesn’t take too much thinking to realize that it was very very easy indeed. 

    Ditto that the instances of a “fraud” thus “getting through the gauntlet” are “very rare”. I think it would be remarkably easy, and that’s why the Catholic Abuse Matter has assumed the decades-long proportions it has assumed.  Under the pressures and circumstances of the dynamics I have outlined above here, there is no such “system in place to catch fakers”; indeed, the Anderson strategies are precisely designed to maximize the possibility that any allegant can pull-off what JR is trying to say is an almost impossible scam.

     And we also note that JR uses his attendance at “SNAP meetings” – although one of his hallmark claims is that SNAP is an agent of the Church (and it appears that few ‘victims’ have agreed with JR’s assessment of SNAP since – as he has claimed on this site – they have never gotten together to agree with him).So marvelous, no? 

    And once again we are informed by JR about what “real victims” want and think. He can prove that he has accurate knowledge (as opposed to personal belief – two very different things) of that, can he? Then let him demonstrate that, if he can.  

    And in regard to his rhetorical characterization of “truley injured people” [sic]: as I have said, we may well be dealing with damaged and deranged people here, but the key is whether that damage and derangement has been caused by the (most often) single and non-rape experiences that they claim. Or, in the unhappy but ominous alternative: have their pre-existing damages and derangements actually lubricated their allegations and claims? 

    Then we are treated to JR’s accumulated wisdom in the matter of what “heterosexual males” want and don’t want. In light of his own claims about himself on this site, then how does he imagine he can be a reliable source of that? And who on this planet actually ‘knows’ what all heterosexual males always and ever ‘want’ in such instances? How would one even go about trying to prove such assertions? 

    And and and and: if i) you “don’t want the world to know what happened to you” and yet still expect ii) to go to public organs of justice in order to “seek justice for” your “injuries” – then you have put yourself and the justice system in an impossible position: public justice requires – not to put too fine a point on it – public examination. And this is precisely where the wholesale fundamental derangement of Western and American legal principles had to be carried out in order to somehow make (ii) easy for (i). It must be laid at the door of pols and the media and legal professionals that such derangements have been carried out in the past few decades. (Although that may be changing-back: as I said the California SOL window passed that State’s Senate by only one vote, with many Senators abstaining, and now it has to be signed into the law by the Governor – who also has the option of not-signing it.) 

    So I will say that what we see in JR’s material – and have consistently seen over the course of numerous comments during the past year and more – is simply the repetition of what are essentially PR Talking Points, the refusal to engage any material that doesn’t fall within the pre-programmed parameters of his Talking Points (and his Cartoons), and no development in the material (such as it is, with or without expletives deleted) whatsoever. So what we see here is what we often see in political press-conferences where the PR person doesn’t want to have to face serious questions: just keep tossing your Talking Points at everybody (and – if you have a Wig handy – then claim that you don’t understand why you are being ‘victimized’ by questioners for not-answering the actual questions and for not-dealing with the problems in the material you are trying to put-over on them). So very neat. 

    And in regard to the These Stone Walls reference, I note that JR neatly relies merely on the trial, and not the appellate hearing. Which is hardly an adequate basis for assessment of the matter at this point. And if JR actually believes that there are not damaged and deranged people in this world who would “testify to put an innocent man in prison for 50 years so they could get 200,000 dollars” (correction of typo is mine) or 140,000 dollars then JR truly is living in a Cartoon universe. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If everything you say is true. Everything; then why are you talking about it? You're telling the scam artist, come forward.  You can win here. It's you saying it's so easy to do and it simply isn't. Percentile the frauds are miniscule but if the word gets out you'll be bamkrupted because ",well, people are  just like that. the vast majority are thieves." Is that what your saying? I don't believe that at all. People aren't like that just the opposite.  I don't believe any victims are making this stuff up. I sincerely don't.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Also before settlement we were all lined up and prepared to go to trial, immediately. All was ready to go by our attornies.  The first trial with 19 defendents against fr. Hagenbach was to begin in a week.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What monies I recieved; I was owed. For injuries incurred. I wasn't invited to a piniata party and was then blind folded and took a swing at crepe paper and cardboard. I was deeply harmed as were the vast majority of claiments. Such stupid insults.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Since when has bad spelling equated to anything other than bad spelling? Grow the f up ;and quit dismissing people. The only person here worth dismissing is you. Shut up!

  74. delphin says:

    "And purgatory has gone bye bye. So what happens to those who don't believe as you? Your version of god does what with the majority of mankind when they die?"

    Good grief, man, what in the world are you talking about?

    How is it you insist on attacking and criticizing a religion you clearly know nothing about?

    Pope Francis just also issued a very clear restatement of Catholic doctrine on what happens to good people when they die. Heaven (salvation)  is available to all believing and unbelieving repentent people of good will. It's strongly advised that you follow Catholic doctrine (the Narrow Road/Path/Gate), that which Jesus, the Son of God, established.

    Please, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you've been attributing Protestant and other anti/nonCatholic doctrine to Catholicism.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm sorry , you could be right. I thought purgatory had gone the way of st. christopher. It hasn't. It hasn 't. Yay, I get to be wrong. I never knew purgatory was a doctrine????

    • Jim Robertson says:

      . P.S. I looked up the apostles creed. Which I always thoght laid out the majority of catholic tenants. There was no mention of purgatory there. Could you please give me a reference as to the "doctrine" of purgatory? Thank you.

  75. delphin says:

    "Was fr Rattigan just "observing" when he took his picture of babies genatalia? Those photos just landed his butt a 50 year sentence in prison."

    There was apparently some hard evidence against this pig, and as so disposed, he deserves to be in prison, and also spend the rest of his days on earth repenting for his sins; perhaps converting and helping other lost (and perhaps some innocent) souls in hell on earth with him.

    Did you really think that anyone here, or TMR, would defend guilty priests, or guilty 'anybodies'? No special dispensation for priests or anyone else (teachers, athletic coaches, fathers, actors/artists, lawyers, judges, etc.) that truly (proof, evidence) harms a child!

  76. Jim Robertson says:

    And I'm not attacking your religion I'm critquing it. You don't get that enough. I'm no longer tugging the old forlock here. You are, that's your business.

  77. delphin says:

    "No I don't hope and wager anythig. But you do if you're betting on intelligent design as a scientific fact.  It's not." There is more scientific evidence for this theory than the theory of evolution. If totally at odds about which path to pursue, the best wager one can make is Pascals.

    "We humans  are not the center of the universe. If we were don't you think we'd live longer healthier lives? Lives longer that 80 or 90 yrars at best. And those years fly by.  We are the center of nothing. We need  fortitude to deal with the fact that  we are like microbs to the universe, completely incidental. Yet to ourselves we are unbelievably important. And therin lies the tale. Cursed with rampant self importance man kind projected it's own narcissisn into space or mountain  tops or woods or streams: god."  This statement is only true if you are an Atheist. Catholic faithful believe that God is the center of the universe. We are the epitome of his creation, but, only creatures, after all. Christians do not fear death; they welcome it as their reward for a good holy life well-lived. Length of life is immaterial to us, quality, not quantity rules.

     "We are not his image and likeness. He is ours. We made him in all his permutations like a child makes a toy out of anying handy. If you ask your kid to draw a picture of god; they'll comeback with something. We imagined it all and yet it has used us for ill on the whole." This is the Atheists view/belief, you are projecting your beliefs onto those of Catholicism. Just as you think you can create and worship your own earthly gods/idols (materialism).

    "Faith against faith has left tons of dead real people. Your old testements ,parchments vs your other faiths parchments" Atheism and paganism has caused more sinful death to humanity than all the 'religious' wars combined.

    ". You see it here in D with her anti-islam biggotry." Direct quote in context required. This is a lie.

    "Try and remember we have bases. America has military bases in their holyland. Imagine if they had bases here? How would you feel? The US has bases on those lands and in those nations of the middle east (nations whose boundaries were established by western nations)  where we have been invited or begged to establish such.

    "We've bombed  our neigbors to smithereens. Hundreds of thousans dead, for what?"  What 'neighbors' have we bombed to 'smithereens"…Canada, Mexico? If you are referring to middle east nations, hundreds of thousands and millions were being enslaved, oppressed, tortured, raped, and murdered by their own despotic regimes. We saved more lives in the long run with our military interventions than had we not intervened. Ask Clinton, Kerry and Obama, they can explain how it all works to you.

    "How is our fellow man not made in the image of god just as you were according to your faith? Yet he is destroyed. His children destroyed. While yours and mine are not.  All on us; all due to us. America's carried the flag of jesus through many foreign lands leaving many dead on both sides nd we are the best at it. All man is made in the image of God according to Catholic dogma. Man killing man is sin, an absolute mortal sin, not caused by God, but by mans sinful nature. America never waged a holy war in any land, domestic or foreign- that is a lie. America lost many sons and daughters fighting injustice around the world, much more so in her brief history than any other nation.

    We're number 1! YAY! Go team!"  We are number one, but, not due to our military might or our wealth, but, due to our faith, hope and charity as expressed in our compassion and generosity for the poor and oppressed throughout the world. Have more respect for the American blood that has been shed in the name of freedom.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You truely live on fantasy island. You know nothing about American foreign policy since WW2. We set up Hussein in Iraq and paid him from  the get go including manufacturing the gas he killed his Kurdish population with.. We ousted Mossadek in Iran, and overthrew his democratically elected government. We overthrew Allende in Chile and Lumumba in the Congo. We entered Viet Nam illegally first by funding the French there and then we created the puppet government and country called South Viet Nam. We then faked a non existant "incedent" in the Gulf of Tonkien and created a rapacious 10 year war costing millions of lives. we are now in 2 wars started over a self engendered 9/11. No other steel enforced buildings have ever collappsed due to fire. Those building stood for 50 years yet fell at free fall speed offering no ressistance as they collapsed; including building 7 that had two small fires and was not hit by a plane at all. It too fell at free fall speed. More miracles against the laws of physics happened that day than ever before in history.  An inside U.S. job in order to create an endless war on "terrorism" ,when if you judge a people by their actions, the U.S. has brought more terror than most into innocent families' lives.

      [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Pascals wager only proves your god false. Any god who would accept an immoral idiotic hedge like Pascals", isn't worth zip morally and therefore cannot be god.IMO.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Do you know that both the day of 9/11 and the day the British were attacked on the bus and in the train in London both those days both countries were conducting tests of their defense system against terror capabilities. Pretty amazing don't you think that both attacks should occur on such days? What are the odds? Beyond belief? It strains belief to breaking.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      There is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design. Absolutely none.

  78. Publion says:

    In regard to the JR comment of 855PM on the 21st: I can’t make sense of the first bits at all. As I read the text of it, he is asking that if I believe everything that I have said is true, then why am I talking about it – which makes no sense at all. And on top of that, surely, the very same question could be asked of him (if the question made any sense at all to begin with).


    Nor can it be accepted that all of this simply boils down to something like ‘differing beliefs’. JR offers nothing to support his claimed beliefs and there has been a sizable amount of material put up that works against the probability of what he has chosen to believe.


    Factoring in a) the dynamics involved as I enumerated them, b) the stated strategies of Anderson and the general tort attorney principles and objectives, c) the clinical principles involved, d) the demonstrated queasiness of presentations in all the Abuseniks on this site plus the (non-)material in the document-cache releases plus what we have seen in the Billy-Doe trial, e) the trajectory of Victimist legislative changes, and f) what we have discussed about the Stampede … we are asked instead to credit JR’s mere assertion that “the frauds are miniscule”.


    And to do so because he “doesn’t believe any victims are making this up”. Which is then frosted with the follow-up “I sincerely don’t”.


    About which the only thing to be said is: whatever he ‘sincerely believes’ is no basis for assertions that he ‘knows’. (And was this clear conceptual confusion between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’, between ‘belief’ and ‘fact’, operative in his own allegations and claims? Such that he can conceive of (as he once wrote here) something called “my truth” as distinct from ‘the truth’?


    If “people aren’t like that just the opposite” [sic] then why do we have police and courts and law-codes in the first place? And if “people aren’t like that just the opposite” then wouldn’t that include clergy? Or is “people” actually intended to have some extra limitations that the word itself does not carry?


    Dots don’t connect here at all in this comment. Regardless of whether his assertions and claims involve sincere belief or otherwise, nothing holds together rationally and coherently in the comment.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The vast majority of people do not commit crimes. Certainly not fraud. Those who do and are caught go to jail. So what does any of that have to do with when the vast majority of your victims are not fraudulent either. That's the corner you've painted yourself into. You've no proof, again.

  79. delphin says:

    "And I'm not attacking your religion I'm critquing it. You don't get that enough. I'm no longer tugging the old forlock here. You are, that's your business."

    What does "your [any] religion"  have to do with minors being abused? My religion didn't abuse minors, evil men did. My religion (unlike others) teaches the direct opposite of what happened to those abuse victims. Catholicism is the most maligned and critiqued religion on earth, and Christians are the most persecuted, worldwide. Apparently, we do get quite enough of 'that'.

    Nobody is 'forelock tugging'; the faithful are served by the Church's heirarchy, not the opposite. The Pope serves the Church's and is Jesus' ultimate servant on earth; he serves us all, even you, and we worship only God.

    You have a very distorted/warped view of Catholicism, and God. You allowed yourself to believe the lies. You may continue to do so, but, you do need to be corrected when you submit erroneous statements.

    All you have to do to find the Truth is read the Bible and the Catholic Catechism. What's the point of fighting ghosts?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Wasn't it you who brought god and the devil into the conversation as real in the first place? You use them, particularly the devil, in our dialog as an excuse for your hierarchy, the devil made them do it? Their behavior is satan's attack on the religion , is that what your saying? Or is it us victims who've spoken up or is it any media outlet that mentions it? Are we all a part of  your imaginary satan's plan?  And is this plan and our participation in the "plan" amusing; sorrowfull or just plain boring to god? Or is he watching American Idol?

      Exactly how are the hierarchs serving you more than you are serving them?  I am watching Pope Francis's attempt to drag you're reactionary asses into the 21st century. And though he's changing nothing. Dogamatism with a happy face. If he tells you all jump. You will fall all over yourselves to say: " how high?" Or go join Mel Gibson and his Dad's church.

      I told you I became an athiest by reading the bible and noticing the contradictions. Jehrico for starters. God says thou shalt not kill. Then he tells Josuha to kill every man; woman and child and rip the unborn from the wombs and kill those. I mean that is one Mother of a contradiction.

  80. delphin says:

    "…the vast majority are thieves." Is that what your saying? I don't believe that at all. People aren't like that just the opposite.  I don't believe any victims are making this stuff up. I sincerely don't."

    …Unless, they happen to be priests proclaiming their innocence.

    The Law of Probability says otherwise regarding victim claimants (sans evidence). It is as likely they are lying, as they are telling the truth (50:50), only, if there is no reward for a particular behavior to tilt the odds ('weighting', 'handicapping').  Add a benefit of reward for either side of that behavior and you tilt the odds in favor of a particular outcome, which leads to dishonesty.

    Once the deliberation and discernment process was soiled by money and intentions fueled by hatred for Catholics, truth and honesty and how we should receive and perceive any claims went out the window.  All claims must be viewed through a prism distorted by hate and money, the gods of many on earth.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      And where's your proof for these assertions of falsehood on the part of claiments? Scientific studies? Even scientific claims written in a newspaper? Any thing? Or did god just "tell" you?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I come from an America very different from yours. I come from an America that honors it's word. Where the vast majority of people try real hard to do the correct thing by everyone they meet. I come from where debts are paid as a matter of honor and personal selfworth. The majority of people are pretty decent people. That in part has changed since Reagan (Daddy said do what you want and the country did it. Screw them commies). And look what the Chicago School and Ayn Rand hath wrought. Paradise with no virgins. just hysteria and arrogance being emphasized over brotherhood. We are all in the same life boat. Must we steal loot and pillage each other while we're here?

  81. Publion says:

    A few thoughts.


    First, I include at the bottom of this comment a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Purgatory. This reference site will also give an opportunity to anyone interested to peruse a reliable source of information about Catholic teaching and doctrine and dogma.


    Second, in regard to the (22nd, 1057AM) 500-plus allegant/plaintiff case of half a decade or so ago, the readership is welcome to weigh the probability of the settlement process authentically coming down to a dramatic last-minute affair. Whether JR is sufficiently reliably informed as a legal observer to distinguish between i) whatever posturing went on between counsel and ii) the authentic dynamics that took place (especially on the part of the Parties Defendant and their counsel and Insurers) is also up to the readership to weigh. He is certainly not a disinterested observer, nor probably a competently informed one.


    Third, (22nd, 1120AM) it is up to the readership to weigh the probability of the assertion that JR was “owed” his settlement “for injuries incurred” from the arm-across-the-groin and whatever involved “underwear” (as he mentioned during this past summer’s consideration of the document-cache release of personnel files of his “perp”).  As I mentioned here previously on this thread: it is precisely the challenge posed by the Causality Problem that third-party observers (clinical professionals or laypersons) must distinguish between i) a damaged person whose damages can be shown to have stemmed from the (allegated) incident(s) and ii) a damaged person whose damages or derangements pre-existed the (allegated) incident(s).


    And a corollary issue is to weigh the probability that comprehensive and/or profound damage in a personality or personal functioning can be effected i) a) in such a relative short time by b) the (allegated) incident(s) or whether instead ii) the damages are so comprehensive and/or profound that the probability is stronger – perhaps much stronger – that the allegant’s derangements and damages had been long-present in the self.


    And then that if (ii) there doesn’t then also exist the possibility/probability that the allegant’s own pre-existing issues (cognitive, emotional, behavioral, characterological) did/do not actually play a causative role in the lodging of the allegation itself in the first place.


    As can be seen, no tort attorney is going to be happy to have these very real probative difficulties raised and hashed-out in open court. But the overall Anderson strategizing neatly neutralized this whole set of difficulties neatly and – with the media’s prior help – effectively.


    Now when I stay on this topic I am not so much interested in JR’s particular case and getting into his business as I am using the case as a useful example of all Catholic Abuse Matter and Stampede cases.


    And as I have also said and as is clear from my careful wording in all of my comments on this particular issue, the best anybody can do – especially on the internet – at this point is to weigh the possibilities/probabilities according to the best logic and common-sense that can be brought to bear.


    Nor, of course, can JR’s assertion that he was “deeply harmed” by what he alleges happened to him simply presume its own accuracy and veracity. Nor can the further assertion about the accuracy and veracity of “the vast majority of claiments” [sic] And as I believe has been demonstrated by the material I have put up on this thread and the many I have put up on prior threads, there is nothing of the “stupid insults” in these considerations whatsoever. And that characterization itself merely raises the question as to whether we are dealing here with typical fry-fly epithets in lieu of substantial material or whether we are dealing with a basically primitive level of dealing-with complexity and challenge. And that’s as far as I am going to go with that thought here.


    Fourth, (22nd, 141PM) I point out that I do not ‘dismiss’ commenters – or, more accurately, their material – simply for poor spelling. I do take issue with the rationality, coherence, and other such qualities of the material. And there arises here yet another set of possibilities: is JR actually as poor a speller as his material would suggest, or is the poor spelling simply a deliberate effort to convey some impression to the reader of somebody too simple and ‘innocent’ to spell well (as opposed to the putatively educated sharpies who can spell better but that only indicates that they are using their education in the service of Complex Evil against JR’s putative Unlettered Innocence). As if – being uneducated and putatively ‘innocent’ – such a poor-speller would be incapable of coming up with a false allegation. That sort of thing.


    Lastly, of course, I am not going to “shut up!”. What we have a chance to do here on this site is look at material that up until now has largely been given a free-pass by the media, in order to try and get a better grasp of what is and has-been going on in the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede. This type of analysis was not ever supposed to happen: the Anderson strategizing did its very best to prevent this sort of analysis and I have no doubt that torties following that strategy gave their allegant/clients the impression that it never would happen. But that was then.


  82. Publion says:

    JR has (22nd, 1100AM) opened up an opportunity that I would like to take: “There is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design. Absolutely none”.


    We had seen this issue raised in some of my exchanges some months ago with (the not-real-name commenter) ‘Boston Survivor/Learned Counsel’. I’d like to go into the matter at some greater depth here, since it seems useful to do so in order to a) correct some mis-impressions and b) demonstrate the depth and range of complexity involved in this and similar subjects.


    First, the issue of the Origin of Life (as distinct from the Process of Life) is not a purely religious one and enjoys valid status as a Scientific Question. Darwin’s theory of Evolution as it has itself evolved, proposes an Answer to this Question (and, indeed, is widely held to constitute The Answer to the Question and has enjoyed that status among its proponents (Evolutionists and Neo-Evolutionists) pretty much since Darwin proposed his theory in 1859). And for most of that period of time it has been embraced by many who were and are happy to see Darwin’s theory as supporting a ‘modern’ and ‘scientific’ and ‘secular’ approach to human life and affairs.


    But as I said, we have to distinguish between i) the ongoing development of Life and ii) the Origin of Life. Darwin himself, and in conversations with his contemporary fellow-scientist Louis Agassiz, acknowledged that his theory (he did no experiments in formulating it, relying on observations and his own speculation and theorizing) did not account for the Origin of Life and – rather – only (merely, one might wish to say) proposed a theory of how some pre-existing Life and biological matter (as in ‘material’) developed over time, through the mechanisms of Natural Selection acting purely Randomly on that pre-existing bio-matter.


    But what remained unanswered was the question: Where did that pre-existing matter come from in the first place?


    Especially as the biological sciences have advanced in the past 150 or so years, the Question can now be even more specifically put: Given that it is now and ever-increasingly established through accepted scientific research how vastly complicated is the directing ‘information’ encoded in DNA, the Question of the Origin of Life comes into a much sharper and more acute focus: Where did all this directing ‘information’ come from, by which the cells are given instructions as how to form themselves to achieve even the most basic organic life-forms?


    And the problem is not made any easier when – as the fossil record reveals – there was a veritable ‘explosion’ of complex (though hardly yet human) life forms in the Cambrian period. Darwin’s theory would call for very long periods of time over which his required Random Mutation would operate through Natural Selection, slowly working its way through unimaginably vast possible combinations (in some cases up to 10 to the 41,000th power) simply to achieve the most basic viable organisms.


    Proteins are the building blocks of the DNA, but where did the directing ‘information’ come from to form even the most basic proteins which would then have to arrange themselves precisely and specifically and functionally in order to form the DNA that would then direct the formation of the cells?


    Such complex and specified information – to be pulled out of that unimaginably vast pool of possible combinations – cannot with any degree of mathematical probability be presumed to be the result of any random mutation because there simply isn’t a) enough time (even in the entire history of the known universe since the Big Bang) in order to b) hit randomly upon even the simplest accurately encoded directions necessary to form the proteins that would form the DNA that would direct the formation of the cells. (For that matter: which came first, the information necessary to form the proteins or the proteins necessary to carry the encoded information?)


    A few examples.


    You are in a strange city and have forgotten the phone number of the person you are supposed to meet in a few hours. You know that all phone numbers must consist of a sequence of 10 numbers each from the  range of digits 0 through 9. But the challenge facing you is not simply to i) put 10 digits together – you might get a sequence of numbers that does not correspond to any working area-code and individual phone number. So you must also ii) hit upon a working sequence of digits that constitutes an actual working phone number. But that’s not enough either, because you need iii) the specific sequence of digits that constitute a working phone number that is also the specific phone number of the person you need to call. As you can see, if you simply decide to randomly work through all the various possible combinations of digits for each number in the sequence it is very very very unlikely that you are going to come upon the specified and complex set of precisely the sequence of digits that constitute the working phone number that connects you to your person.


    And since we are working with bio-matter, then there is another complication: imagine you are in Las Vegas and you have to roll the number 7 for 777 consecutive throws (the number is not pulled out of thin air but is related to that vast complexity necessary to create even the simplest proteins that create the DNA that directs the development of even a single cell) but also you are given a set of dice made of white chocolate with milk-chocolate constituting the dots (chocolate capturing the biological nature of the thing here). You now have to work your way through the possibilities to get to your goal while the very matter you are using is degrading every time you touch the dice. Thus the time element. The chances are very very very good that you are going to suffer the degrading of the very instruments or matter you are using long long long before you ever throw the necessary sequence (already hugely improbable) of 777 ‘7s’.


    Thus, as one scientist put it: to imagine that Random Mutation acting on Natural Selection can account for the Origin of (biological) Life is about as probable as a tornado momentarily passing through a Kansas junkyard assembling a fully operational 747. (And – I would add – a fully capable flight crew as well.)


    The math required to account for the complex and specific functional ‘information’ necessary to achieve even the simplest strings of 150 or so proteins necessary for the simplest cells is simply beyond the probabilistic resources of the known universe since the Big Bang. (Presuming that matter cannot move faster than the speed of light, and other factors, the mathematical field of possibilities contained in the entire known universe is only 10 to the 139th power, while the range of possibilities required to achieve in a simple single 150-protein string is 10 to the 164th power – and, again, that is for merely a single sequence for a very very basic protein … we haven’t even gotten to multi-cellular and 400-plus protein sequence strings necessary for basic but complete living creatures, let alone for the more complex forms going up the bio-ladder from mono-cellular organisms through mammals and to humans.


    The math simply won’t work for Evolution.


    Nor – as I mentioned – can Evolution answer the Questions: b) where did the ‘bio-matter’ to be evolved come from in the first place and a) where did the necessary complex and specific functional encoded directions to form that matter in the first place come from?


    And as we now know, that very encoding is now seen to be very similar to the coding in computer software. (And computer software does not evolve; it is designed by some directing and purposeful intelligence, as we know.) Even Richard The-God-Delusion Dawkins acknowledges that. Nor – as we have seen above – is there nor has there ever been enough time in the universe’s existence to achieve the complexity of bio-life forms we now have simply through random and undirected processes. It is mathematically very very very improbable. (In fact, when you get up to probabilities like 10 to the 41,000th power, you are pretty much for all practical purposes approaching Zero probability … the wonders of math and science.)


    Which leaves – from only mathematical and biologically-established scientific information as it currently stands – the logical possibility (perhaps probability) that there might very well be some designing intelligence that operated (and perhaps operates still) in order to pull just the right necessary sequence of combinations out of those unimaginably vast fields of possible combinations.


    For example: if you and a bunch of friends given a problem the solution of which will net you a prize of one million dollars, and are given a padlock with 4 settings, each of which consists of a digit frin 0 through 9, and told to try and find the one combination that is going to open the lock, and while you’re trying one of the other persons hits upon the right combination within ten seconds … would you figure that was random chance or luck? Or would you figure that s/he somehow had gotten the combination from somewhere beforehand? You would not be paranoid to make such an intuitive inference, given what you rightly sense (even if you can’t do the precise math) must be a huge range of possible combinations.


    There is a distinction to be made between the scientific theory of Intelligent Design and what is popularly known as ‘Creationism’: the latter is a religiously-based effort to insist that the Biblical imagery must govern any scientific findings. Whereas the former, Intelligent Design, is a scientifically-grounded theory some of the basic elements of which I have tried to sketch here.


    We also recall that there is actually no ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ of a) Darwin’s theory of the Origin of Life or b) Darwin’s theory of Evolution or any of the later efforts of Neo-Darwinists to plaster over their basic theory’s problems (some of which I have sketched above).


    Lastly, I would say that this is all hugely relevant for religion and for Catholics (the Church has for 150 and more years been roundly abused for not getting on-board-with ‘modernity’ in its hallmark form of materialistic evolution (i.e. that all life on earth is the result of mere material processes, undirected and purely random, and that thus this ‘proves’ that there is no ‘need’ for a God and thus that there isn’t really a God).


    Because if Intelligent Design is accurate – and the probability of that, especially in light of the vast and profound improbability of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian Evolution as valid explanations of the Origin and the Process of life, is hardly inconsiderable – then a) a vital fundament of modern secularist (and atheist) thought is undermined and b) the scientifically-established probability of some Designing Intelligence (which is not to be equated, admittedly, with any particular religion’s concept of God) becomes the most plausible and probable explanation we have as to the Origin and Process of Life. (Which is what the Greeks and all subsequent philosophical and even scientific thinkers had been saying right up until the late 18th and the 19th centuries.)


    The wonder of it all.


    To readers wishing to read further I can strongly recommend as an informative starting point two of Stephen C. Meyer’s recent books: Signature in the Cell and (2009) and Darwin’s Doubt (2013). It is some of his ideas that I have sketched and summarized here.

  83. delphin says:

    "There is absolutely no evidence for intelligent design. Absolutely none."

    Well, he is finally right about something- not in his neighborhood, LA, is there any evidence of intelligent design…absolutely none.

  84. delphin says:

    Jim Robertson says: Sept 22 2013 @10:10 am

    Cited post is the typical leftist antiAmerican rant wrought with propoganda which deteriorates into the usual conspiracy laden bunk.


    And, this is also exactly how they depict the Church abuse matter. All fluff, bluster and insanity; no bones or meat.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Maybe you know nothing about American government history. That included giving syphilis to blackmen in Tuskegee. And letting them die horribly of the disease when they could have easily been cured.

  85. Publion says:

    JR asserts (the 23rd, 627PM) – and with nothing to support it – that “the vast majority of people do not commit crimes”. The noted defense and civil-liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate said recently that the Federal codes are now so pervasive in their scope that the average citizen probably commits three Federal crimes a day and doesn’t realize it.


    I point out again: for quite a long time now on this site it has been pointed out to JR that groundless assertions that he tosses-off are not going to get an approving reception. But instead of changing, he continues to do so – the only change we see is an effort to mimic competent and useful commentary by claiming that he gets on “proof” from others.


    And (23rd, 620PM) we also see what is either a Wig or a fantasy Cartoon of this country (and perhaps human society generally) or both: he “comes from an America … that honors it’s word” [sic] Puh-leeeeze. In the first place, why then do we have criminal and civil codes, courts, and police? In the second place, does JR actually imagine that the record he has amassed here supports his claims of reliability and accuracy, veracity and honesty?


    Whether he actually thinks the readership is whacked-out enough to accept his claims, or whether we are simply dragooned into being the audience for his personal soap-opera … is for the readership to consider.


    And if he wants to bring Ayn Rand (for whom I hold no brief whatsoever) into this, then I will bring in Monoplanar Secularism: look what has happened in the almost five decades since the government and the various elites embraced this cultural approach with all its power and authority.


    I certainly do agree that “we are all in the same lifeboat”. But I note that his final point is not asserted as fact but rather – undermining his initial assertion – a plaintive exhortation not “to steal loot and pillage each other”. Which leads the train-of-thought to the inference that a great deal of all that does go on.


    Nor can we avoid the thought that in all the material presented by the Abuseniks here we have hardly seen clear and compelling examples of honesty and integrity and veracity, let alone rationality and coherence and plausible accuracy.


    And the Wig of Disappointed But Sturdy Integrity  - well, we haven’t seen that one trotted out onto the stage too often. And plopped firmly on top of the Wig of Exhortatory Goodness. Where does he find room for all those hat-boxes?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Is that it ? That's all you got? you call me a few names; question my veracity and sanity. Yet you believe two human beings floated up to heaven, As dogma. The first like a very slow rocket the second as if gently sucked up by a heavenly vacum.

      And my sanity is questioned?

      If heaven really isn't in outer-space. Why did they both go up? If this was pitching in baseball wouldn't that be a balk?

  86. Jim Robertson says:

    When you have no answers for real questions raised by 9/11 and how after an hours burn time three buildings collapsed . One of which was not hit by a plane. You say another conspiracy theory and poo-poo it. Yet you believe in virgin births; resurected dead and eternal life. Facts don't seem to interest you.

  87. Publion says:

    JR (23rd, 607PM) addresses a question (to whom it is not clear): “where’s your proof for these assertions of falsehood on the parts of the claiments?” [sic] Given the amount of material that I have put up discussing rational possibilities and probabilities and explaining at length, and that I have often said that it is impossible to prove anything on the internet … then can he not read? Or is there some deliberate refusal to read what is actually in front of him? (I would say the latter, since to do so would make it obvious to him that has to respond to the material – which he has just about never done substantively; instead the reach for the one-liner assertion if not also the ketchup bottle (and the expletives-deleted and the orders to “shut up!”).


    Then he slyly sneaks in this bit: “even scientific claims written in a newspaper”. But as we saw on this thread just a few days ago, he hadn’t even read – or had not at all comprehended – such “scientific claims written in a newspaper” which he himself had recommended.


    Nor has he come back to that topic. Bringing us once again to the whacky M.O. here: do the plop-tossing and then move on and don’t look back. This is a PR strategy, not an effort to engage in deliberation (or even debate) but simply to keep repeating the (very few and primitive) Talking Points on one’s agenda and nothing else.


    The swamps of PR and the swamps and wallows of primitive mentation are, of course, very real. But what happened in the Stampede was that various interests actually mixed these two techy chemicals in the lab for their own purposes, and turned the resulting gas loose on the internet and on the public.


    Such that we now have here basically an effort to conduct some sober and serious inquiry, while having to humor the rants of somebody who is – at best – not ‘altogether well’ (as the Brits would tactfully put it) yet who consistently demonstrates a queasy habit of trying to manipulate us by whatever means possible (Wigs, ketchup, the various gambits of the Playbook, and so on).


    It is what it is. I don’t object because there is at times useful material to be gleaned (JR trolls and reveals regions where many would not otherwise go). But at the risk of bursting what I think is a very deeply-rooted delusional bubble – shared by Uber Power Wig Ecker – these two are not conceptual superheroes and paragons of acute insight, accurate information, and basic honest dealing. And that’s OK. But it is what it is – and nothing more.


    I have no idea to which preceding comment his comment of the 24th at 1206AM refers. It would be delicious to imagine that in response to the scientific and mathematical material put up in my comment that went up on the 23rd at 1102PM, JR had nothing to say except that stunning one-liner “completely untrue”. But I can’t indulge that thought because I am not sure mine was up when he composed his own. Still, it’s hardly impossible and would not surprise if it were actually the case.


    Whatever betide, let us proceed.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Now i'm supposed to pretend that constantly rationalizing my perspectives as wigs hasn't been insulting; that you were never intending to be demeaning by such descriptions. Pull the other one.

  88. delphin says:

    "You say another conspiracy theory and poo-poo it. Yet you believe in virgin births; resurected dead and eternal life. Facts don't seem to interest you."

    A not-so-cute attempt at conflating faith with 'man-made disasters' and whacko conspiracy theories. Not exactly analogous for the sane.

    So, you're a 'truther'; are you a 'birther' and an 'Area 51' guy, too – did the aliens (not the ones running through your backyard out there is LaLa land) kidnap you and molest you? Perhaps they were wearing vestments?

    Yet, we're implored to believe the whacko-birds conspiracy theories surrounding the Church abuse matter.

    Not likely.

    Here's a deal; let your life continue to be guided by your faith in evil and pure insanity (and evolution, perhaps if you live long enough you will revert back to an amoeba?), and I'll let my life continue to be guided by my faith in God.

    We likely won't have to worry about crossing paths outside of TMR-

    • dennis ecker says:

      "We likely won't have to worry about crossing paths outside of TMR"

      Thank Ya Jesus

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delf ,you are ,to put it a gently as possible , no one to be judging other's sanity.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm no birther and no area fifty one'er either.. Nor do i believe in heaven or hell or purgatory or a free lunch Nor did I forfiet my right to believe any f'ing thing I want and still be compensated for my injuries..  As usual with you sunshine Nobody cares what you think about victims. The church and you are desperate to find a number of false cases. But there aren't enough to be counted on the fingers of one hand.

  89. Publion says:

    The mechanics of posting have put JR’s comment of the 25th at 1051AM right after mine of the 24th at 405PM the 24th at 936AM. Since he is unable or unwilling to identify which comment it is to which he is responding, then I will go with the conclusion that he is responding to mine.


    I point out first then when I describe the Wig-dynamics I am not calling-names; I am describing the actual dynamics that I am convinced are operative here, in the several Abusenik commenters. I have gone to great lengths to explain those dynamics captured in the ‘Wig’ imagery: that persons – either knowingly or pre-consciously (due to long-standing habit) – assume various ‘poses’ that are simultaneously revelations of interior dynamics as well as being ‘shows’ put on to manipulate others.


    It is my assessment that when a ‘Wig is put-on’, this sequence involves going into a particular ‘gear’ within the individual, wherein a welter of presumptions about a) the self (I am an innocent and genuine victim here; I hold the moral and conceptual high-ground here; I am the hero here) and about b) others (they are victimizing me by not believing me; they are evil as well as dumb – because they refuse ‘my truth’ even though is as clear as day that I am honest and accurate and right here), leading thus and then to c) actions (telling stories and making mere claims and assertions, attempting to manipulate and control the responses to their material by others) while simultaneously d) deploying various rationalizing justifications to themselves (I am in a good cause so whatever I do or say here is OK; I am victimized so I cannot possibly lie; they are evil and can have no other motivation for doubting and questioning me except that they are evil; whatever I can do to make them look bad and myself good is therefore in a good cause and is a good thing).


    I also note that this sequence can also work in describing what addicts of various types engage-in when (or if) they have to explain themselves or justify themselves, either to others or in their own mind. (Ever directly asked an alcoholic or drug-addict what’s-up with his/her behavior?)


    I also note that torties would have every reason to encourage this whole skein because a) it’s always good to have allegant/plaintiffs who actually believe in the rightness and goodness of what they are doing; b) especially if the actual truthfulness of their specific allegation(s) is a little mushy (because their ‘good cause’ and its good purpose will thus redeem – so to speak – the mushy and perhaps untruthy means by which they intend to achieve their ostensibly ‘good’ purposes); and – but of course – c) there is a whole lotta cash to be made if everyone is on the same page and everyone is agreed as to the overall rightness and goodness of the whole skein and scheme.


    So – yes – I question, in some cases here, on the basis of the substantial among of material I have seen over time  – both the ‘sanity’ and the ‘integrity’ of the persons posting that material, as well as the rationality and coherence and accuracy and veracity of the material itself. All of which I have explained at length and repeatedly.


    As to the ‘sanity’ of certain widely and historically-established religious beliefs: it all hinges on the initial ‘universe’ which the assessor-of-sanity inhabits: if that assessor does not accept in any way i) the existence of a Multiplanar human existence wherein other Planes of Existence a) exist and b) are capable of interacting with the Plane of Existence we might call ‘this world’ or – in my terminology – the Monoplane, and if the assessor thus does not accept in any way ii) the possibility of any reality (and thus any ‘explanations’) that are not limited to the materialist and secular Monoplane … then any expression of religious belief will appear other-than-sane.


    However, the insistence upon the merely Monoplanar is itself a presumption of belief (i.e. that there is no Multiplane) for which there is no convincing proof. From the viewpoint of scientific and historical research, one would have to say that the existence of a Multiplane is – at the very least – a possibility or a hypothesis for which there is no material proof one way or the other. (Although given what I have mentioned about some of the otherwise-inexplicable events at places like Lourdes, I would say that there is indeed actual historical and material evidence of events that cannot be explained by any other thesis except that there actually is an active and interactive Multiplane.)


    I will go further. One might say then that a person who comes to the clinical or scientific interview claiming to talk to rabbits named Harvey has as valid a ‘belief’ as any religious belief. And this raises the point about the discipline of doctrine that has especially characterized the Church and the centralizing or centripetal pressure of the hierarchy and the Vatican (precisely the influence modern ‘liberalizing’ and ‘secularizing’ interests would like to see weakened in Catholicism as it has been weakened – deliberately self-weakened, actually – by mainstream liberal Protestantism in the past two centuries, but also going way way back to the early Christian community’s various theological and doctrinal and dogmatic debates and on up through the Reformation).


    And the point is this: once the existence of an active and interactive Multiplane is accepted, then ‘religious belief’ is confronted with the challenge of untamed human imagination. Why not have rabbits named Harvey as equally valid representatives of that Other (or Higher) Plane of Existence as the saints and the God of the Old Testament and the God revealed by Christ? Why not the gods of the pagans (who were certainly not atheistic) and the various beings of the wood and forest and sea and stream and air?


    This was, I would say, the great challenge to the Church: how i) retain a focus on the revelation-through and relational experience-with Christ and ii) avoid the utter dissipation of the human imagination and humans’spiritual coherence and integrity through a wholesale raising-up of pixies, elves, leprechauns, nymphs, demigods, demi-urges and – a problem which still bethumps in an ancient way – demons?  And to all this has to be added the question of ‘magic’: what about the effort-to and belief-in harnessing some form of Multiplanar power for human purposes through various magical and sometimes ‘witchy’ (no gender specificity intended here) means?


    And – contrary to popular misconceptions – I point out that in many locations in Europe and Asia-Minor and other places, various local peoples refused to completely accept Catholicism and instead accepted it but layered it over their own prior pagan or naturalist or animist beliefs. As late as the 19th century the Sicilians, for example, had such a belief system still so strongly in place that they could take their local saint’s statue and beat it or kick it or toss it into the river if the saint did not produce sufficient responses to the requests they made. (Far different from the Irish approach and – when the Southern Italians arrived here in great numbers during the Great Immigration of the 1880-1920 – it was one of the reasons why the already-established Irish-American Church hierarchy here was suspicious not only of the laypeople in that great surge, but even of the clerics who accompanied them: the Southern Italians and Sicilians were simply not the docile and go-along types when push came to shove in the existential challenges of life, nor did they have a great yet simple trust in ‘organizations’ or governments, trusting instead to their own personal networks and their own local saints – whom, as I just said, they ‘believed-in’ in a highly idiosyncratic and distinctly hands-on way.)


    History is a hugely complex affair; and especially so in matters of belief.


    So, then, is there essentially any difference between – say – a belief in rabbits named Harvey and a belief in the Christ and God preached by the Church? I would say Yes: because ‘Harvey’ may ‘go away’ as one goes on through life and in any case will hardly provide much of a structure or reliable relationship upon which one – and many – can Shape and conduct a life and understand the world and the life-experience; Harvey will at best function like Linus’s blanket in the old Peanuts cartoons.


    Whereas the Church is based not on some individual’s own imagination responding to his/her personal need for a security-blanket and perhaps an ‘imaginary friend’ but rather on the lived-experience of the Apostles with Christ (all of whom were actual historical persons) and the sustained reflection-on and relationship-with Christ as the centuries have gone on.


    And the hierarchical element in the Church functioned as a keel in a ship, to hold the basic vessel together as a distinct (and thus life-preserving) entity capable of sustaining Shape (as opposed, say, to a slap-dash raft-like collections of odd bits of wood and stalks lashed-together, which would not long be able to withstand the long voyages on the open ocean and would then lose its Shape and dissolve under the very persons relying on it as a vessel.)


    So JR’s personal version of the old Monoplanar belief that there is no Multiplane reveals itself to be merely a belief that cannot itself be ‘proven’ (and – given the Lourdes events and similar – cannot even explain the full range of actual historical and scientifically-validated events in human history and experience).


    The particular images he uses in his comment simply (if in a rather uncharacteristically imaginative way) make more colorful what is essentially a Cartoon.


    As for the equally silly bit about the geography of the whole thing (“if heaven really isn’t in outer-space”): “heaven” is, I would say, another dimension (or Plane of Existence). The imagery of going “up” is the best people could come up with to explain – or depict in art – the departure from this dimension and into that other (or Other) dimension. Perhaps nowadays we might imagine them as doing a shimmery disappearance as is seen when one is being ‘transported’ on Star Trek.


    But while the imagery is difficult to depict artistically, the reality of what happened in the Ascension and the Assumption remains the stunning and awe-inspiring propositions that they always have been:  a) that there is indeed a Multiplane, b) that it is indeed a Higher Plane of Existence, c) that it is presided over by a God revealed ultimately in Christ, and d) that as we (like Mary) can conform our lives and selves to the call of that God  then humans too can participate in that reality (or Reality) and receive help on their journey toward that reality (or Reality).


    Lastly, I would draw a connection here between what I have said in this comment and the material I related in my comment on Meyer’s work and theorizing of Intelligent Design: whereas one Neo-Evolutionist scientist once burbled that Darwin had finally made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist, now those same persons have to face the mathematical and variously-other scientific discoveries of the past decades that – as I tried to explain Meyer in my comment – have now cast profound mathematical and scientific doubt on the very viability of the Darwinian theory … thus equally casting into doubt the ‘intellectual respectability’ of atheism.


    Perhaps Darwin is going to be joining the rabbit named Harvey. Thus human history evolves.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Proof please for a "multiplane"?…Creating facts in order to bolster your faith, is specious.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Sky hooks, as in I wish I had a hook in the sky to hold this paint bucket so i can use both my hands to paint, aren't real. But I can describe them to you; I just did. Are they real no they are not. Is your god real? No just like sky hooks, he can be described, and very sorely needed by some, but real? Hardly.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How i only wish that a "shimmery disappearence" ala Star Trek were available for a few posters here. "Shimmery disappearence",like in Star Trek! LOL!

      Maybe those tinkeling chimes they use in fantasy films were also present, just as a nice finishing effect.

  90. delphin says:

    My last response to the astoundingly failed tactic that repeatedly attempts to compare faith in God (supernatural), with what the natural world, which actually abides by the laws of both physics and nature, reveals per the "Is that it ? That's all you got?"  'contribution' to the now-exhausted dialogue follows:

    Yep, that's all your contribution is worth (and, that's being generous).

    Go way back to the top of this articles' thread (and all the previous) and reread the substantive responses by others (eg. those that contain such foolish things as focus, content, context, logic, substance, sentences [including efforts at grammar out of respect for the readership] and those 'facty-thingies') to you and your sidekicks drive-by and thoroughly thoughtless and baseless (and often garbled and disjointed] comments, and let us know how that works out for you.

    Your lack of quality submittals may [should] cause embarassment, unless, your sole intent is to consistently fail in ever defending your chronically outrageous (radical, hostile, bigoted, illogical, delusional) positions on just about every topic covered.

    Now, that's all I got, thank God.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      So I lack content and logic compared to you? Ha!  And you're not calling people names and thereby degrading them? Referring to things that you and your cohorts say: as " substantive" and, as ever, bitching amout my spelling. I don't care what you "think". As far as I'm concerned; you don't.  This is you: "Oh the Catholics are being attacked" for having to reimburse raped people for their serious injuries. There's a world wide conspiracy to get the church . Nonsense! There's an attempt, in places, to get to the truth of your corporation's behaviors. If your god is so powerful why doesn't he stop it all. Everything you say he's against: Fraudulent cases that don't exist to abortions and war and homosexuality? Why doesn't he just stop it? If he can't he's not all powerful. If he won't he's evil.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Since when are logic and reason failed tactics? Fact based arguements beat out imaginary multiplanes everyday of the week. Fact can always be proven scientifically through the empirical method. Your beliefs can never be proven and have never been proven, ever. So we have empiricism vs. faith and you say one can not prove matters of faith. O.K. why not? Why when everything else in nature shows reason the most "burning" issues are left to imaginings, to faith? Even Aquinas attempts to use "reason" in his faiuled attempts to prove a created universe i.e. every thing has it's "maker". What is Lourdes but another failed attempt to make your god: reasonable and kind. All the while, given the woeful lack of miracles compared to the woeful number of those in need of healing. Your god isn't working. Not even for his devotees.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Now, that's all I got, thank God."

      "So let it be written. So let it be done." To quote Yul Brynner in "The 10 Commandments".

  91. delphin says:

    "Delf ,you are ,to put it a gently as possible , no one to be judging other's sanity."

    I make no Judgments, I make assessments.

    But, to your point, why am I not 'one to be judging others sanity'?  I am as qualified to make an assessment of commenters mental and intellectual capabilities, as expressed and evidenced here in comment submittals to TMR, as anyone else here at TMR (and other places); but, most certainly, more qualified and capable than you.

    You will need to explain, with documentation (accurate quotes in context, please), aka, proof, of why I am not qualified to make these basic human character assessments (within the context of assessing risk, danger, good, bad and every other assessment or judgement that humans make on a reguar basis as a matter of survival) on others abilities, including their mental health status, as evidenced by their writings- that which include their musings, rantings, logic, integrity, rationale, reasoning, emotional outbursts, critical thinking/problem-solving abilities, linguistics, and any and all other metrics used to determine an individuals mental and intellectual faculties and capabilities.

    No one here is interested in making a medical diagnosis; but, everyone has an obligation to make on-the-hoof determinations on the potential risks to oneself and their family that may eminate from others; a subset of which is making determinations on the veracity/ validity/integrity of one's comments. We do this every minute of every day of our lives (if we want to thrive and survive).

    I don't need to see the mental health record (or medical diagnosis) of the obviously deranged and/or mentally ill homeless guy living on the street that is dirty, talking to himself, over-animated, and verbally and physically attacking passersby (perhaps throwing his feces at victims, or up on the wall?) to make the assessment that he is dangerous by virtue of his obvious [identified via one or more of the five senses] mental illness, as expressed by his behavior, a subset of which are his words. Do you? Some health and capability deficiencies are obvious to all observers, such as the man in the wheel chair is likely crippled.

    Did you really not know that your 'contributions' to TMR would not be critically assessed and analyzed – even judged (small "j") within this context? We may not condemn (Judge), but, we are obligated to judge (discern, evaluate, assess) on a regular basis, in order to live according to and within nature, and to moderate, as required, our own sinful human nature, and most of all, to ensure obedience to God (which for Catholics, includes evangilization).

    So, in response to your rhetoric, if you didn't want TMR contributors to think you might have mental health issues, why did you create just that impression with your long written record of submitting clearly mentally unhealthy and intellectually deficient material to TMR? Did you intentionally mislead us?

    If you act and look like a predator, don't be surprised or dismayed when the herd startles and scatters at the onset of your appearance.

    To my ' mental health diagnosis' point; regarding mental health professionals vs. the rest of society which relied on common sense and God-given laws and instincts - society was far, far better off before we created a 'special class' of so-called professionals (sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists) to make such "judgements" . The cataloguing of the thousands of cases of systemically misdiagnosed and mismanaged mentally ill patients, according to APA guidelines, and the innocent victims trail of blood, likely unprecedented in modern times, resulting from the notoriously erroneous APA guidelines, obviously leaves much (as in a universe-load) to be desired from both the mental health and legal perspective (not to mention the Good Society structure).

    You cannot politicize a health or legal institution and expect anything but incompetency and corruption.

    We should all remember that fact when we must continuously bear the Administrations [self] trumpeting of the onset of implementation of Obamacare (well, unless your Congress, a union or one of thousands of exempted Obamaphiles).


  92. delphin says:

    "…Nor did I forfiet my right to believe any f'ing thing I want and still be compensated for my injuries..". 

    As so eloquently evidenced by your too-numerous to cite indecipherable and profanity-laden contributions. We wonder, in your own words, 'if you also believe any f'ing thing you want' as pertains to your increasingly dubious claims of sexual abuse by a priest'? Given the unreliability of your contributions here, we'd be 'crazy' not to wonder.

    It may not be possible given the 17T dollar deficit the progressives have burdened the US taxpayer with to ever compensate you for injuries caused to you by virtue of your very birth, rearing, development and existence, apparently.

    Your emotional problems run so deep and are so extreme and evident to all with eyes to see and ears to hear, there is no way on Gods earth that your emotional (mental and intellectual)injuries occurred from your claimed priest 'abuse' experience.

    Victims of prolonged, repeated, horrendous physical and emotional abuse (eg. female children kidnapped into white slavery or otherwise horrifically and regularly abused since birth by family members) manage to fare better in the emotional stability department than do you.

    Your problems are obviously not solely attributable to whatever happened to a 16 year old gay male who was more-likely-than-not already quite sexually active (if not outright promiscuous, as typically hormonally dictated by both gender and sexuality).

    Sooner or later, whether here, there or anywhere, you'll be needing to admit to some Truths.

  93. delphin says:

    "Please explain what is "completely untrue" and why. Thanks"

    He clearly cannot, Josie, that is why he jumps around like an institutionalized patient [which is a distinct possibility] with red ants in his pants ('pants on fire') everytime he is confronted with Facts, and Logic, and References (that the submitter actually read and understands), and the Truth. He is left with no option but to either man-up with the truth, or bail out.

    He bails every time.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You and Josie should dress up your all American Barbie doll "minds" and shout, " U.S.A. We're number one!" to the rest of the planet. Oh how they will love you for it. (deep irony)

      One day your chickens will come home to roost.

  94. delphin says:

    As a breather from the relative non-issue of the Church abuse matter; here is another non-issue matter created by the progressives and their lackeys in the media strictly for political reasons (one of which is that they despise the success enjoyed by Americans as compared with the world, and particularly, the success enjoyed by hard-working Americans – as pertains to perceived 'income inequality'):

    "The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations."

    Should be fun to watch the lefty media's contortions over this debacle.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! America's "success" as compared with the world is idiocy. We stole the land from the indians and the labor from everyone, most particiularly black people, who were ther only designated slaves. The vast majority of whites were no better than wage slaves our selves. Then through imperialism, the Monroe doctrine; we roped off Central and South America as "ours" to exploit. All historic fact .

      You may capitalize the words fact and truth but that doesn't mean you have those things on your side. It's Orwellian "newspeak". Lies declared truth with no proof. Do the words "weapons of mass destruction" ring any trillion dollar bells?

      You get to question my sanity? I know your's is beyond question. You are out there: as in outerspace, where your diety and all the good dead are.

      It's nuts to deny fact for: wishing it were so or for praying something to be true. You do those things all the time ipso facto: you're nuts.

  95. Publion says:

    As I mentioned in a prior comment, not-running-into Abuseniks in the actual world is especially true in the case of 'dennis ecker', who – we may recall from BigTrial comments – apparently failed to show up for an appointment he made with another commenter (for possible reasons I discussed in that prior comment). At any rate, I agree with everyone who is happy that such events need not be contemplated as imminent possibilities.

  96. delphin says:

    "Fact can always be proven scientifically through the empirical method."

    Not true. The empiricist view can be easily challenged by the rationalist view. Both methods are based upon observation. Kuhn documented investigator biases inherent in empiricism.

    Suffice it to say, any thing a human created is subject to error.

    Stick to the asphalt in your own neighborhood, you'll likely get very lost, very fast, in this thicket of woods.

  97. delphin says:

    "Proof please for a "multiplane"?…"

    Not to step on Publion's toes (more humanely, this is more an attempt to provide a break from the relentless peppering by the perpetually disgruntled juvenile in the TMR 'room")….

    …. perhaps its time to send the inquisitive little bunny down the rabbit-hole once and for all:

    String Theory.

    It's got more cred in the lab than does your oh-so passe‛ theory of evolution.

    Bye-bye, now. Come back when you can 'string'  together a declarative or, God willing, coherent statement on it within the context of Publion's numerous thoughtful submittals.

    Let's try to shoot for a bit mo' than, 'that's completely untrue', shall 'we'?

  98. Publion says:

    Once again, JR turns in a pitch-perfect performance. (Although one that is – alas again – just too wordy to give the impression that is primarily from him.)


    As to his comment of the 26th at 1132AM: JR is not “supposed to pretend” anything whatsoever. His material is what it is. I am not “rationalizing” his “perspectives” (hardly the word for all the assertions and claims, unexplained and ungrounded); I am “characterizing” his material (as I wrote). So before we even get to any questions of differences and disagreements, we are confronted with the problem of basic reading-comprehension. If my characterizations “demean” the material (and JR chooses to personalize that) then the answer would be to put up better material. But then we are faced with the problem of whether JR will not or whether JR cannot or whether both elements are in play with his material.


    The plop-tossing of comments at 1119AM and 1132AM are what they are and let them remain in the record.


    JR’s material does indeed – as I have gone at great length and frequently  to explain – “lack content and logic”. If that constitutes “calling people names” then we are confronted with a serious misuse or incomprehension of the language by JR. (And if that observation constitutes “calling people names” then we are back at square-one again.)


    JR doesn’t “care what you ‘think’”; and yet if it is said that it isn’t really much cared-about what he “thinks”, then that constitutes calling him names. This is a nifty dynamic and I have pointed it out before; put up poor material, then – if that fact is pointed out – he claims he is somehow being victimized by being called-names – and therefore he doesn’t have to pay any attention to the objections at all and – neatly – can (at least in his own mind) feel free to keep plop-tossing. Nifty. But now it’s obvious.


    And again and again and again: we precisely do not have any evidence – nor even any material that would point to a significant probability – of rape (unless we buy ‘dennis ecker’s bit that anything and everything is rape). And on the contrary we have significant amounts of material leading to the probability that there was very little rape at all: not the least of which evidence is the actual tallying done by the Jay Reports from the actual allegations formally lodged, and even in JR’s case the arm-across-the-groin bit (which, again, is not rape); and the glaring evidence of the Billy Doe multi-story case.


    And if there is such an effort “world-wide” to “get to the truth of” the Church’s behaviors, then JR and other similar types here have hardly demonstrated that they are the types to conduct that effort – since from what we have seen here even as recently as the  authorship of the JR-dennis ecker posting, these commenters don’t seem quite adept-at, or committed-to, truth at all.


    I have no idea who “he” is toward the end of the comment; perhaps JR has once again lost control of his material or his mental process.


    Then at 1058 he tries to connect “fact-based arguments” and “imaginary multiplanes”. I could first point out to him that I have been speaking about probabilities based on available information, and not about “proof” – and once again he has failed to comprehend the material I have put up and he has (allegedly) read and to which he is now trying to respond.


    Second, it can just as easily be asserted that “fact-based arguements” [sic] beat out imaginary Darwinian theorizing, as I have just spent quite a bit of space pointing-out in a recent comment on this thread. And what does JR think about the issues raised in that material?


    And – unfortunately for him – his “reading” education has not led him to the distinction between the realm of (non-material) religious-belief and the realm of scientific (material) fact (even Darwin himself couldn’t quite keep all that straight) nor has he absorbed the idea that when you are dealing with the non-material or spiritual you are beyond the range of material ‘facts’ and have to rely on more nuanced methods. But even at this juncture, I note that he has not (ever) dared to grapple with the scientifically and medically established historical facts in the Lourdes records. And – as with other commenters of his ilk – if even one of these cures is true, then his entire position deflates.


    I’m also waiting to see what this brassy atheist thinks of the mathematical and scientific (molecular biology, communications theory, computer science) facts that now pose a profound and immediate challenge to the entire Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian position. There’s a hefty chunk of “empiricism” that doesn’t work for him at all. Thus the trusty old “empiricisim vs. faith” conundrum has been bypassed now by scientific and mathematical advances themselves. As I have said – and as we can now see here – the entire Framing of the Problem since 1859 is now re-arranged if not actually undermined.


    The issue is not to try to “prove matters of faith”. The issue is in trying to sift all the available information from what is ‘seen’ in order to consider what might be the most valid inferences as to what might be ‘unseen’. Much like detectives have to work-backwards from an incident they did not see in order to gain as accurate a picture as possible of what might have happened. (And – once again – we actually have ‘seen’ the empirically validated cures at Lourdes and how does JR and his ilk deal with that?)


     Nor did Aquinas (this bit is very improbably from the mind of JR) use what is often translated into modern English as “proofs” for the existence of God in the sense that later centuries used “proof” in scientific and legal senses. Aquinas proposed five arguments-for the existence of God; meaning that rational persons could consider what is seen and known and infer to what is unseen and unknown.


    (Nicely, several of those five Aquinian ‘Ways’  - the five are: the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, Contingency, Degree, and Teleology – actually are still active in the Evolution issue: as I noted in a prior comment, a) where does the bio-material first come from upon which Darwin’s hypothetical random selection acts and b) which came first: i) the bio-material that carries the highly complex and specified encoded directions for the proteins that will from DNA or ii) the information necessary to form that very bio-material in the first place?)


    And – this is apparently news to him – “faith” is not “in nature”; the two domains are fundamentally different. That’s the whole point behind Aquinas’s efforts in this regard. Nature can be seen; the realm of faith cannot be seen and as a different domain poses different challenges to knowledge (although – again – we have seen those empirically examined and verified Lourdes events that clearly cannot be accounted-for by any conventionally ‘scientific’ explanations).


    Thus too, Lourdes is hardly characterizable as a “failed” attempt at anything, until JR can effectively deal with the challenges posed by the empirically verified events there and demonstrate his dismissal of them as rationally justifiable. Once again – as with all the rest of this self-serving Cartoon he has constructed – he simply tries to assert-away and dismiss the glaring realities i) for which his ruminations cannot account and ii) that undermine his entire position by their very existence as empirically verified realities.


    Lastly, JR then apparently tries either a) to dismiss all the Lourdes events (“woeful lack”) or else – his writing is one again not clear here – b) he admits that there are some miracles but not very many and then he tries to build some plop-pile for his comment from that bit. But no matter which way he turns here – either (a) or (b) – he faces profound explanatory problems. (At which point, but of course, the Playbook will call for ketchup-throwing and distractions.)


    Thus his effort at a neat summation – “Your god isn’t working. Not even for his devotees” – is i) undermined by his own problematic material here as well as ii) reveals an utter failure to comprehend the significance of Christ’s revelation (i.e. there is going to be suffering because the world is both incomplete and deeply flawed by the consequences of both actual sin and original-sinfulness).


    Which leaves us confronted with a rather grossly inaccurately-posed Problem, based on a rather grossly-inaccurately conceived Assessment of the Situation, for which he (and his ilk) have then gone and constructed their self-serving Cartoon of what we are dealing with in the first place (i.e. a) the probability of there being or not-being a Multiplane and b) the validity of the specifically Christian and Catholic Vision of that Multiplane and the evidence of that Multiplane’s activity in the world or the material that will strongly lead to the inference that that Christian God is the constitutive element in the Multiplane).


    And so I think it is clear that the issues and challenges to be dealt with in this whole matter are hardly likely to be well-handled by ketchup-tossing, plop-tossing, the various Playbook ploys, and the usual one-liner inaccuracies that seem to be pretty much all JR brings to the table.


    So  who can disagree with him when he asserts (the 26th at 1138AM) that “that’s all I got”? And I note that despite all of his (alleged) “reading” JR can come up with nothing more here than a quote from Yul Brynner in a movie – which is probably where JR gets so much of his religious and theological material to begin-with. (Hint: Hollywood movies are not reliably to be taken as accurate doctrinal expositions of the Church’s positions and Vision. Except perhaps to the mentality of an adolescent.)

  99. dennis ecker says:

    the case of 'dennis ecker', who – we may recall from BigTrial comments – apparently failed to show up for an appointment he made with another commenter.

    GET IT RIGHT. Get all your facts correct before posting. No one believes what you have to say only because TMR posts your ramblings. You are a truly "confused" catholic as Chaput states.

    • dennis ecker says:

      Now since I'm here anyway. These are the happenings coming out of Pennsylvania.

      First, we have the Archbishop Chaput of the AOP make a public statement saying "catholics are confused". He made that comment after Pope Francis's latest comments. I would ask him though what catholics is he speaking of ? Is it the Josie Bailey's and Delphins of the world or is it of all catholics ?

      I have spoken to many catholics who have taken offense to his statement and the majority believe Pope Francis maybe a very small light at the end of the tunnel in bringing the catholic church into the 21st century. In so many words the Pope has said if the church is not willing to change they will be left behind. The subjects that the Pope spoke of was homosexuality, abortion and contraception. However, nothing of sexual abuse  by his clergy.

      In the end Chaput states he would like catholics to read what the Pope said, pray over it, then reread it". I believe Chaput along with his title of Archbishop should add magician, he would like his followers to perform some type of parlor trick over the Pope's words i guess in hope the words will change. If that is not the case catholics can still call him a magician because he is making alot of money, followers and real estate disappear.

      Second, Another priest was arrested for sexual abuse of a minor in Scranton Pennsylvania. (Information still coming in)

      Third, A Philadelphia priest was arrested yesterday at a private home in Maryland for raping a child. Fr. Robert Brennan (no relation to the other Fr. Brennan who will go on trial next month) at last report will not fight extradition back to Philadelphia. Brennan may have abused over 20 children while being transferred from church to church after a hospital (St. John Vianney) psychological evaluation diagnosed him as a pedophile. (Another child hurt by Fr. Lynn's inactions)

      Fr. Brennan is 75 years old and if convicted I think it would be safe to say he will receive a life sentence.

      I also wonder what the three judge panel is thinking ? Since there is now more cases coming to light because of Lynn's inactions.




  100. delphin says:

    " 'dennis ecker', who – …apparently failed to show up…"

    The 'side-kick' has been MIA at TMR since he was thoroughly called out on the multiple discrepancies in his stories about his "abuse", his job, and his flaming antiCatholic bigotry (aka self-destructed).

    He's probably holed up in the fetal position in one of those nasty south Philly tenement basements [he never got to experience as the 'hero firefighter'] -

    • josie says:

      Dennis Ecker is here and on misquoting the Pope and the Philadelphia Archbishop-making the stupid remarks he is famous for. Pure waste of time to respond to him.

    • dennis ecker says:

      Wrong again child.

      Why do you fear me so much ? Why do you wish to be more like me ?

  101. delphin says:

    "You and D are not even religious.

    How would you know this? How can you make such a declarative statement on such an obvious 'unknown/unknowable' [and, oddly, not be able to do the same for all the 'knowns' we regularly debate]?

    If you were your approach to victims posting here would be very different. 

    You and some others did not come to TMR as confirmed [irrefutable] priest abuse victims looking for solace and comfort; you came here as victim-claimants of highly dubious integrity, antiCatholic bigots, spewing hatred, vitriol and baseless criticisms of God, Catholicism, commenters beliefs and positions, attacking commenters personally,  and verbally assaulting anything and anyone that didn't fall 'in-line' with your ideology. You were, thus, appropriately treated as as well as you treated us.

    A person of faith and humility could never say the outrageous lies that you two come up with about victims. Never."

    As you are neither, how would you know what a person of faith and humility would/could say? Specifically, what 'outrageous lies' have 'we two' directed toward confirmed/real victims?

    You need to provide actual quotes, in context, to support your claims above. You're not blackmailing an Archdiocese here, with no evidence, and strictly based upon the du jour ideological/political will of the persecutors. Your 'claims' here require actual proof.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Keep ripping me up honey. you're a laugh riot. Dennis is no one's side kick. Have I accused you of being P's "side kick?

        I have a settlement for very real injuries. You even said you believed me. Now I'm a blackmailer?

      Keep it up the more you attack; the more empathy I get.

      The only fraud here is you and P [edited by moderator].

      What else have you got? More pie in the sky nonsense?

      [edited by moderator]

  102. delphin says:

    "Do the words "weapons of mass destruction" ring any trillion dollar bells?"

    Well, aside from the Democraps en mass approval of the invasion of Iraq, yes, these words do ring 'trillion dollar' bells, insofar as the Iraq weapons are documented by Russia and a few other 'observers' as eventually landing in Syria. Go figure! I hear that most of them are now on their way back into Iraq, you know, before your Dem President Goofy signs onto the UN agreement to give UN 'oversight' to the WMD cache.

    If it weren't for the fact that the very security of the world depends on these unbelievably incompetetent 'Keystone Kops', this would all actually be kinda funny, as in, Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner funny. Beep-beep.

    Hey, so long as we have 'gay' marriage and a major socialist/communist push toward 'income equality' and socialized medicine, we're all good, now, right?  It is your peoples priorities dictating this Adminstrations' (and every past progressive/socialist/communist)agenda – right?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I only hope you are old.( I kind of think you are) so you might avoid the pain this vale of tears has so obviously brought you. What are you?

      What do you think should happen to Americans who can not find a living wage paying job?

  103. Jim Robertson says:
    • Jim Robertson says:

      Read the above link and weep at the horror your leadership enabled. But a sociopath doesn't weep, does he?

  104. Publion says:

    Now comes ‘dennis ecker’ (the 27th,  814AM) and adjures me to “get it right” (Wiggy formatting omitted) while – so very very very slyly – not actually pointing out what it is I am inferred to have gotten wrong.


     And yet then still provides his conclusion (based on information as to my ‘wrongness’ that he has not provided) that I am a “truly ‘confused’ catholic” – which is a remark he attributes to “Chaput” but also without giving us a link or any sort of reference info. Was there something ‘wrong’ (meaning here ‘inaccurate’; since clearly, discussing the problems with his material is ‘wrong’ from the get-go) with my pointing-out that ‘dennis ecker’ – according to a commenter on BigTrial – made an appointment to meet with another commenter and then never showed-up? (Time-saver: ‘dennis ecker’s mere counter-claim that he never made such an appointment doesn’t constitute ‘proof’ of anything.)


    And then (27th, 1021AM) the Wiggy bit about “since I am here anyway”: as if on the internet one had to make a long journey to get to a site; but of course this is one verrrrry busy and involved Wig of Affairs and there’s just sooooo much to do when you’re leading a world-wide (perhaps nation-wide, if the medication has kicked in) charge on behalf of Truth, Justice, and the Wiggy Way.


    So we are first given the Wiggish spin on a comment attributed to Archbishop Chaput that “catholics are confused”. (No link or identifying information provided by the UberWig, but see link at the bottom of this comment.) A truly global and comprehensive and sweeping statement for a prelate to make about “catholics” generally.


    If it were so. But – waittttt for ittttttt! – there’s more: it turns out that Abp. Chaput was referring to some Catholics’ responses to the recent papal interview (the article for which I give the link below contains a hyperlink to the papal interview material). And thus Abp. Chaput recommends that Catholics read the text of the papal comments themselves, rather than simply rely on second-hand reports … (such as ‘dennis ecker’s, say for example).


    Thus what we have in this 1021 comment is yet again a Wiggy effort to play with his blocks and put up his little construction just the way he wants it – even though what he wants (us) to get from his little block-house does not accurately or completely convey the complexity of what his quotation-source actually said. (No wonder this Wig doesn’t provide links to the material he purports to report.)


    Thus too: if the Wig of Affairs did read what Abp. Chaput said, and then still can ask – as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth – if the Archbishop were referring to certain commenters here (the ketchup bottle comes out and its lid comes off!), then clearly his reading-comprehension capability is compromised. If, on the other hand, he hasn’t read the material he purports to be reporting on, then he is a ludicrous and unreliable source of information or accuracy or truth. And the only remaining alternative is that he read the Archbishops’ remarks, realized they had little to do with anything relevant to this site, but simply had to find a way to toss that “confused” bit at somebody … and thus he deranged the report in order to arrange his little nip with his Chattering Teeth of Nastiness hidden away in his Wig (along with the tin-foil and the artfully-concealed antenna). A true fry-fly from the depths of the cafeteria.


    And we are then advised that the Wig has “spoken to many catholics” … yah. And were these conversations in offsite meetings out in the real world, or were they in the virtual world? And is this Wig really a candidate for being a reliably truthful claim-maker at all, by any extant measure of probability?


    The Pope – further – mentioned nothing about “sexual abuse by his clergy” (according to an unsupported Wig claim here). Perhaps the Pope (who once had to carry on ministry under an old-timey military dictatorship) long ago recognized a government-abetted PR Stampede when he saw one and also realizes that things are moving on now. Readers who wish to propose ‘dennis ecker’s name to the Pope as a source for accurate material about the Stampede are welcome to do so.


    And then – waitttt for itttttttt! – ‘dennis ecker’ feels that the Archbishop’s urging Catholics to read and pray over the papal words is merely some sort of magician-like exhortation to perform a “parlor trick”. By which the Wig means that the Archbishop hopes that “the words will change”. First, this Wig is no reliable source for any advice about how to read actual material accurately. Second, just how will the “words change” (although it is possible that the Wig actually reveals here an experience of his own: when he is reading stuff, the letters and the words actually do “change” and re-arrange themselves on the page … which – if that be the case – might well require some professional help, and sooner rather than later; although you’d think a former Firefighter/ Medic would know that on his own).


    Then another bit of ketchup-tossing about the Archbishop being a magician anyway (because he sells outmoded parcels of AOP real-estate and thus makes them “disappear”, doncha see?). (Time-saver here: this Wig was simply joking and shame on the confederacy of evil dunces here that can’t distinguish his serious truth-telling from his joking.)


    But – now the Wig of Breathtaking Still-Breaking Current Affairs – “another priest” was arrested at the behest of the Philly DA. (See the Big Trial site for an article that went up on the 26th.) Except that this priest – already bleeding into the water from prior accusations – was accused by an allegant who was “inspired” by the Lynn conviction (about which see more below) and comes forward now with a panoply of allegations from 1998-2001.


    Yet, while the DA called the press-conference, and while you would think that the DA would want to prosecute Lynn for these allegations the same way he did in the case now currently under appeal), yet the DA will not be prosecuting Lynn. Which is odd. But Ralph Cipriano notes that the DA may already fear an impending overturn of the case currently under appeal; which would explain the DA’s ridiculous claim that this new batch of allegations misses the Statute of Limitations by three months (whereas the case for which the DA did prosecute Lynn had missed the SOLs by nine years).


    Yes, this is interesting and still-developing news. Although apparently to the Wig here, the realities re-arrange themselves on the little screen behind his eyeballs even as he looks at them.


    And then – oddly  – there is a “third” point which seems to refer to the arrest of the same priest whose arrest constituted the second point. This ‘third’ priest was “diagnosed as a pedophile” (the Wig report) by the St. John Vianney evaluation and therapy facility in Pennsylvania; this ‘third’ priest was “had exhibited evidence of pedophilia, and had a recurring behavior pattern that ‘presents future risk’” (Ralph Cipriano’s report).


    But this makes the new arrest even more odd. If the DA now has a much more solid diagnostic record upon which to base the theory that Lynn can be in some way held accountable for failing to do his statutory duty, then this should make a new prosecution of Lynn more legally workable than the prior prosecution. So why not prosecute him now? (Again, the Cipriano surmise – and hardly inconceivable – is that the DA fears going after a person who may well soon have his conviction overturned by the Appellate court.)


    And in a final delicious bit in this (still-developing) Philly matter, the DA who had himself called the press-conference refused to take any questions when he had finished delivering his spiel.


    But the Wig may actually have picked-up an interesting bit while trolling those bottom-grounds where a lot of readers (myself included) don’t usually have the stomach or appetite or proclivity to go: this entire new allegation-pack may simply be the DA’s effort to provide either a) a warning or b) some cover to the Appellate court to the effect that Lynn is still guilty, even if the actual material from the convicting-trial merits overturn. (And one might even imagine that if the Appellate court somehow takes the invitation and refuses to overturn Lynn’s current conviction, then this new allegator’s menu will suddenly disappear itself.)


    Whatever betide (and clearly nothing is off the table in the Philly legal system now, since for whatever reason(s) the DA continues his shenanigans) we yet see once again: in Catholic Abuse Stampede cases, there’s no such thing as a ‘normal’ trial governed by normal jurisprudential process and practices.


  105. delphin says:

    "Keep ripping me up honey. you're a laugh riot. Dennis is no one's side kick. Have I accused you of being P's "side kick?"

    Because you two sweeties post for each other, and defend and regularly express your 'hoorah' for each other on a regular basis [as nauseum], as well as obviously collaborate 'off-line/site', you are clearly BFFs, therefore, you are each others side kick, 'honey'. Publion and I, and most others, barely acknowledge each other (except to reinforce salient points), never mind fawn all over each like high school clique members. The honest TMR commenters are just that, honest and independent [thinkers] commenters.

    " I have a settlement for very real injuries. You even said you believed me. Now I'm a blackmailer?"

    For the intent of commenting to TMR, it is just as easy for me to take the position that I believe you about your own (not others) experience, as not. If I were a juror, prosecutor or jurist, evidence would certainly be required. Do not conflate these two very distinct points. For here, believing you costs no one their livelihood, reputation, vocation or freedom (or life), and costs me nothing. It's an easier path to follow for my purpose at TMR. I am not interested in debating the veracity of claimed individual cases, I am interested in investigating and debating the conspiratorial aspects of the issue, as driven by antiCatholicism.

    Incidentally, I, unfortunately, am aware of too many shadey types that enjoy[ed] ill-begotten settlements. It doesn't prove anything to be granted an award, except maybe how corrupt people and the system can be, sadly. It does not prove guilt (hence, the "settlement"), or confirm claimed victimhood.

    'Keep it up the more you attack; the more empathy I get."

    Is that what you need, empathy?  Why seek out empathy at a site dedicated to flushing out fraudulent abuse cases and media bias against the Church? Why are you here? There are plenty of other, better suited places for you to go for your empathy. Are you only interested in shoving your bogus claims and ideology down our throats? Why are you looking for trouble at a site clearly not suitable for your "empathy" needs?

    "The only fraud here is you and P [edited by moderator]."

    What makes you say that (and [that])- what could you possibly think you know about either of us that would cause you to make such an obviously unsupportable claim? We make no claims for you to judge as a fraudulent? What fraud are we committing? Facts, including direct quotes in context required, please.

    "What else have you got? More pie in the sky nonsense?"

    Been there, done that. Yawn-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What do you possibly know about me? And your entire religious belief system is fraudulent since there's not a tinsy weensy tiny whiney specky of proof for any of your religious claims. You of course are entitled to belief what ever fantasy you wish but when you attempt to control my and other peoples lives by spending millions in tax free dollars to enforce unilaterally what your faith tells you is true. Well if you attempt to make laws against my body, my person because of unprovable tax excempt "facts". I have to say no and tell you why, i'm saying no.

      [edited by moderator]

  106. delphin says:

    "Read the above link and weep at the horror your leadership enabled…"

    When I read this: "Karl Heinrich Leopold Deschner (born on May 23, 1924, in Bamberg, Bavaria), is an [atheist] German researcher and writer who has achieved public attention in Europe for his thorough and fiercely critical treatment of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular…" 

    ….I didn't bother to go to the 'link above' to read that, for the painfully obvious reasons.

    Perhaps you can find something written by Satan himself to support your virulent antiCatholicism – keep looking, it's out there, somewhere (in LA, for sure).

    Try not to refer any 'books' about Jews written by Hitler, either, while you're at your astoundingly failed attempts to [re]educate TMR readers.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well you sure don't want them educated that's gospel. If not gospel at least Genesis, He forbade them eat from the tree of knowledge. And the religious have hardly had a bite at it since.

      Facts are facts honey. You can say it ain't so regarding the church's corporate connection to and support of Facism. The Church has made a lot of money off the people of Germany before during and ever since WW2. That's a fact. The concordat Hitler created with the Vatican was affirmed as law by the post war West German now German government. That's another fact.

      [edited by moderator]

  107. delphin says:

    "I only hope you are old.( I kind of think you are) so you might avoid the pain this vale of tears has so obviously brought you. What are you?"

    Huh? Not even close to being decipherable.

    "What do you think should happen to Americans who can not find a living wage paying job?"

    They should show up at your house, break in and take everything you've earned  [income acquisition presumption here] your entire life because it is unfair that you were capable of earning your own keep and they weren't; they are absolutely entitled to your stuff by virtue of their gender, race/ethnicity, age, sexuality, handicap (including substance abuse and sexual addictions), citizen status, and minority (well, anything But Christian) religious affiliation.

  108. delphin says:

    "They need it they can have it. I'm still good."

    Unless you either have a sign hanging outside your totally unsecured abode (and, if that is owned, it goes, too) that says " Everything I Own Free to All",  or you gave away all your belongings, including your church booty, to your greedy Unc Sam (who gets a huge vig for his incompetency) as your broker, you're not 'good', you're lying. Libs are always very generous with other peoples money.

    "But Americans more and more will be out of work nor able to find work. Suggestions?"

    Yes, fire all the progressives (Socialists-Communists) in the Congress and the Administration - get busy 2014 and 2016 are closing in. Let's reward them all for their monumental failure to produce solutions to a now five year old crisis the same way that USC just rewarded their loser coach. We'll have to wait for the 'natural laws of attrition' to act on the leftist-activist Supreme's.

    Once we're back to traditional America values, based upon Judeo-Christian ethics, those values which built the greatest, wealthiest and most generous nation in history, the unemployment rate will drop, and then you can keep your bling (providing that you actually earned it, legally).

    Meanwhile, support charitable organizations [any reputable 501(c)(3)] that actually get the goods to the people,  and that do not politicize every proposition or act in order to keep their cushy jobs in congress, governors mansions or the White House (or their mansions in Georgetown and Westchester County, ala the 'Clinton Crime Family').


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why would I do as you suggest? Give away all my stuff? Who needs it.? Why do they need it? One person giving away everything; does what to end an injust system? Nothing. The world needs more Phyrric victories? Not hardly. Haven't enough of our ancestors been sacrificed to a system built not for the many but the few?

      How much money do you have? Why is it you are working with other people at your job? Shouldn't you be out grabbing on your own?. You know dog eat dog.

  109. delphin says:

    "Facts are facts honey."

    As pertains to the thoroughly debunked socialist/communist-driven fabrication of the Vatican-NAZI link, NYET, again.

    But, of more more interest is the imagery you conjure up by your overuse of your intentionally campy delivery of the 'honey'  endearment. It really does nothing more than  conjur up a subsequent and equally campy image of you strutting about in a sequined silver gown, with a fuscia boa strung about your neck and shoulders and sporting size 12 ladies pumps; all of which [oddly?] does not impress upon the majority of the TMR readers much faith in your ability to discern fact from fiction (or your 'reality' vs. wishful thinking)-


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey hon I'm just telling my truth here. The readership can take it or leave it. Either way's good for me.

  110. Publion says:

    At 132AM on the 29th JR gives us another clear example of how his mind works (so to speak; and he still wonders how astute readers can “possibly know about” him?).


    I had used the word “stuff” to refer to material in order not to keep repeating the word ‘material’, in an extended comment about the ‘dennis ecker’ stuff.


    Characteristically, JR avoids any substantive issues in that extended comment and instead goes for a one-liner ketchup-toss: that perhaps I care more about “stuff” than I do about “people”.


    First, we notice that he doesn’t say “victims” (in the trademark Playbook effort to get readers to presume that every allegator is a genuine victim). He says “people”. Neat. But obvious.


    Second, he reveals another little bit: somehow rational, coherent, accurate and truthful material (or “stuff”) is opposed to “people”. Say what? But this reveals a core presumption of the Abusenik game: if rational, coherent, accurate and truthful material somehow doesn’t further the agenda of the allegators and Abuseniks, then that simply means that the rational, coherent, accurate and truthful material has to go. And we have most surely seen that gambit played-out here time and time again.


    Apply this to allegations and you quickly see where this sort of thing can go.

  111. delphin says:

    "…when you attempt to control my and other peoples lives by spending millions in tax free dollars to enforce unilaterally what your faith tells you is true. Well if you attempt to make laws against my body, my person because of unprovable tax excempt "facts"…"

    So, the dirty little cat just came screaming out of the proverbial 'bag', didn't ?

    There are plenty of tax-exempt organizations (religious and otherwise) out there operating politically and socially on behalf of their benefactors, beneficiaries or constituents, why is it that only the Catholic Church exemption status irks you so? AntiCatholic much?

    Take some of your ill-gotten Catholic Church booty and donate it to your favorite communists, and/or other purveyors of immorality- do you need a detailed roadmap for everything?

    So far as what you do with 'your bodies', bad (immoral, unethical, criminal) behavior imposes itself on all society; such as, in the form of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, divorce, addiction, AIDS and other deadly STDs, child abuse, violent crime, etc.

    We all pick up the tab for [your] bad behavior.

    Following the narrow path (according to God, and natural laws) that Jesus laid out for mankind, eliminates all that is bad.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      God who? Just because you talk to imaginary creatures doesn't mean that I have to. If your imaginary "friend" tells you to do things. It's Doctor time. I can only hope you have healthcare insurance. You know health insurance where people pool their money  that it might be available when and if they need it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When your imaginary diety through a bunch of closet cased hierarchs tells you that you and your beliefs are supperior to mine. I say no they are not. You want to spend $20,000,000 dollars on loosing battles (gay marriage) swell.  The tide of public opinion has moved away from the whirlpool of fear and loathing, people like you, wish to drown in. It's a better world than what you've ever offered.

  112. dennis ecker says:

    A history Lesson.

    We all must remember those days in class when we were told about the army's who would use the bodies of their dead soldiers by placing them around the fortress walls to give their enemies the impression that there strength was greater then it truly was.

    We have heard about this tactic being used for hundreds of years, in fact a similar tactic is being used today in Syria where soldiers are placing mannequins on roof tops and in windows to give there enemies a false impression of their man-power.

    I also believe we are seeing it here regarding the clergy sexual abuse debate.

    I direct your attention to a paragraph that I located and posted earlier this month that was penned by someone here who gives uninformed lengthy comments. The author of this statement back in 2012 on the Big Trial blog has failed to recognize his own writings or chooses to ignore it. The statement is as follows:

    "what happens when some groups get a small number of dedicated folks who adopt different screen-names to give the impression that the group enjoys a wider public support than is actually the case".

    Now, if you have not already guessed the writer of the above paragraph is no other then Our very own (let me write 20 paragraphs that in the end mean nothing) PUBLION.

    It seems that Publion has been doing what his very idea of a year ago suggested, and I have learned how truly simple it can be done. The secret is not to get caught.

    Its time for the Publions and Delphins to come forward and if your not ashamed of what you write come forward and use real names and not some false title.

    What you write can no longer be respected like the anonymous's on the other site.

  113. Publion says:

    We are now lectured by JR (29th, 117AM) as to what are “facts”.


    But then – marvelously – he immediately goes off the rails with his inaccurate Genesis reference. Genesis 2:8-9 refers to a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” not to “the tree of knowledge” in some general sense (Adam and Eve were welcome to eat of the fruit of all the other trees in the Garden). This injunction is to prevent them – 3:5 – from “becoming like divine beings, knowing good and evil”: that is to say, God did not want humans overloading their circuits (as if they themselves were divine beings) by trying to fathom the full mystery (“knowing”) of good and evil; they would now have enough trouble trying to deal-with good and evil (especially in themselves). Humans have their hands full with being human, without pretending toward a full knowledge of the mysteries of life and sin. Clearly, JR has overloaded his own circuits here – but what’s new?


    Thus we see in JR the adolescent and Cartoonish attempt to grasp at a word or phrase and toss it out as if it were a stand-alone “fact”, such that he need not know anything else and can simply toss his plop up on the screen. When a bit of accurate information is deeply intertwined with other bits that are also necessary for a full comprehension of what is going on, then that original bit of accurate information is more accurately characterized as a ‘factoid’ (rather than a ‘fact’) because that original bit, standing alone, cannot convey the full weight of the matter to which it pertains.


    Now, as to the bit about the West German government affirming the Concordat of 1933: clearly, if the post-Hitler government of West Germany reaffirmed the Concordat, then this indicates that the Concordat was not of a political nature specifically connected to Nazism. Rather – and as has been stated before even on this site – the Concordat was an effort by the Church to try and maintain control of Catholic education (which Hitler was threatening to eradicate altogether by subsuming all Catholic education under Reich control). Thus the profoundly anti-Nazi postwar German government reaffirmed the Church’s control of Catholic Education because that’s what the gravamen of the 1933 Concordat was in the first place. But obviously it has not occurred to JR that his own very example here (of the West German government’s affirmation) works against his own assertions and inferences as to the Church’s active political collaboration and collusion with the Third Reich.


    Lastly – although this would surely never occur to anyone not familiar with the nature and processes of historical research – Deschner’s work has never been peer-reviewed and he himself has never held any serious academic positions (he taught a summer course once 25 years ago at a German university); his sole professional membership appears to be in the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. He had been working for over forty years on his 10-volume magnum opus, entitled The Criminal History of Christianity, just completed this year. He appears to be financially supported only by private persons, having never received any formal academic research grants. And after so many decades since he wrote his stuff, he is only now coming to be published in English – by Prometheus, which is an avowedly secularist (thus anti-religious) printing outfit.


    We can perhaps look forward to more factoids from JR. I’m sure those ten volumes must be an omnium gatherum of all sorts of stuff.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey simple one. Did Einstien recieve any grants when he came up with relativity from any "formal academic research centers"? I thought when he did his thinking he was a customs clerk.


  114. Publion says:

    Continuing my thoughts on this Concordat matter:


    I offer at the bottom of this comment the link to the English text of the Concordat. Readers are welcome to read it and I would be interested in any evidence of some sort of political alliance with the Third Reich can be found. The various Articles of the document cover matters aimed at preserving some Church (local as well as Vatican) authority over Catholic matters.


    As I have said before on this site: Given the threat that Hitler posed – and the unscrupulous deployment of brutality and violence by the Nazis – I don’t see how anyone in a position of Catholic responsibility in that situation could have done much differently. Even as knowledgeable and outspoken a hierarch as Cardinal Faulhaber said “With the Concordat we are hanged; without the Concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered”. That is the unspeakably difficult situation into which the various European governments and the Vatican were put by Hitler’s accession in January 1933 – although none of the other powers had as many ‘citizens’ in Germany as the Vatican did (i.e. all Catholics in Germany).


    Nor is it acceptable historical assessment to judge the actions of the early 1930s by the actions that took place in the period 1942-45 (e.g. the Holocaust). No informed observer and certainly no government foresaw in 1933 what would happen with the Final Solution a decade later.


    I also note that as soon as the war had ended, Pius XII spoke out forcefully about the nature of Communism (which by the mid-1940s had pretty much eliminated most religion, religious personnel, and religious practice in the USSR; readers interested in getting a clear picture of that process might want to consult Michael Burleigh’s 2007 book Sacred Causes, particularly Chapter Two). And it was not long after those comments by Pius XII that various Soviet-friendly intellectuals here and there in Europe (on both sides of the Iron Curtain) began to spout that the Concordat indicated the Vatican’s collusion with the Third Reich, which – in the event – hoovered up all sorts of anti-religious types in the West and gave them a cause for which many of them are still carrying a torch, two decades and more after the USSR’s secular utopian and secular-millennial excitements and delusions collapsed (uncovering in the process even more evidence of the bloodiness and destruction deployed over the course of decades in the service of bringing the Soviet vision to fulfillment).


    So for those trying to get a clear comprehension of “facts”, I strongly suggest a competent reading of the text of the Concordat as an indispensable starting-point.


    And once that has been done, the task will be to see how very many (if any at all) accusations and assertions in regard to the Vatican and Hitler can possibly be based on the Concordat.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      What utter nonsense! The church restructures history for it's own benefit.( But that's no news that's the very core of religion). I notice you don't mention the rat line. Nor the rabid anti semitism of catholics at that time.. You always have an excuse. You always will rewrite history in the church's favor. if the church is the "bride of christ" ( actually it's much more like the bride of Frankenstien) how could it possibly ever do anything wrong? After all it was founded by god.

      You have to ( for the sake of your sad belief system ) always find the church justifiable in it's actions. no matter what. Remember the nun who died at Aushwitz, died because she was born a Jew, she wrote the Pope saying the Holocaust would happen and that he must do something. He did something he ignored her and the 6,000,000 other Jews who died in catholic Poland and all the other catholic countries where the death camps were.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh! the poor catholic church. It was forced to pray for Hitler, to sieg hiel (want some pictures?) to celebrate his birthday every year. They were powerless? Crap. The dissolution of the catholic party was the open door Hitler walked through into power.  I wonder if the church bells could be heard in the stripping rooms at Aushwitz?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The Soviet Union collapsed due to bankruptcy. Their entire economic system was geared to  support of their military. And when Reagan upped the arm's race, they did not have the money to keep up. Their economic engine over heated and their system blew up. There was no great moral victory for the superiority of capitalism and the west. We hocked our great grandchildren and the Russians paid the price.

  115. Publion says:

    I now notice a comment by ‘dennis ecker’ time-stamped the 30th at 1049AM.


    Let’s have a look.


    First, we are all manipulated (we “must remember”) about military history “in class” (Grade school? High school? College? West Point?) and especially about the particular tactical maneuver whereby one’s own dead were placed on the walls of one’s fortress “to give their enemies the impression that there strength was greater then it truly was” [sic; and this commenter is plausibly to be believed to have been an official report-writer?] But of course, with the exception of West Point or some undergraduate major in things military, I doubt many persons came across that bit of military arcana in their education – and, rather, moviegoers might have seen this sort of thing in one or another Hollywood flik, maybe about the French Foreign Legion in a lonely and desperate defense of a besieged desert outpost. But ‘dennis ecker’ doesn’t want to be considered as merely a fry-fly who gains his ‘knowledge’ from the movies, so he will make this stab at making it seem like this bit is part of his education (such as it was).


    Oh, and there’s a current-events connection to Syrian soldiers today (or so it is alleged – who knows for sure what is and is not being accurately reported from over there at this point?).


    Anyway, one wonders why a fry-fly Wig is going on about military arcana in the first place.


    Waitttttt for ittttttttt. He believes “we are seeing it here regard the clergy sexual abuse debate”. (“Debate”? I thought he said it was a fight or a war or something like that.)


    Then the Wig of Authority does “direct” our attention to a quotation from “someone here who gives uninformed lengthy comments” (Oh my  and oh dear – whoever could that be? And how could this Wig be any sort of judge of what is informed or uninformed? Meseems I hear the Teeth of Nastiness chattering like cheap castanets in a Wig.)


    My comment (it was me, if you hadn’t guessed, since ‘dennis ecker’ is playing his cards close to the vest) was to the effect that we can find Abuseniks adopting different screen-names. I put that comment up on the first Philly trial site (which was not – ‘dennis ecker’ blows it again – entitled “BigTrial”, which is a second title and a different blog entirely, set up for the second Philly trial and subsequent developments).


    Ah, but then the Wig of Tasteful And Coy Indirection is suddenly cast to the floor of the stage, to reveal … the Wig of J’Accuse!  (Can this really be a former firefighter? Or perhaps this was the reason the City and the Department were perhaps not unhappy to get rid of him?) He reveals that the writer of that material was … me, writing as Publion. Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


    OK then. We have established that I have written comments on other sites as Publion. Next?


    Well, dear readers, this somehow proves for ‘dennis ecker’ that I have been doing what I have suggested Abuseniks were doing: posting comments under various names so as to appear more numerous than I am.


    Oh …. Wait. It appears that this ludicrously inept Wig has just proven that I used the same screen-name.


    Ummmmmmmmmm …. So how did I “get caught” here? (Really: imagine yourself lying on a stretcher and this mentality giving a précis of your condition to the Trauma-Room staff … I think the City and the Department knew just what they were doing when they let him ride into the sunset.)


    Perhaps he meant to infer that I was getting other commenters to put up my material using their name somehow … but then that was what he and JR cooked-up, and then repeatedly blew holes in their own credibility by coming up with a string of ‘stories’ as to what they had done. Seriously, we are dealing with circus-people here; how many of them can fit into a single small car, do you think?



    Then the Wig Of Direction declares that – and here we go with this plop again – Publion and Delphin should “come forward” and “use real names and not some false title” (false title as in … “Firefighter”?) Like JR’s former (perhaps still-current gaga-interest BostonSurvivor/LearnedCounsel?


    I am not ashamed of the material I have put up. Is ‘dennis ecker’ not ashamed of his performance on this site? (Time-saver: No, he’s not. And the readership is welcome to make of that what they will.)


    And then – again mistaking his own crack-dreams for the world’s opinion – this Wig declares that “what you write can no longer be respected” … and his material is respected?


    As to “anonymous” writers on “the other site” (I think he means BigTrial here): whoever they are, they are not me. Had the Wig Of Knowingness come across some comment over there that somehow indicates my style? (Another possibility here: somebody has read my material on this site and used some bits of it on that other site – perhaps to deflate the Wig in yet another venue … the hot ironies! But the Wig dare not consider that possibility, because that would mean people are actually reading my material and doing something useful with it – and the Wig has been repeatedly insisting (in tag-team tandem with JR) that nobody reads or believes or credits my material or anybody’s material on this site if it doesn’t agree with their own cracked dreams.


    But the Wig is right about one thing. I have noticed a few thoughts or phrases of mine here and there on the BigTrial site. And good for the folks that use them.


    I also note that, though expending time and energy on the post he has put up here, ‘dennis ecker’ has not seen fit to point out just what I got “wrong” about the dodged-appointment matter. Was he ashamed to be seen if he had showed up at that meeting?


    As I have often said and we have often seen here, real names (and who knows if they’re real in the first place?) don’t really do much for the quality of one’s material at all.

    • dennis ecker says:

      It seems that a nerve has been hit and anyone can see how Publion or what other titles he may go by either on this site or others attempts to defend himself by either using the childish name calling or personal attacks most likely fueled by ENVY. (painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, a desire to possess the same advantage.)


  116. delphin says:

    "Its time for the Publions and Delphins to come forward and if your not ashamed of what you write come forward and use real names and not some false title."

    Suggest you use your usual tactics to get your way, i.e. hold your breath until you turn blue as you lay on the ground kicking your feet.

    "God who? Just because you talk to imaginary creatures doesn't mean that I have to. If your imaginary "friend" tells you to do things. It's Doctor time."

    So, let's put this on terms you can relate to; the imaginary 'monkey' in your ancestry that 'created' you and who you worship (aka your god) does not advocate to it's 'followers' any requirement to love and express charity to its fellow 'monkey-man'; so, in your world, which 'evolved' (eventually, still?) from primates, health care (doctors, hospitals, insurance) is not required according to the laws of nature. And, in reality, if it weren't for God, and the world was operating strictly under the laws of nature, you and your kind would serve no utilitarian purpose to the society/culture/community/population (since procreation is the sole reason for existence and goal of all living things), whatsoever, and you would have been 'selected' out of the population – discarded by society, or more likely, just eaten.

    'Imagining' that you'd be rather dry and 'chewy' at this late stage of the game-

    Nature is cruel. God is merciful.

    • dennis ecker says:

      History Lesson continued:

      During the initial trial of Fr. Lynn and Fr. Brennan the Philadelphia Daily News covered the trial with Mr. Martin being the reporter, and at the end of his column he had a comment section.

      As I once again show the idea that was penned by Publion "what happens when some groups get a small number of dedicated folks who adopt different screen-names to give the impression that the group enjoys a wider public support than is actually the case".

      A commentor back then was being accused of Publion's very idea by not only leaving comments under his name but those of others. The very strange thing this individual was doing was placing comments and responding to them under his additional names.  A sick second personality is one way you can look at it.

      Now before someone jumps down my back for attacking this individual I WAS NOT the one who made those accusations until now.

      Getting back to the events that unfolded. As the accusations continued this individual eventually ceased leaving comments on the columns and was seen leaving comments at the New York Times.

      The person who was accused of doing such a thing was DPierre.



    • Jim Robertson says:

      If god was merciful, he'd sweep you to the bosom of Abrahan now.

      O.K. so you don't belive in evolution. We get exactly how up to date you are.

      Social Darwinism is a lie. We got along by getting along if you get my drift.

      If the laws of nature aren't god's will, what the hell are they?

    • josie says:

      That is brilliant!

  117. delphin says:

    "Hey hon I'm just telling my truth here."

    Hey, {insert insincere endearment here], how about telling THE truth, here? There is " the truth", recognized and accepted by the [sane, moral] majority, and then there is the "my truth", aka the 'other than "the" truth'. If it isnt "The Truth", is isnt truth at all. Bending and warping realities (eg. gender, marriage, good, bad) and truths is the domain of evil (by whatever name your 'truth' refers to it).

    "The readership can take it or leave it. Either way's good for me."

    Evidently, it ISN'T good for you, you protest much, in writing, in your own convoluted, incomplete and disjointed words and 'concepts'.

    This is the problem with antiCatholic zealots, the Kool Aid has so pickled the brain that it no longer distinguishes reality from fantasy.

  118. Publion says:

    Rather than address any of the substance of my comment (the 30th, 810PM) or – what’s new? – any of the clear errors in his material,  the sly Wig decides that he sees that “a nerve has been hit”. Would that be evidenced by exaggerated formatting, epithets, declamatory faux-papal pronunciamentos and denunciations and the like? If not, then what might lead him to the idea that any nerve has been hit any more than usual (when, at this point, it is more often the funny-bone than a “nerve” that starts vibrating insistently when I look at the latest plop-piles).


    But ludicrous gives way to florid when the Wig then surmises that I am trying to “defend” myself because of “ENVY” [exaggerated Wiggy formatting retained].  Readers are welcome to make of that surmise whatever they will.


    However – alas – I believe that the Wig(s) must now accept that that descriptor “Wig(s)” is not at all some name-calling out of the blue but rather the now-accepted shorthand for the mentalities that the term describes and the various piles that they put up here.  (Nice touch, though: looking up ‘envy’ in a dictionary and sharing the fruits of that ‘research’. Too little too late, but a nice touch.)


    What I do think has agitated the Wig of Affairs, however, is this: it appears that on the BigTrial site too, some readers are starting to treat him not as a particularly outspoken and authoritative (if cranky and fixated) victim or Maximum Leader of The Movement, but rather as some sort of rodeo-clown. Did they get that from reading material on this site? Or did they come to that conclusion on their own? More grist for the vaudeville mill; readers are advised to please purchase your popcorn before the next show starts.

  119. Publion says:

    And before the popcorn can be popped for the next show, we have JR’s two (nine minutes apart – some serious deliberation must have been going on) from the 1st at 657PM and 706PM.


    He leads off his excursus with a descriptive conclusion (“What utter nonsense!”) and perhaps readers would like to figure the odds of any explanation for it to quickly follow.


    In what way has the Church ‘restructured’ history here? Just because there are historical factors (which I pointed out) that make mush of JR’s Cartoonish preconceptions … ? Has he read the text of the Concordat? Has he found evidence of a diplomatic alliance there between the Vatican and the Third Reich? Which Article of the Concordat supports that assertion or presumption?


    Instead he tries to change the subject from the Concordat to “the ratline”. But it is equally plausible that the postwar “ratline” – as with the prewar doings of some prelates and priests on the front-line of contact with the Reich or who were pursuing their own individual agendas (Msgr. Tiso comes to mind quickly here) – simply indicates that the Vatican was not in total and universal control of the doings of even its own prelates and priests.


    Which corresponds to that precise dynamic as it has manifested itself stubbornly throughout the history of pre-Reformation Christianity and post-Reformation Catholicism (contrary to the self-serving and strategically useful Abusenik and tortie Cartoon that the Church is some sort of monster totalitarian government … and isn’t that a neat symmetry to be fomented by actual monster totalitarian governments?).


    As for “the rabid anti-semitism of catholic at the time”: is that assertion supposed to accurately apply to all Catholics? JR’s research can establish that, can it? And what about the anti-Semitism of Protestants (in Germany, in the Western governments and peoples) and even the Soviets themselves? How does all that fit into the Cartoon here?


    In what way is history being re-written here as opposed to the far more plausible (and demonstrated) effort to correct Cartoonish inaccuracies? Just what “history” – specifically – is “being rewritten” here? Or – rather – are we seeing played out before us the confoundment of a Cartoon-dependent mentality when faced with the insufficiency (to say the very least) of its cherished Cartoons?


    More movie bits with the “bride of Frankenstein” plop.


    And then, still faced with the insufficiency of his Cartoons – JR has to find someone else to blame for that, and so he claims that I or other readers here “have … to always find the church justifiable in it’s actions” [sic]. Can JR show specifically where I have ‘rewritten’ history here?


    I’d say, rather, that in the material under consideration here I have found that the Church’s actions were understandable in the historical context in which they occurred, and when compared with other governments’ handling of the same type of challenges. (Although I note again: no other government has as many of its own citizens at direct risk of totalitarian violence as the Church had believers at such risk.)  What thoughts does that problem generate for JR’s deliberation?


    What precisely was the Pope going to do by the time people were dying at “Aushwitz”? Had the perfesser here noted that the existence and operations of Auschwitz as an extermination camp post-dated the era of the Concordat by almost a decade? And can he show other governments among the Allies who did a better job of dealing with the problem of the Final-Solution camps? What solution does JR consider would have been advisable and workable, and would not have run the risk of inciting even more deaths, and would have enjoyed any reasonable probability of success? I’d really like to hear that one.


    Bets on whether we do? I doubt it. The whole idea in this Church/Nazi bit is – by amazing coincidence – so very much like the Abusenik gambit: find some stick to whack the piñata and keep whacking it, without ever letting the focus turn to other alternatives.


    And if Pius XII can accurately be characterized (for purposes of discussion here) as having “ignored” the nun and the Six Million, then who among the world’s Western leaders cannot also be so characterized? And if all the Western leaders of that era can be so characterized, then what does JR do with that? What was the Pope to have done by 1942 after the Wannsee Conference? What were the other Western leaders to do?


    If JR has pictures of “the poor catholic church” sieg-heil-ing (rather than this or that individual) I’d like to see those pictures. Cardinal Innitzer in Vienna tried to put the Anschluss in the best possible light (and sizable numbers of his Austrian flock as well as Austrians generally were hardly opposed to it) but when it became clear a) that there was no light at the end of that tunnel and b) both Pius XI and then-Cardinal Pacelli distinctly made him aware of Vatican disapproval of his course of action, he opposed the Reich and suffered greatly for it at the hands of the Nazis.


    Monsignor Tiso was for all practical purposes a renegade and a political figure (the Slovakian People’s Party) and he was executed after the war as a political-figure who collaborated actively with the Nazis. It is of no small historical significance that he was executed and buried in secret, because the postwar Czech government feared that the Slovak people would make his grave a shrine. So much for the Vatican controlling everything and everybody.


    JR then tosses off some plop about the dissolution of the Catholic Center Party in Germany (which was the price Hitler demanded for his Concordat in 1933). If JR has some suggestions as to how the Vatican might have better handled the situation that Hitler’s sudden appointment as Chancellor posed (to all the Western governments and the Soviet government as well as to the Vatican) then let him share that alternative vision. But I think we shall get no such thing – and instead we shall simply get (if we get any more along this topic at all) more plop-tossing, historically incompetent and uninformed.


    As always, I am not so much interested in conducting an informed historical exchange with JR – which would be an act of almost insane presumption on my part for obvious reasons. But I think that since the subject of the Church – and the methods used to somehow use the Church as a piñata – is an important subject, then there is some usefulness to dealing with these bits that have been prompted by the recent publication of that book by Deschner.

  120. Mark says:

    Encouraging news – though still some way to go. The changes put in place after the Dallas Charter in 2002 have made the Church a role model in the care and protection of children. The abuse scandals are far behind us (1965-85) – though sexual abuse of children continues unabated, TODAY, in other faiths and is rampant and ignored in public schools and society at large. The influx of ACTIVE homosexuals into the seminaries during the increasingly permissive 1960s and 1970s led to a damaging episode in the Church's history. The uncompromising actions taken by Pope Benedict mean that young men who have discerned a calling feel confident now that they can enter the seminaries and follow that calling unhindered and unencumbered by the transgressions of the past.

  121. delphin says:

    "I wonder if the church bells could be heard in the stripping rooms at Aushwitz?"

    For the typical leftist-atheist, there are no rules (morals, ethics, truths) about how low one should stoop to bottom- feed for anything that could possibly be used to bash Catholics.

    Let's just let their statement hang out there in all it's glory as a fair representation of the lefts perspectives and tactics for engaging their opposition in debate.

    Meanwhile, while they bask in the afterglow of their despicableness (probably lots of experience there), one might suggest that the SOL be suspended for all the Jews and other holocaust victims and their descendents throughout the world so that they, too, can sue the Church for claimed 'crimes' (aka theology of morals, ethics, charity, love)  committed centuries ago.  We can go all the way back to the crucifixion of Christ- as we know, He offended much of His opposition as He hung on that cross. There must be psychological damage out there, as a result, somewhere?

    And, I have no doubt that this insanity, as framed, would be happily embraced by this 'fair-minded, logical, righteous and ever-evolved' lefty-atheist gang if they ever had the drug and alcohol-induced courage (and attorneys) to pursue such options. 





    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm sorry weren't the Nazi death camps overwhelmingly IN catholic countries?

      A friend just said that if lapsed catholics were counted; they'd be the second largest christian church in America. The first being the catholic church. Now dats a lot of catholics!

      And can we possibly pretend that a catholic church had no power in European countries in particular catholic countries? They sure had a lot of power before and during Mussolini; Hitler ; andFranco( all catholic boys, by the by.)

      And they sure had a lot of power after the war but somehow their power evaporated like Poof! during the war. Particularly around the evaporation of 6,000,000,000 jews.  Pull the other one.

  122. Publion says:

    In regard to the Einstein bit in JR’s of the 2nd at 1238AM: Einstein was almost immediately offered elite university positions after the publication of his initial work and he remained with important positions and university employment and a participant in an extensive peer-network of fellow scientists for the rest of his life.


    This character Deschner has been putting his stuff out there for decades and has neither attracted nor achieved anything at all like that.


    But he has attracted the gaga adulation of JR. And that surely must be indicative of something, no?

  123. Publion says:

    Once again we are given (the 1st, 1117PM) a “History Lesson” from ‘dennis ecker’, who seems not to have been fazed by the (embarrassing?) failure of his prior lesson.


    No link to any of the material he claims to have as a source.


    I don’t recall making a comment on the Philadelphia Daily News site; I do recall the comment on the original Cipriano site. But if ‘dennis ecker’ would care to put up the link to that PDN article, that would be nice. Otherwise – I trust he understands – there will remain some substantive doubt.


    Anyhoo, what’s going to be his point here? Let’s see.


    Well, ‘dennis ecker’s thought – as conveyed by his writing – is so convoluted that I can’t figure out what point he is trying to make. (And when his writing becomes particularly convoluted, that – in my assessment – indicates that there isn’t a clear reality that he’s working with, but rather the fuzzy lineaments of a phantasm that has appeared on the screen behind his eyeballs which he now wants to make appear in the minds of others as well. Not quite Madam Blavatsky here, but surely a manipulative type of mesmerism.)


    Apparently Dave Pierre had put up a comment and – we have the Wiggy word for this – was being accused of … using other people’s names as well as his own to leave comments. If DP was actually accused of that (no links to source material from guess-who here), how could anyone ever know if it were true or not? Has ‘dennis ecker’ not kept up with the discussions on this site about that very Problem? So what actually do we have as a point here, which ‘dennis ecker’ is trying to make?


    Notice also that to the Wig and to Abuseniks, an ‘accusation’ is apparently for all practical purposes as good as a demonstrated fact. And we wonder how the Stampede works?


    Also, my assessment of the Chief Wig’s material is that whenever he uses exaggerated formatting one can reliably presume that the truth of whatever he is ‘shouting’ about bears 180-degrees in relation to his actual assertion.


    Once again, we have no links to verify the assertion “as the accusations continued” and there could be a number of explanations for why DP – if indeed any of this Wiggy comment is accurate in the first place – commented on other sites. If all of this was indeed supposed to have taken place on a newspaper site, then I don’t see newspaper sites as a venue for carrying on extended comment-exchange (as is possible on the BigTrial site, its predecessor, and on this site); newspaper sites would attract less-sustained commentary by their very nature.

  124. says:

    Thank you, everyone, for your comments!

    This thread is now closed.


  1. [...] I received a note from Dave Pierre of The Media Report alerting me to the news The Times had finally reported the news of the church’s court [...]