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


  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 [...]