Church-Suing Lawyer Garabedian Apoplectic As Diocese of Fall River Stands Firm Against Unfounded Abuse Claim

Mitchell Garabedian lawyer

Church-suing contingency lawyer Mitchell Garabedian on the hunt for money

Last week, leading contingency lawyer Mitchell Garabedian dramatically claimed that the Catholic Church is "once again acting in the most immoral way by allowing the wholesale sexual abuse of children."

Wow! "Allowing the wholesale sexual abuse of children"? What exactly could have prompted Garabedian's shocking claim? Did the Diocese of Fall River (serving Southeastern Massachusetts), at whom Garabedian directed his comments, recently return a dangerous child abuser to ministry? Did the diocese recently look the other way as abuse was being committed?

As it turns out, the diocese did none of these things. Instead, the diocese simply did not kowtow to Garabedian's demand for money in his latest abuse suit against the Catholic Church.

Garabedian strikes out down the Interstate

As it has been reported before, Garabedian has successfully sued dioceses in the United States for alleged abuse even in cases where the accused priests were long dead, the accusations were dubious, and the priests never had any hints of impropriety when they were alive.

In 2012, the Archdiocese of Boston paid Garabedian in two such cases, much to the outrage of the deceased priests' family members and friends. Garabedian's success in extracting money from the Archdiocese of Boston appeared as easy as a trip to the ATM machine.

Garabedian probably thought he would have it just as easy when he filed a similar lawsuit, also in 2012, against the Diocese of Fall River, alleging abuse by a priest starting in the late 1970s. In his suit, Garabedian made the astonishing claim that a priest abused two parishioners for nearly a decade starting when the boys were 9 or ten years old and lasting until they were seventeen.

Those pesky details

Diocese of Fall River

The Diocese of Fall River (Mass.)
shows some muscle

Alas, however, the diocese hired independent investigators to look into the matter, and they concluded that the evidence did not support Garabedian's claim. Most notably, the accused priest died in 1996 at 83 years old, and not a single allegation had ever been made against him.

Yet even though no evidence of abuse was found by investigators, the diocese agreed not only to offer free counseling for the men but to also enter a mediation process to bring closure to the case.

However, as the Diocese of Fall River reports, Garabedian recently abruptly "ended the mediation process."

In other words, when the diocese apparently refused Garabedian's demand for money, he unleashed his tirade that the Church was now somehow "allowing the wholesale sexual abuse of children."

Not the first time for Garabedian

Not surprisingly, this is not the first time that Garabedian has gone off the rails when a diocese has not met his demands for money. In early 2002, when the Archdiocese of Boston did not acquiesce to a reported settlement, that provoked Garabedian to tar the Catholic Church as "just plain evil." (A high-profile settlement, with more claimants and more money, was later reached in 2003.)

Kudos to the Diocese of Fall River for standing for justice and refusing the bullying demands of Garabedian.


  1. Jesse says:

    Nice to see that someone in the church stands up to these guys.

    • Joanne says:


    • Elizabeth D says:

      Yes, amen!

      There is a book called _Catholic Priests Falsely Accused_ by David Pierre if I recall correctly, that is worth reading. There has been a significant phenomenon of scam claims from people wanting to milk the Church for a lot of money and smear the Church and priests at the same time. It is like a whole sociopathic industry, run by lawyers like this guy. It serves no one when dioceses pay out false claims.

      Real victims are also getting unbelievably ill served by this type of lawyer and the hate group type "victim" groups that are not really oriented toward assistance or healing of wounded people.

      Meanwhile, other sincere people are creating real resources and support for people who have been hurt, there is a very highly to be recommended book called _My Peace I Give You, healing sexual wounds with the help of the Saints_ by Dawn Eden.

  2. Another Mark says:

    Go Mitchell, the church HAS allowed the wholesale abuse of children, You must have done something right now that David Pierre must attack you to.  How laughable, he said accusing Mitchel of treating the church as a trip to the ATM.   This from a church that asks for more money from YOU the "faithful sheep" at every opportunity.  This same church that has mismanaged your hard earned heartfelt donations.  This from the same church leaders who closed the churches you and your parents built with your donations. 

    David Pierre acts as if every victim is a money sucking leach, no regard for the damage done to the countless children and their families.  Sadly he and others like him believe such attacks somehow support our church, the fact is the opposite is the result.  Acting more like an enabler of wayward children rather than a parent who demands responsability from his/her children.

    David, simply because no one came forward while the priest was alive does nothing to prove he did not abuase during his lifetime.  Of course the church paid attorny's investigators "found no evidence" of abuse.  Why would the church pay them if they did?  You really do see the faithful as dumb, blind sheep, fortunately most are far from it.

    • Mark says:

      I just want to know what makes my namesake so certain that Mitchell is not telling lies against an innocent cleric.

    • Delphin says:

      Another Mark seems to have many, many grievances against 'his' church – will he sue them for those purported transgressions, as well? It really is never just about bedevilled clergymen, is it?

      If he were pope for a day, I wonder how Another Mark would 'transform'  or 'reform' the Catholic Church – perhaps he could make it in the image of every other 'reformed' church – one that is democratic (bends to the will of the prevailing culture) and liberal?


  3. Mary Grant says:

    It's even nicer and more justified when kowtow Catholics and politicians find the courage to stand up to their own heirarchys' deceit and lies- those who knew hundreds of thousands of kids and vulnerable adults were and continue to be sexual abused by Catholic clerics around the globe.  Yet that's rare—that intimitated and scared Catholics and politicians around the globe would have the guts to stand up against such horrific atrocities.

    On a side note to Jim Robertson:  Just fyi, I was informed that you claimed that I did not attend high school or college.  I did both Mr. Robertson. I attendend high school and attended and completed college too.  Yet, they were public schools.  LOL.  Oh, how Catholic is that Mr. Robertson? Just to set that record straight for your sake.  I also did attend Catholic grammar schools, their masses as well as catechism classes like so many others raped by clergy.  

    Mr. Robertson, I'm sincerely glad for you that your attorney had the guts to stand up for you.

    All the best to you,

    Mary Grant

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mary I never said you attended catholic univercities. i said David and Barbra did. fyi

    • Mary Grant says:

      Mr. Roberston:

      Perhaps you'd like to go back and re-read your claim in one of your past posts on this website…..claiming I didn't attend HS or college (ya know, implying that I'm stupid)… that is, if you can find it/or if it hasn't already been deleted.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

  4. Mary Grant says:

    Oh, and btw, I already saw a couple of my own "typo" errors.  So perhaps some folks here may find it in their hearts to not obsess over that. I skipped "spell check" just to make it extra special for you all. LOL  Go Boston! :)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mary I never said or implied you were stupid. I just didn't think you were particularly educated; and were therefor more easily controled or led by the people paying your SNAP salary.

      Now for all intents and purposes of proving you are Mary Grant; and not say Delphin or P. Could you just name 2 of the resturants we ate at after demos at the L.A. cathedral?

  5. Domingo says:

    I'm confused.  After reading the item and read the ensuing comments, Another Mark mentioned "wholesale abuse of children".  If this were accurate, I should be wary of my parish as well.  But that's not the case.  Another Mark, make sure your comments are TRUE.

    And by its mouth, you'll catch the fish.  Another Mark, it is you who said:  "as if every victim is a money sucking leach."  You're giving it away.

    And Mary Grant, who is Jim Robertson?  I do not see his post anywhere in this item, or his name mentioned by the author in the article. I have a feeling that the Comments Section has become a venue of sorts or something.

    I'm confused.

    Oh, I just remember:  it's the devil who sows confusion.  Begone, satan!  "The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart. The command of the LORD is clear, enlightening the eye." (Psalm 19:8)


    • josie says:

      I believe that is is very slow going on the victim/advocate blogs so Mary Grant, who has has settled her suits years ago, feels the need to comment to keep the ball rolling. If you have the time and interest which I have neither at the moment, you can check out bishopaccountability, Orange county going back to the late 70's-and further interest I scanned threw a released personnel file of Fr. John Lenihan, who was defrocked 12 years ago.


      I am finding more and more the personnel dysfunction of people involved with victim/advocate groups even now. I see little productive activity there. In addition, the therapy does not seem to have been beneficial in most cases that I see here. That is all I have time for now.   

    • josie says:

      Making spelling errors must be becoming contagious–"I scanned through…."

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I was told this about your education long ago, Mary Grant. If I was told wrong I wonder why?  And if I am wrong I sincerely apologize.

      Also the people I keep in contact with from the victims we worked with said nothings been heard from you since 2007, 7 year break and back at it Mary? Good for you.

      My attorney stood up for me? Gee thanks Mary, Kathy Freeberg, was your attorney too.

      Are you reconnected to SNAP, Mary?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Wow!!!! Now I'm the devil? OMG! this is what you've come to?

      Domingo, how's all that superstition working for you in life?

      "Anyone who believes in the devil is already firmly in his grasp" Goethe


  6. Publion says:

    I would also ask of ‘Another Mark’ (the 19th, 952PM) the same question that ‘Mark’ asks (the 20th, 652AM): why trust this lawyer (hereinafter: ‘MG’)?

    Readers may recall my mention of a Boston attorney in D’Antonio’s book who was involved in various bits of quite possibly prohibited and unlawful skullduggery in helping the Boston Globe get its series published in early January 2002 (D’Antonio is pro-Stampede and sees MG’s activity as sort of charmingly enterprising). That attorney D’Antonio was discussing was none other than MG. And MG is certainly a prime candidate for inclusion among those torties who have taken the Anderson Strategies into the big-time.

    And on what basis are we supposed to credit ‘Another Mark’s (hereinafter: ‘AM’) unsupported and global assertion that “the church HAS allowed the wholesale abuse of children”? [giveaway exaggerated formatting retained]

    Which is then followed by snark to the effect that MG “must be doing something right now that David Pierre must attack you”.

    Which also includes the classic Playbook legerdemain of presuming that the reporting of a historically and actually verifiable fact (i.e. MG’s publicly stated ire at the Diocese of Fall River) constitutes “an attack”.

    And then a mere epithet about it being “laughable” that MG treats the Church as “a trip to the ATM”, also a juvenile bit from the Playbook that has been seen here many times.

    And I would add that where the Church asks (as many organizations do) for “donations”, it does not try to take potential ‘donors’ to court in order to obtain vast sums from them on the basis of legal charges almost completely unsupported by any evidence.

    Then a blunderbuss blam of a bunch of (otherwise quite rationally explicable) Church decisions in regard to “closing churches” that had been built – we see the smarmy heart-string pulling manipulative bit from the Playbook here – with “your hard earned heartfelt donations” from “you and your parents”.

    Then a fresh paragraph with more Playbook stuff.

    First, to the effect that “David Pierre acts as if every victim is a money sucking leach” [sic]: if anyone deliberately tried to bring a lawsuit against you, alleging acts from the long-ago for which they have no evidence but merely a story, and publicizes the whole thing highly, what would you consider such a person to be?

    But then again: DP has never said any such thing as “money sucking leach” [sic] and I can’t recall any commenter using the term either.

    But then again: in the Abusenik Playbook, if you don’t totally buy the script, then you are ‘attacking’ them. (The Abusenik objective here is to distract you from the fact that they may well be involved in something characterizable as the activity of a “money sucking leach”[sic]  and therefore try to quickly get you (the reader or hearer) to focus on the (merely alleged) victimization of the whole thing.)

    Second, we get – yet again – the mere but utter presumption of “the damage done” by alleged acts the nature and even the very existence of which has never been demonstrated. And I would also recall here the recent material here discussing the cautious use of “potential” in the statements of various scientific papers and research results. ‘Potential’ is not synonymous with ‘certain’ (and so even some phrase like ‘an absolutely certain potential’ would not move things forward at all in this regard).

    Third, the Wig of Bemused and Honest Innocence with that “sadly”.

    And then fourth: the use of the presumed “attacks” (discussed above in this comment of mine) to cluck condescendingly that “such attacks [do not] somehow support our church”. Would that be “our” Church? And is it not ‘supportive’ to point out how the allegations are unfounded and highly dubious and seriously improbable?

    And in regard to “responsability”: did so many Abuseniks go to the same school of misspelling? There seems to be a pattern here.

    And then fifth: the old “enabler” trope, right from the Playbook.

    And then the next paragraph works toward whistling-away the profound and abyssal evidentiary and veracity problems with the Stampede and the Abuseniks: “simply because no one came forward while the priest was alive does nothing to prove he did not abuse during his lifetime” [correction supplied]

    No, the fact that “no one came forward while the priest was alive” does not provide conclusive evidence that the alleged abuse never happened. But it also a) provides no evidence that the alleged abuse did happen and b) provides an element of increased-probability that the story was concocted opportunistically after the priest died, in order to cash in on the Stampede piñata game.

    And it also provides some grounds for doubting the conceptual chops (and perhaps good faith) of anybody who would try to pass off such a conceptual misch as if it were clear and pristine logic, upon which he might base his assertions with no further need for explication.

    And if the Church’s paid investigators “found no evidence” – although the Church (or Diocese, here) must know that it would very likely have to rely on those investigative findings in a public forum – then the same can be said for any investigators the tortie might engage (although, as we know, given the now-established dynamics of the Anderson Strategies in the Stampede, the tortie might well expect that his client’s claims and allegations and stories would never be required to face public and objective scrutiny in the first place anyway).

    Abuseniks “really do see” us as “dumb blind sheep”, but “fortunately” – and especially through the work on TMR – that is not the case.

    Which is what moves the Abuseniks to toss up the type of stuff we see here in the AM comment.

  7. rondre says:

    wow three texts today to give me a heads up that the "circus is back in town" check out mediareports. I scrolled down real fast. [edited by moderator]

    • Delphin says:

      You [sad] people have nothing better to do then text each other about whatever TMR is up to?

      And, we're supposed to abandon our Church over your insane claims?

      Oh yeah, sure.

  8. LDB says:

    Mitchell Garabedian is a hero. He deserves much more money than whatever he has already earned. Close all of the churches and let's put religion behind us. The future will be better for it.

    Down with 'skullduggery' and 'skulduggery'! And down with artifice, chicane, chianery, gamesmanshp, hanky-panky, jiggery-pokery, jugglery, legerdemain, trickery, subterfuge and wile! Vocabulaaaaaaryyyyyy!

    • LDB states, in his comment on May 20th, that Mitchell Garabedian is a hero. Well to each his own.  However from my viewpoint he is a ambulance- chasing lawyer of the worst kind. In fact he fills me with anger and resentment… with his slanderous attacks on the Catholic Church. I am not a gospel authority but can remember a passage in which Jesus himself compared some lawyers with 'white-washed tombstones', saying that they were all clean and neat on the surface but beneath the surface were just decay, and rotting corruption. To my mind these were the words of a angry man, and I think we often overlook the human side of our Saviour. This guy did not like what he was going on around him and he said so… loud and clear. But angry people, including myself, often generalize, and this can be unfair to the majority of lawyers. Because in reality most lawyers are men and women of intelligence, integrity and personal courage. However a few months ago I wrote to a senior office-bearer of The Law Society in my own country, Australia.

      I was complaining about how a witch-hunt public mood was developing against my church and it's priesthood. In his reply his punch-line was in these words…"I would expect that people who are incorrectly accused would not agree to a payout to an accuser."  Now to my mind this meant he was either being disingenuous… or didn't understand what was happening around him.

      The reason for these payouts should be crystal clear to every discerning person. And it is not because of any widespread guilt. It is actually because of a derangement in the legal process. Stemming from a witch-hunt public mood in the court of public opinion. Basically in effect some lawyers are saying to the Church….. that unless they receive a cash settlement for their clients then the accused priest will almost certainly go to prison. This is no empty threat because it has already been demonstrated many times. The wrongful conviction of Father Engelhardt, just two years ago in Philadelphia, is abundant proof of the witch-hunt public mood. The evidence against him came only from a habitual drug addict who had been arrested six times for drug trafficking. The alleged victim had actually been in and out of drug rehab clinics on 23 separate occasions. On the sole word of this dubious witness the priest is now rotting in prison. And his drug addict accuser is enriched with a huge pay-out from the Church.There can be no other explanation for this blatant travesty but that a witch- hunt public mood caused a derangement of the legal process. So this is why the payouts have been so numerous. The choice has been made clear….pay up or your priest will end up rotting in prison.  This is not western justice…it is a corruption of western justice. So if the Law Society guy is really blind to this… then I will describe lawyers in the terms that Jesus used….." they are like white-washed tombstones…..".



  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Mary since you were once SNAP's Western regional director. Could you explain why SNAP has not only held no elections but choose to ignore elections that were held by "survivors"?

    Also who; where; why; and how have SNAP's political lines been decided upon?

    I believe you're telling me the truth about who you are Mary so please forgive my bluntness When and where and what schools degrees did you receive?

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    Josie don't just hit and run. Why would anyone take your word as to who is or is not personally dysfunctional here? R U practicing medicine here sans licence? Did you get your doctorate at the same school of magic that P got his from? Hogworts perhaps? Or did god just give you the insight as to other peoples dysfunctions? Gee and if we're a bit fucked up; therapy was going to just fix it easy; peasy; no problem? Huh?

    You know god's been giving me some pretty clear thoughts about those who run to religion because religion offers them EVERYTHING (after they die, the greedy little bastards) Religion: the pen-ultimate lottery. An all or nothing proposition Yet nobodies returned from that distant shore to tell us: it's even there.  Jesus (And he supposedly came back) never talked much about what was beyond the pale.

    TMR, And Garabedian's a bad guy; why? Because you say his clients weren't abused? How do you know that's true?

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    Interesting! Still no personal calls from SNAP (my number hasn't changed) but a command performance perhaps from Ms. Grant letting you know how wrong I am?

    And after 7 years silence to boot. Interesting! I must interrupt more SNAP press conferences. Somethings snapped, you should pardon the pun.

  12. Publion says:

    Let us gently pass by the unremarkable ketchup-splattered Playbook bits by ‘LDB’ and ‘Rondre’.

    On the 21st at 627PM JR asks ‘Josie’ if she is “practicing medicine here sans licence?” [sic] We recall JR tossing “sociopath” around as if he had one. I don’t recall JR having told us where he got his license – or perhaps he just got his photo taken with somebody who had one, or maybe once upon a time he walked on the grounds of Johns Hopkins or some other med school, or has a relative who has one. The possibilities are endless.

    However we do see something that is not unfamiliar to clinicians: certain types of afflicted don’t seem to see the symptoms in the mirror that they claim to see out in the world all around them.

    Then we are informed that “god’s been giving [JR] some pretty clear thoughts” … and this doesn’t set off any alarm bells?

    Readers are welcome – once again – to weigh the probability of Abusenik stories and allegations being true. Since their torties have hidden those stories and allegations behind a wall of secrecy that they required as part of the settlements, probabilities are all we have to work with.

    Then on the 20th at 636PM we are let in on JR’s ‘personal reality’ in regard to his awaiting some attention from SNAP, as if there were any substantive reason for SNAP to indulge him in this matter.

    A mano-a-mano in the ring between some SNAP-ster and JR: now that is something to imagine.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    I am claiming SNAP to be a fraud. I am a victim who, thanks to TMR ,represents publicly more of real victims' POV than SNAP has ever mustered.

    I've interrupted, and will do it again, SNAP press conferences. Reason enough to call me and ask the simple question: Why are you doing this? And to explain to me (or Kay; or Michael Bauman etc etc) why I am wrong about SNAP.

    • Delphin says:

      SNAP may need to ante up a cool mill to shut down the "SNAP is a Fraud" machine.

      Dog bites owner. Nice.

      Meanwhile, while these self-serving pigs and their lawyers continue to wallow in their own filth, real kids are being brutalized everywhere BUT in the Catholic Church.



    • Mark says:

      Good for the Diocese. Delphin has it right. Appeasement is absolutely not the strategy to adopt. Be as tough with the false accusers and their aiders and abeters as you are with offending priests (are they any left? what was it, 7 credibly accused of some type of offence last year? Out of 40,000). The pinata is empty – that’s why Garabedian is squealing. 

      Meanwhile, in the real world, the epidemic of child sexual abuse continues unchecked:  

      “Dozens arrested in New York child pornogrpahy bust”

      Child pornography often leads to/is an indicator of child sexual abuse. Of course, SNAP knows all about child pornography as it defended a SNAP lawyer caught with child pornography on his computer. Oh, and notice the list of those arrested. Another Rabbi?

      Protestant pastors charged with child sexual abuse:

      By the way, the board of the ROC “church” wished the multiple offenders among its pastors all the best for them and their families. 

      Much the same in the case of Calvary Chapel and its recently exposed child sex abuse scandals. 

      And this is not from 40 years ago. It’s just a few examples of what’s occurring right now. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin you hyper-inflate anything and everything. A "cool million"! You think that will shut me up? Really offer it and see.

      Just found out Barbra Blaine recieved her masters in Divinity in the early "90's from a Church of Christ school for "religious leaders" which includes priests and nuns in it's student body. It's called the Chicago Theological Seminary.

      I can comfortably say SNAP and Blaine have more evidence against them, than they do for them, being who they and you say they are.

  14. Delphin says:

    The Church has learnd a hard lesson; appeasement only emboldens your enemies.

    Just ask our Dear [leftist] Leader, King Obama.

    Show your belly and you will be neutered.

    • Delphin says:

      [edited by moderator]

      Mitchell is sniffing around in the wrong place for his next cut – he needs to start chasing some of the real pedophiles, you know, the ones without the "Father" salutation.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Neutered"? Not castrated? Not spayed or gelded or clipped? Not cut or demasculated? When did this big, roll over, belly show happen, Princess? Where were the ladies at this, you should excuse the expression, ball game of yours?

      Where were the other half of humanity at this abattoir you invented? Kniting socks for our boys over seas like an American Madame Le Farge at the Guillotine? Baking brownies perhaps?

      You just love pretending to be persecuted. May you never be really persecuted. Though there are times…….. No I'll take the higher path. I won't do to others; what I would not want done to me.

      I didn't need a dieity to figure that one out. In the real world we call that; empathy.

  15. LDB says:

    Look! It's a diversion!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No, It's just Delphin.

    • Delphin says:

      Definition of diversion below:

      "Down with 'skullduggery' and 'skulduggery'! And down with artifice, chicane, chianery, gamesmanshp, hanky-panky, jiggery-pokery, jugglery, legerdemain, trickery, subterfuge and wile! Vocabulaaaaaaryyyyyy!"

      And then, we've got:

      "If you want to see how correct I am about SNAP. Look at SNAP's bit on UTube yesterday. All women again. In an 80%+  male victim horror.  Behind Barbra you can see pictures of victims at the age we were when abused. 3 boys' and 4 girls' pictures. Heterosexualizing the scandal of course. Defusing the homosexual elements of the scandal and letting the public know that there are many more girl victims than the public knew. Benefiting the church of course.Then listen to Blaine (The $100,000 a year professional) stammer and stumble and hem and haw about the subject she's supposedly been the expert at for 25+ years.Blaine selected all the questions to be answered by her on Twitter.One call actually asked what the U.N. committee would mean for compensating victims. THE FIRST TIME, ever  a public answer from Blaine on compensation? And no! she passes it over to the woman Pam. She talks the same old crap for a quarter of a century yet she's no facility in language around the issue? This isn't incompetence alone. This was the plan."

      Not much else to say, is there?

  16. Mark says:

    Right, Delphin, May 21 7:43pm:

    Just a couple from today's Christian Post.

    By the way, one of the reports refers to Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment (GRACE), a group that investigates sexual abuse in churches and ministries. Unlike SNAP, GRACE seem genuinely interested in protecting children from sexual abuse and they point out how widespread it is in Protestant denominations and ministries. I'd never heard of GRACE before – but they have more Facebook friends than the now irrelevant SNAP. Of course, SNAP have more corrupt legal/attorney friends.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Corrupt? Compared to your hierarchy? Please!

      Where did it say and who said it: It's the job of the raped to protect your children????

      How did that become more important FOR US, than compensation and recovery?
      SNAP set that theme. And I, for one, never signed up to do your work for you. You owe us. We owe you nothing.

      [edited by moderator] let me add this: We who were raped, of course, want all children protected. But that that should be our primary, and so far solitary, rap for 30 years is horse[edited by moderator].

    • Delphin says:

      Let's watch the resident cry-baby defend SNAP now after railing how it is a tool of the Church all these years – sad, yet still funny (in a 'let's watch this car doing donuts wreck' sort-of-way).

      How many sides of the same argument can this guy try to get on?


    • Delphin says:

      Hey Mark- do you think we could get Ms. Goodstein over at the Slimes to report on the ROC crisis or the GRACE good works? She's 80 and 0, to date (shocked).

      Don't any of the antiCatholic bigots here care about all the little Protestant and Jewish children (let's not even attempt to address the evil in Islam- that would be "Islamophobic", or the disgusting rituals of Paganism and Satanism, that would be 'something'-phobic, I am sure) enough to petition Laurie or any of the similarly slimey tort attorneys to investigate other churches?

      These bigots only rail about homosexual priests transgressing statutory law with homosexual late-stage (post-pubescent) adolescents, while children (pre-pubescent) are really being abused elsewhere – today.

      If laws of the land should dictate Church responsibility and accountability to civil authority, shall we consider the death penalty for both the priest and his willing target, as would be the case in Islamic nations? Or, how about the act of rape requiring four male witnesses in the event of male on female rape in those same Islamic nations – does that also work for the bigots? How about that thief, shall he be turned over to civil authorities to be punished eye-for-eye? Shall Catholic Churches in the middle east condone Islamic law (sharia is their civil law) that permits/compels polygamy and child brides – as young as 4 years old? Shall we go on, and on….?

      The ruination of every non-Catholic child being abused today (not 50 years ago) is on the head of these same antiCatholic bigots so long as they control the dialogue, the media and the legal focus (all driven by their leftist politics) of affected/infected cultures to remain on the Catholic Church.

      Their settlement booty is blood money.

      Their ideology is deadly to all children (in and out of womb).

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    What is D on about now?

    If you want to see how correct I am about SNAP. Look at SNAP's bit on UTube yesterday. All women again. In an 80%+  male victim horror.  Behind Barbra you can see pictures of victims at the age we were when abused. 3 boys' and 4 girls' pictures. Heterosexualizing the scandal of course. Defusing the homosexual elements of the scandal and letting the public know that there are many more girl victims than the public knew. Benefiting the church of course.

    Then listen to Blaine (The $100,000 a year professional) stammer and stumble and hem and haw about the subject she's supposedly been the expert at for 25+ years.

    Blaine selected all the questions to be answered by her on Twitter.

    One call actually asked what the U.N. committee would mean for compensating victims. THE FIRST TIME, ever  a public answer from Blaine on compensation? And no! she passes it over to the woman Pam.

    She talks the same old crap for a quarter of a century yet she's no facility in language around the issue?

    This isn't incompetence alone. This was the plan.

  18. Jim Robertson says:

    Adolescents are children by law. Anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Their brains haven't finished growing. Legally they don't have the ability to choose who they sleep with, particularly and definitly adults. Hence statutory rape laws. (Remember Johnny Carson's old high school girlfriend, Jeanna Statchitori?)

    • Delphin says:

      There is a biological vs. legal vs. societal distinction and definition for "child".

      Biologically, a child ceases to exist at the onset of puberty, at which time they become adolescents (a developmental stage with it's own system of metrics to determine reasoning abilities [for some, that milestone is never met]). That is why the offending Catholic clergy are not pedophiles, they are ephebophiles- a clear psychological distinction is noted in both the offender and the victim.

      Your 'brains haven't finished growing' until 18 years of age theory is bunk.

      Age of consent laws vary among local and international jurisdictions. Just as violent adolescent males are often referred or remanded to the adult criminal court's jurisdiction, so should similar consideration be given to male-on-male sexuality. There is a clear biological distinction between male-on-female sexuality (rape that is statutory or by force) that exempts those laws from further consideration.

      You (and SNAP) use the 'child' tag for willing and predatory 17 year old homosexual males pursuing sex with homosexual clergy to conjur up images of innocent little tykes being forcibly raped by evil priests, and for no other reason.

      You fool no one.


  19. Publion says:

    In regard to the 25th at 1050AM:

    It is correct to say that “adolescents are children by law”; although I have raised the point before that they are more accurately considered ‘minors’ by law since the term  “children” holds different meanings in the psychological and legal and perhaps cultural forums. (You might, for instance, be prosecuted for child-abuse if you tried to force a 17 year-old ‘child’ into a crib for a nap.)

    Therefore it would be more accurate to say that “anyone under the age of 18 is legally a child”.

    Although actually, the cortex actually doesn’t reach an adult-level of development until – according to one government study – “well into the 20s” (see   ).

    But that age-level, while more neurologically accurate than the ‘legal’ age of 18, would create numerous difficulties for applying ‘child’ sex abuse laws, and so the pols took the easy way out here and stayed with the more legally conventional 18 (they might have gone with 21, but chose not to go that far either).

    And, as one can easily see for oneself, reaching the cortex-maturation point sometime in one’s 20s does not of itself guarantee cognitive and emotional and characterological – as well as simply neurological – maturity.

    Such are the complexities of neurological maturation, to say nothing of comparing that with other aspects of maturation and then comparing all of that to the ‘maturation’ defined or implied or assumed in various legal definitions.

    I certainly don’t think that a neurological ‘child’ is ready – or ready to choose – sex with anyone, and especially with an adult.

    But astute readers might quickly intuit that to hold that position might also put one athwart the path of various interests (far more mainstream than, say, NAMBLA) who are very focused on sexual ‘liberation’, for whom even the 18-year baseline is too high to accept.

    So it’s all very complex and torturous terrain here, and very little reduces to pristine clarity and simplicity.

    That being said, I also repeat that “statutory rape” is not necessarily ‘rape’ as classically defined; the emphasis in the term is on the “statutory”, meaning the legally-assigned age of eligibility under the applicable law. And the emphasis is not on ‘rape’, since the legal definition of most statutory-rape laws includes a number of activities that would not constitute ‘rape’ if they were conducted with somebody over the legal age of the ‘child’ as legally defined.

    And thus as I also said before: to be ‘statutorily raped’, so to speak, does not of itself mean that one was actually raped in the classical understanding of the term. Just about any sort of sexual activity (thus activity far short of actual ‘rape’) with an individual eligible for inclusion under the legal definition of ‘child’ can constitute, in the technical legal use of the term, ‘statutory rape’.

    Again, we must deal here with the daunting complexities of topographical operational maps (as it were) and not merely the simple flat cartoon-type depictions of, say, a simple ‘flat’ map from a general-reader atlas.

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    [edited by moderator] you pretend 17 year old males are out there on the prowl for 40 year old priests?  Maybe some do; and so what? The adult is the person who needs to say no and say no all the way to a therapists office for the kid. It's the adult who's in charge The state and the law certainly hold the adult responsible for sex with an under 18 year old. And if he isn't in control of himself he needs to get away from children for the childrens' sake and his own. You aren't going to believe 17 year olds can't find sex within their own age group if they wanted to, are you?

    [edited by moderator]

  21. Delphin says:

    It's all really quite simple; if our present culture is supportive of, implementing and prosecuting according to special laws created solely to accomodate the homosexual lifestyle, many of these laws which, by their very nature cause oppression of, or inequality to heterosexuals, it is fair to revisit statutory rape laws as pertains to same-sex escapades.

    If you are so special that you require you own set of laws aside/apart from the prevailing (majority) culture, it is encumbent upon us all to take that special analyes of the mainstay of your lifestyle.

    You cant have it both ways. You want special provisions to accomodate your lifestyles, then, we want you to have it. Since your self-created world revolves around your hedonistic sexuality, it is the only place to start such an analysis.

    Statutory rape laws were created to protect females from predatory males for the obvious biological reasons. These laws should not apply to homosexuals for the obvious biological reasons.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! Dream on! [edited by moderator]

      "Escapades"? You heteroids, if you have sex at all, only have "meaningful" sex?  But we gay people only have "escapades".  Well at least our gay "escapades" aren't littering the world with unwanted children.

      Please don't judge us by your own hierarchs' standards. Closet cases be they gay or straight always act out.

      I'm a very special person and so, frighteningly, are you.

      My world revolves around my sexuality no more than your world revolves around your sexuality.

      [edited by moderator]

  22. Publion says:

    I “pretend” nothing and if there’s an accurate quotation from my comment to the contrary then it can be put up here. Once again, either deliberately or through some cognitive difficulty, JR creates material that doesn’t exist in order to avoid less congenial material that actually does exist.

    Thus the bits about adult responsibility in regard to children and minors are accurate but do not contradict or even follow-from anything I actually wrote.

    But while I am no expert on adolescent sexual preferences, I would say that it is definitely inaccurate to imagine or assert that “17 year olds” only seek to “find sex within their own age group” (however “age group” is defined). And even the 938PM comment on the 25th says as much: “Maybe some do”.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Just say no.

      What your priests couldn't handle a kid coming on to them; as rare as those cases must be? Teenage harlots doing cooch dances for father? Awww!

  23. Publion says:

    Adding a bit more to my immediately previous comment, and repeating material from a while back:

    Some ‘statutory rape’ charges in some States are prosecutable as misdemeanors and not felonies; this is not because any State considers actual rape to be non-felonious, but rather because the emphasis is on the ‘statutory’ (i.e. having any sort of sexual activity with a person statutorily eligible as a ‘child’) and the actual activity might not rise, in the legislators’ judgment, to the level of a felony.

    And the use of ‘rape’ in the term ‘statutory rape’ is a confusing one, perhaps deliberately so: any inattentive reader or hearer will only focus on the vivid (but in this issue misleading) term ‘rape’, rather than on the governing term ‘statutory’. It seems to me that a different term altogether should be devised: perhaps ‘statutorily proscribed sexual activity’ or ‘sexual activity with a child’ or ‘with a minor’. Otherwise readers/hearers are confused, especially when persons not actually classically raped claim to have been raped simply because the term ‘statutory rape’ applied to the claims about some sort of sexual activity that they made against somebody.

  24. Publion says:

    An interesting new development of relevance to matters here: the current issue of the magazine American Prospect has a cover-story about Billy Graham’s son now spear-heading a drive for Protestant polities to acknowledge their sex-abuse. Readers can access the article here:

    Two points in the article strike me as interesting. First, the article presumes – as so often – that the Catholic Church handled the abuse crisis “abysmally”, and I would observe that from what we have been able to establish on this site it still remains to be seen whether the ‘crisis’ was i) one of widespread priestly sexual-abuse (however defined), which is the Stampede fever-vision or ii) one of the Church not grasping quickly enough just how complex and carefully strategized an assault was actually being launched against it and taking timely effective steps in response.

    Second, the article considers several aspects of the Protestant issue which might complicate any development against the Protestant polities similar to what has mutated into the Catholic Abuse Problem and the Stampede. But while the article considers various theological and organizational issues, it says utterly nothing about a key aspect of the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede: with the Protestants, there is no easily-accessible or identifiable “deep-pockets” (as the torties like to say) Party Defendant against whom the torties can whomp up lawsuits and start The Ball Rolling whereby each ‘successful’ settlement (so often out of court and with secrecy clauses demanded) creates more intense incentives for more and more allegants to ‘come forward’ with this that and the other story and allegation, secure in the knowledge that their claims and stories would never face actual substantive assessment.

    Additionally, I would add in regard to the MG foray against the Diocese of Fall River that a) we recall also how settlements provide not only i) the pretext for allegants to claim (after the checks have been cashed) that their stories and allegations must therefore have been veracious but also ii) the pretext for allegants to claim (after the checks have been cashed) that it was never about money.

    Also that MG’s present gambit (the subject of the present TMR article) is brought against the Diocese of Fall River, which was the Diocese in which the Father-Porter case of two decades ago took place. Perhaps MG is hoping to visit old hunting-grounds to repeat past successes as The Ball Starts To Slow Down.

  25. Delphin says:

    The disorder of ephebophilia, expressed by afflicted clergy (homosexuals) in the Catholic Church, and certainly, elsewhere, is the problem. It is not Catholicism or it's heirarchy or heterosexuals that are the problem.

    And, it aint heteros, or your twisted version or perception of heterosexuality, causing any of these problems with male minor abuse.

    Own it, it is your afflicted community causing the crisis, everywhere, and then, quite hypocritically, blaming the Church.



    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator] How many more boogey men and women will you choose as "the enemy" du jour? You are beyond pathetic. If all the bosses, cardinals ;popes; bishops knew they had wolves amongst the sheep; why didn't they stop it? Or were they all "homosexuals" too?

      If you made the priesthood all female. the male priest on male victims, crimes would evaporate. [edited by moderator]

    • Delphin says:

      Well, finally, you're on to something; we need to screen out deviant homosexuals from the priesthood, bar them from the seminaries- then- you've got some game.

      No homosexuals, no minor abuse crisis. They're not boogey-men, they just can't be trusted around minors.

      It took awhile to remove the scales from your eyes- but, nice work, finally, just the same.

      Female priesthood? Go to another denomination, please. No thank you.

      Funny how the debate always ends up being about homosexual 'rights', marriage, female priests and abortion.

      You fool no one.

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey apologist P, I couldn't help but notice you've made no comment about Tom Doyle's Project. other than the bishops rejected Doyle's proposals, so they say.

    The question i have is: why the need for secrecy regarding Doyle's paper? If the "committees" Doyle wished created were beneficial to victims; and were in fact good committees; why the need for secrecy? You presume those committees were to be good ones. Doyle never says that. He never writes whether they are good or bad. He just wanted them created; funded; and secret. Riddle me why, Joker?

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    If the rcc has such deep pockets and god knows they do. Why not pay the church's victims? you can afford it. Or are we to pretend the same "moral" people who enabled child rape by transferring known child rapists again and again and again and again are so "moral" that they are sure our claims are false. And that they want to make sure the "right" thing is done with the church's money. Your bosses seem to be only "moral' around protecting the money rather than your children. Now that's what i would call "situational morality" or hypocricy.

    • Delphin says:

      You propose just another lefty-commie wealth redistribution scheme, and nothing more. When losers cannot earn their own way in the world, they hatch schemes to steal others hard-earned wealth.

      Regardless of guilt, the Catholic Church (and no other entity?) should spread their wealth around – to liars, schemers and scammers, and not to the poor or needy, worldwide? They should take their second-to-none charitable contributions to sick and hungry children and give them to lying, scheming activists and their equally distasteful attorneys?

      Tsk, tsk, tsk, shame on you.

  28. Publion says:

    Well, I think a point on process is now unavoidable. I have noted before the odd discrepancy in JR’s posts: at times they are juvenile plop-tossing, and yet at other times they seem to come from a different mentality in many respects, in terms of format and diction and tone and also content (we recall in one recent post of JR’s that he appeared to have forgotten in the space of a day or so that he himself had directed attention to “page 80” of a certain book, and then seemed to wonder a day or so later why I was so focused on “page 80”. And I had also wondered: if one can put up relatively well-constructed comments, then why toss juvenile plop at other times? And if one can only toss juvenile plop, then where are the relatively more well-constructed comments coming from?

    And then on the 26th at 449PM we got “I’m a very special person and so, frighteningly, are you” – which is simply far too rhetorical and stylistic a usage (that “frighteningly” is a dead giveaway) for the mentality that produces the usual comments from JR. (Although the fact that he is somehow very speshulll certainly seems close to some sort of truth.)

    And now we get two on the 28th (at 1012AM and 1029AM).

    In regard to 1012AM: We had dealt with non-Abuseniks being ‘apologists’ before – and recently – and yet here we get it as if JR didn’t recall that at all. And “I couldn’t help but notice” is again not a JR usage at all. And then the bit about the “secrecy” bit in the Doyle Project – and that too has been dealt with before. And in all of these cases, we got nothing responsive back from JR – and yet here the points are raised as if they are brand new and have never been addressed.

    In fact the second paragraph simply raises again the exact same points some JR comments had made, to which response was made and JR had nothing to say – and yet here we have the points merely raised again.

    And readers who follow comments will quickly see that all of the material in this 1012AM comment has already been dealt with.

    The thought comes to me that a) we are not getting material from JR at all, but simply cuts-and-pastes from other sources for whom JR (as he once did some months back for “Dennis”) is simply fronting the use of his screen-name. And that b) this or these other source(s) have failed to read the sequence of comments back and forth and thus we get this odd phenomenon of a commenter ostensibly failing to recall his own prior material or the responses to that material.

    That being said, there is absolutely nothing in the 1012AM comment that hasn’t been dealt with before. And all we have here at 1012AM is a repetition that takes the whole thing back to square-one.

    So I suggest to whomever is the source of the 1012AM comment that s/he go back and catch-up on all the material that has already been put forward on this and prior recent threads.

    Or, in the alternative – if JR were to insist that everything that goes up under his screen-name is his own – then can we get an explanation as to both a) the discrepancies (that I have just outlined above here) and b) the fact that instead of making any response JR has merely gone and repeated the same questions all over again?  Because at this point that is the “riddle”.

    And then again in the 1029AM comment: We merely get the same question to which answer has been made (and never rebutted) numerous times here: before “victims” can be ‘paid’, it has to be determined just who is and is not a genuine victim. And the question which JR (or any of his possible sources) has never answered remains before us: How does one determine a genuine victim from one otherwise classifiable?

    Ditto the bit about being “sure” that “our claims are false”. To repeat what has been said numerous times: in cases where there is almost no corroborating evidence, and where the ‘stories’ have been placed under secrecy by the agents of the storytellers themselves, then we only have probabilities to work with. And whose fault is that?

    And surely the mantra about ‘doing’ “the right thing” is not the Church’s but JR’s (or some other source’s).

    Then the same old illogic yet again that presumes precisely what has yet to be proven: i) who knows and ii) how to know just who is a genuine victim (the “children” trope merely tossed in here to distract with emotion from the core illogic of the question itself)?

    And then and then and then: “situational morality” – this is a rather technical term for the mentality we know as JR’s. Additionally – regardless of the source here – the observation fails on its face because the ‘situation’ has been improperly defined to begin with so we can’t proceed to the next phase and assess the ‘morality’.

    Ditto with the “hypocricy”[sic].

    So that’s all we’ve got here at 1021AM and 1029AM on the 28th.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P to answer your proposition that I am more than one person writing as me.

      I am legion. :^)

      That's right P I'm not even here. I'm not a human. I'm your version of who I am.


  29. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh is D going to play the ultimate right wing card: How they work so much harder than the rest of us? That is total Horseshit! We all work hard. Very hard indeed. And I am sick of these lying crypto-Nazi christian heretics. (They wouldn't know jesus if he bit them.) telling the rest of us how hard they work and that's why they have "more".

    If you have so much more why are you working so "hard" to get  even "more"?. When will your "more" tank be filled, dear?

    And could you give us a figure and how close you are to your "more" goal, dear?

    • Delphin says:

      I work as hard as I must in order to give as much as possible to my Church and my other charitable endeavors.

      It's never enough, God granted me many talents for which in return He expects my own, personal charitable version of wealth redistribution – not the version of government confiscation and oppression you promote.



  30. Jim Robertson says:

    Well I'm banned at NCR again.

    It's amazing to me how Catholics run from the truth if it doesn't fit their self painted portrait of  their own idea of "decency".

    Telling the truth is decent. Hiding from it is shameful.

    If NCR bans my writings, my thoughts;  they are afraid of what I say. That's a start.

    • Delphin says:

      Progressive (i.e. NCR, Fishwrap) catholics (small c) run from many truths, not the least of which pertains to Catholic dogma and doctrine.

      Not surprised that they also aren't free speech advocates- after all, the left, even/especially the catholic left, is all about shutting down opposition.

      Thank God for the 'right-wing', conservative, traditional Catholic sites on/at which you can  state your case, stake your claim.

      Learning anything?

  31. Jim Robertson says:

    I learned that Liberals suck almost as much as Conservatives.

    But then again I already knew that.

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    The real catholic left left the catholic part years ago. Because religion and it's deities just don't hold up under scrutiney.

    The taxes you so rail against mostly go to support a military we niether need nor can afford. Also to pay interest on a debt to banks who the government bailed out. We give them the money to solve their problems and they charge us interest to do so.

    Not so nice work if you can get it.

    • Delphin says:

      Atheists are less tolerant than any/all – they spend their entire, useless, miserable lives whining and pining about religious and religions. They don't advocate for their own religion, or humanity – they exist, solely, to destroy others religion – especially Catholicism, their #1 target.

      The majority of Fed taxes are shared between military (a good thing to have in a dangerous world), a still-bloating civilian government and debt to China. Progressive (stupid and ruinous to both country and individuals) domestic policies have significantly (tripled, quadrupled?) increased that debt since 2009. Military budgets have suffered substantial cuts while EPAs (the "fourth branch") budget has ballooned. I don't suppose any of those brave and selfless EPA staff, with their excellent wages and "Cadillac" benefits plan, will suffer the disgraceful treatment sustained by our veterans – do you?

      Our veterans are treated substantially worse than detainees in Gitmo – which is all you need to know to measure the priorities and policies of a progressive administration.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey D, I thought you said you were a lifer (20 yrs. +) in the military? Or was that part of your life  imagined by you as is your deity? What happened to your miltary career?

      We, the U.S.A., have been in constant illegal and immoral wars since WW2.  No other country in the world as been at war for 70 years. In European history only the 100 years war tops us. And that was before mass civilian war deaths.

      Also European countries like France pay $1 for every $2.60 we pay for the same health care. Only there the $1 covers all the people. Where as the $2.60 we pay leaves out 40 million people uninsured in the U.S.

      Capitalism is a dismal failure in everything, save for flash and stupidity.

      P.S. Im' a veteran and my health care is the V.A.. Is it your health care system as well Delphin?

  33. Publion says:

    Well, pitch-perfect on so many levels. On the 29th at 1003PM JR does not respond to my points about the authorship of his comments, but instead waltzes himself around the dance-floor with various bits. It’s a bravura performance of evasion (some might say ‘sleaze’), and so much so that one can only again wonder who thought it up.

    But it has its problems. First, in tactically going for the usefulness of the Scriptural “I am legion” in this particular bit, he strategically identifies himself (not with Jesus but) with the demonic. Charming. And more revelatory than I am sure either he or his sources had thought-through.

    Then the oh-so-predictable grasp for the ‘victimhood’: he caricatures himself as “not even [being] here” and “not a human” and that he is only “your version of who I am”. Neato.

    And while I would be among the last persons to try to dissuade JR from examining his own authenticity and maturity and such, I would have to insist that as far as I am concerned he is quite “real”, as are his ‘issues’.

    On the 30th at 1044 AM we are invited to the latest episode of what is apparently an ongoing soap-opera designed – ultimately – to ‘prove’ that the only reason various organizations and/or individuals try to keep their distance from him is that he is a ‘truth-teller’ and thus “decent” and everyone who tries to avoid being connected with him is simply trying to ‘hide’ the truth and is therefore and ipso facto “shameful”. This is a splendid example of the type of psychic economy that causes clinicians to marvel, even as they start filling up their notepads.

    I don’t know what – after at least a decade – is rightly characterizable as “a start”.

    But then we are also advised (the 30th at 947PM) that in addition to most of the readership – or at least commenters – here being ‘conservatives’, JR’s cartoon geography of immorality also classifies most of the “catholic left” as also being fraudulent since “the real catholic left left the catholic part years ago”. No evidence or reasoning or explication of this assertion is provided for us, but I believe this is not because JR is deliberately with-holding it from us but simply because his mind doesn’t actually work with evidence or reasoning or explication.

    Short form: the only “real” catholic left is the part that agrees that JR is right and very clever. The rest of the “catholic left” is just a bunch of – how shall we say? – false-flag, black-ops traitors to truth (and thus to JR because to disagree with JR is to disagree with truth since JR and truth are regular brunch partners).

    What can we say about so marvelously remarkable a psychic economy? “Nice work if you can get it”. Or if you can invent it.  

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator]

      At my high school reunion. the vast majority of my co-graduates had left the church. They left gladly; and they left with no regret. Just pure joy at no longer being beaten up psycologically by our own catholic controlled minds.

      At the mass celebrated at the school only 6 of the 90 attendees attended mass.

      Bye bye superstition!


  34. Publion says:

    From the cornucopia of D-Day and late-WW2 documentaries being shown in the lead-up to the June 6th anniversary, it also comes to me: readers familiar with the history will recall a certain self-sure Boss ranting and raving at his supreme headquarters that he is stupefied, outraged, feeling let-down, and – yes – amazed that the plans he concocted from running his fingers across maps on his personal map table don’t seem to be having the effect they should have. And that the fault – but of course – must be with all those who have let him down and failed to implement his genius.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      [edited by moderator] actually your church created both lucifer's and Adolph's careers.

      There's only one person writing as me and that's me. I have many sides as do most people.

  35. Delphin says:

    …while our veterans die waiting for healthcare at the VA, our taxes go for this BS-

    Good thing PFC Manning has alread been approved for 'his' scs, I might lose some sleep…


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Chelsea Manning is a hero/heroine. The truth sets us all free.

      The tenth of a penny it costs you for Chelsea's surgery is nothing compared to money and blood she and Snowden will save the American worker in the long run.

      You were never in the military D. If the draft still existed you'd be far more left than you are now right. Your ass would be on the line and since you only are absorbed with your self, you might think a bit differently if your country put your life on the line for another unneccessary and stupid war. 70 years of death and mutilation. Why?

  36. Jim Robertson says:

    What has all that war done for us and to us?

  37. Publion says:

    The credibility value of the story in the comment of the 1st at 140PM is for readers to decide.

    As for the comment of the 1st at 149PM: Although the only relationship between the “lucifer” and “Adolph” bits and what I wrote is the fact that Adolf is in the sentence, it remains to be seen how “your church created both lucifer’s and Adolph’s careers”.  Again we see the apparently permanent confusion between a ‘comeback’ and a substantive response. And yet also: the mere ‘comeback’ also contributes to the Playbook diversion from the actual issue at hand.

    But while each individual person may indeed have “many sides”, that fact doesn’t in any way work out to having a) multiple writing styles that are b) so comprehensively divergent across several axes of analysis as to suggest several individuals (or minds) in one body. Unless perhaps in a rather florid case of what used to be called MPD (multiple personality disorder) – which I doubt is the case here.

    I don’t recall reading where ‘Delphin’ was never in the military, but whatever that case may be it remains an uncongenial fact that serving one draftee hitch (‘counting the days’ to getting out, as I recall it being described) in the Canal Zone at a desk job doesn’t really create a substantial basis for lecturing anybody on the terrors and tribulations of combat service in the military.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How would you know about combat terrors in the military?

      I can lecture anybody on anything I feel like. It's called free speech.

      [edited by moderator]

      And Adolph was created in catholic schools in catholic Austria. Supported at first in his career in catholic Bavaria. Der fuhrer was more of a catholic creation than you would like to pretend he was.  But reality is something you'd like to pretend isn't there while you wait for death and disneyland.

      [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Quit acting like a back water Bob Hope. You aren't the M.C. here. The readership knows they can form their own opinions. They are adults. They don't need you to guide them to any conclusions. They, contrary to catholic nonsense, can make up their own minds obviously. They don't need you to remind them they are adults and a free to choose. They are not sheep and you are no good shepard.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your church has made a lot of money by creating, both, the evil satan and the evil adolph. Two monsters from the Id.

  38. LDB says:

    Publion of May 31, 2014 at 1:17pm sounds like he could be describing something/one from a WW2 documentary or describing the god of the old testament. That's OK. Today's church is a new testament crowd anyway. Neat.

  39. Publion says:

    From the 2nd at 938AM: The good news is that ‘LDB’ has at least learned to mimic some good formatting, including the date-time stamp of the comment to which he is referring.

    Alas, the mimicry doesn’t yet extend to actual substance: we get a bit about “something/one from a WW2 documentary” being similar to “describing the god of the old testament” – but we don’t actually get to see just how ‘LDB’ has come to that observation and it remains – as so very often with him – as merely a one-liner tossed-off and tossed-up on the screen.

    Oddly, though, ‘LDB’ either didn’t notice or didn’t want to say explicitly that he draws here a comparison or perhaps even an equivalence between Hitler and “the god of the old testament” (or at least his take on the God of the Old Testament, or at least somebody’s take on the God of the Old Testament).

    What are we left with then? Readers with the time and inclination can make of it what they wish.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your "God of the Old Testament" was probably who Hitler mimiced . You know kill everything. just like ole Gody-boy used to "demand" of his followers at times? Jericho for example?


  40. Publion says:

    On the 2nd at 947AM [edited by moderator] JR asks me “how would you know about combat terrors in the military?”. I will simply say that my military experience extends – as I noted in a prior comment on this thread – beyond sitting on my tent-pegs at a desk in the Canal Zone “counting the days” until my oppressive enslavement by the government came to an end when my draft-hitch was over.

    But in any case, the issue wasn’t with my familiarity with the experience with “combat” in the first place; the issue was and is with JR’s attempting to bethump other commenters on the basis of his lack of experience of “combat terrors in the military”. I do not either a) proffer and insist-that my material must be accepted on the basis of ‘experience’ I only claim but cannot demonstrate (indeed, some might say that JR so often demonstrates exactly the  opposite in regard to his claimed ‘experience’) nor do I b) declare other commenters wrong or uninformed on the basis of such claimed ‘experience’. And in those ways I differ greatly from JR’s usual modus operandi.

    And then there’s the “free speech” argument, isn’t there? And as it applies to JR he can make whatever claims and assertions and tell such stories as he wishes and even – since it seems to be enjoyable for him – “lecture”. But he cannot expect that his demanding that we take his stories and claims and assertions at face-value as true or probably-true is part of his constitutional rights.

    And readers may realize that this entire modus operandi is actually deployed rather consistently by JR in regard to matters-Abusenik.

    If “Adolph was created in catholic schools in catholic Austria” then wasn’t JR and weren’t so many Abuseniks also similarly “created”? Who is to say that Hitler decided he didn’t like any of the Catholic formation and turned elsewhere for his existential grounding and amusements? Just like some Abuseniks who have reported doing precisely the same thing.

    Also, we note the Argument from Similar Words: since “catholic” [sic] appears as a descriptor in Adolf’s life-history (he was baptized) and in his schooling and in the country of his birth and then in Bavaria, then the Catholic Church created him.

    And the Protestants (at least nominally) who joined the Party and went on to rank and status in the Reich? And the nominal Christians and even Jews who joined the Bolsheviks and then went on to become ranking Soviets – can it seriously be claimed that Catholic Christianity or Protestant Christianity or Judaism “created” them and thus – in another juvenile linkage – “created” Communism as well as Nazism? Is that the gist of today’s “lecture” here?

    And what about the fact that when Hitler tried to pull off his Putsch in Munich (in “’catholic’ Bavaria”, I suppose it has to be pointed out) the government fired on his group and arrested him? And what of the Catholic (and Protestant) Christian officials who in the 1920s took steps to stop him? Not a few of whom were then murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.

    And this 937AM comment then concludes – as so often – with JR reasserting his “lecture”-level grasp of “reality”.

    And the concluding zingy about “death and disneyland” [sic] that nicely captures the nature of the misch at the core of JR’s various cartoonish conceptions.

    Then at 955AM JR wants me to shut-up (almost too nice a rhetorical bit about “a backwater Bob Hope” – the alliteration, doncha see?) because I am not “the M.C. here”. I never said that I thought I was (nor ever demanded that readers participate in any such delusion simply on my say-so). And I’ll continue to exercise my “free speech” rights, thank you.

    But I would say that it is the knowledge that “the readership can form their own opinions” here that is irritating JR and other Abuseniks: the whole idea of the Stampede is that readers and hearers not form their own opinions but rather be manipulated toward the Abusenik opinions. And – as I have stated before in comments – my deployment of the ‘readers may’ usage is not so much prompted by a need to remind the readers as it is an effort to remind the Abusenik commenters as they roll along with their assorted attempted manipulations.

    And perhaps the Abuseniks are thus irritated by the fact that readers may actually be forming their own opinions – which is not a process that the Playbook seeks to foster.

    Shepherds (JR here demonstrates his ignorance of shepherding as well as so many other things) do not use the subjunctive when dealing with sheep; they are directive and imperative and demanding towards their sheep. Which is precisely the style we get from the Abuseniks, by the most amazing coincidence.

    Thus JR will have to consider not me but himself as qualifying (or not) as a “good shepard” [sic].

    Then at 957AM – in a hasty one-liner from either the 3×5 shoebox or a cut-and-paste from somewhere else – JR tries to drag Freudian categories into a blunderbuss blast that would require a very serious amount of explanatory analysis: “satan” and “the evil adolph” [sic] are both i) “two monsters from the Id” and ii) created by “your church” and then iii) that “your church” has made a lot of money by “creating both” of them.

    Readers may consider the cartoon or lecture quality of this bit as they will.

  41. Jim Robertson says:

    Wow! You really see yourself as the center of the universe. Everyone "mimics" you?

    [edited by moderator]

  42. Publion says:

    And but yet once again, avoiding any substance, JR creates a non-quote and takes issue with that material that he himself just invented: “everyone” does not mimic me – nor did I ever say or suggest that they did. But there are a couple of Abuseniks in the immediate vicinity that appear to be doing that.

    But mimicry is no substitute for the real thing and style cannot of itself substitute for substance (or the lack of it).


  1. [...] Ovaries – PM Armstrong Mark Shea’s Economic Inquisition - Joe Hargrave, Crisis Magazine Church-Suing Lawyer Angry as Diocese Stands Up to Bully Tactics – MR Cincinnati: Wymyn Stage a Fake Ordination at Episcopalian Church – Z My Encounter [...]