Failing grade: Columbia Journalism Review
A new article from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) by Boston-area professor Terry Ann Knopf asserts that there was a "collective silence" from the vast array of local Boston television stations during the frenzied 2002 reporting of the Catholic Church sex abuse story.
However, research from TheMediaReport.com uncovers that CJR's claim is demonstrably false. In fact, Boston television stations actually played an essential role in creating the fevered animus against the Catholic Church that enveloped the Boston area before it soon spread to the rest of the country.
Just the facts, ma'am
CJR's Terry Ann Knopf
The Globe quoted Knopf as saying, "Boston's TV stations were largely derelict in their own duties" to report the Catholic Church abuse story.
"Largely derelict"? Not even close.
1. For starters: As far back as May of 1992, it was local station WBZ-TV – not the Boston Globe – which first exposed the story to the Boston area of the notorious priest Rev. James Porter, who molested many youngsters decades earlier before he exited the priesthood in the early 1970s.
Building upon WBZ's initial report, the Boston Globe would then publish nearly 60 articles on the Porter case, many on the front page, in the remaining eight months of 1992.
2. In June 1998, when the Catholic Church laicized the notorious John Geoghan from the priesthood, it was the lead story on every single major local TV newscast in Boston. Don't believe it? Watch this video (posted by SNAP leader Phil Saviano at YouTube).
3. In December 1999, when Geoghan was arraigned on criminal abuse charges, local TV covered the story exhaustively and included interviews with alleged victims. Stations would continue to report on the Geoghan case in ensuing years, even going as far as to follow Geoghan in public running errands.
4. In April 2001, when alleged victims of clergy abuse spoke in front of the Massachusetts legislature in support of clergy members being included within the mandated reporting law, local TV stations were there aplenty to give it prominent coverage.
5. On January 9, 2002, when Cardinal Bernard Law held a press conference to address the Boston Globe's reporting (which began only three days earlier), local television stations abruptly preempted regular programming to carry the event live. (Not convinced? Here's the video.)
6. In the early weeks and months of 2002, local TV stations broadcast numerous panel discussions about the Catholic abuse story (this and this, for example).
Our list is very abbreviated – quite far from exhaustive – but you get the idea.
The enormous story of Catholic Church sex abuse did not just emanate from the Boston Globe. It blossomed from all media at the time, including national television, talk radio, the Internet, and, yes, local television.
Don't let the Columbia Journalism Review tell you otherwise.
For 10 years worth of TV, that does not seem like much coverage at all. Also, 2002 is when the Globe really started to crank out hundreds of clergy sex abuse stories and it is going forward from 01/02 that I certainly noticed the comparative dearth of TV coverage.
Would it really matter if the cases were or were not reported, if it turns out the credible evidence against the perverts was true. Does the fact that a Boston area professor got it wrong in regards to the silence, make the perverts or their enablers less guilty. Again, seems like your cherry picking what you want to claim some kind of mistrial, or your poor, nasty church is being treated unfairly….. whimper, whimper, whimper. Nothing evens the score for all the cases thrown out because the church claims the statute of limitations. Guilty is guilty, and the church should be ashamed of such an excuse to get off the hook. Despicable!!!
"For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light." Luke 8:17 My guess is that Jesus knew what He was talking about.
You want us to concern ourselves with when the facts came out that Catholic clergy were using children as play toys for their own sick enjoyment ? It would have been nice if the world accepted the truth 10 years earlier I can only think of how many more abusive priests would have seen the inside of a courtroom and a 8×10 cell and how many more victims would have received the help they needed without being told there is nothing we can do because the SOL's have run out. The fact is it was not until 2002 society took a harder look at the Catholic church and its clergy and began to ask questions that pulled back the cover to decades of abuse by Catholic clergy and the criminal actions by the church itself. Yeah, those additional 10 years would have been nice but I will accept that delay knowing the facts have eventually came out . Abusive priests are going to prison, billions of dollars are being given to victims and the hierarchy must answer the questions never asked before. BETTER LATE THEN NEVER I say.
Dennis "billions of dollars given to victims"? Where? According to who? the church? You believe that? Less than 15% of U.S. victims have been compensated. The church and SNAP are waiting for victims to DIE OFF unpaid. That's the facts. This place is full of smoke; obfuscation and lies. Why can't religious people tell the truth, ever?
I believe to date an excess of 3 billion dollars has been paid to victims either in payouts or therapy to those abused. I admit not all victims/survivors have received a monetary award for damages suffered. Others like me have turned down offers because it came with rules and regulations but have therapy paid for myself, wife and daughter for the rest of my life. Something that far exceeds their offer and I don't have to keep my mouth shut about who abused me, how he abused me and where. To the day I take my last breath I will be a thorn in their side and for me that's PRICELESS.
The idea of TMR giving the Columbia School of Journalism an F, is absurd.
In regard to LDB’s of the 29th at 905PM, I would say that once the ‘Globe’ began its full court press after January 2002, then it was on a very specific and targeted mission and no other media source would have been able to match the frequency of the ‘Globe’s focus unless it began to dedicate far more screen-time than was available in a half-hour news show.
Also, the media had certainly been noting the Catholic priest cases as far back as the mid-1980s. And the Porter and Shanley cases (dating back to the early 1990s) and the Geoghan case (one of the initial cases of the full court press period after January 2002) would have received a great deal of TV news coverage.
Thus, with the ‘Globe’ ‘cranking out’ “hundreds of clergy sex abuse stories” after January 2002, then – as I said – no other media sources would have been able to match that level of coverage, which was driven (as I noted on a thread back when ‘Spotlight’ was released) by the new editor’s need to “make a splash” and demonstrate that he was ‘the new gunslinger on Main Street’.
‘Dan’ (the 1st at 252AM) will now try his chops at current-events (his Scriptural chops already having clearly demonstrated themselves for what they are on the previous thread).
The point he tries to make (i.e. that it makes no difference if there were some problems with the reporting) hinges significantly on that subjunctive clause “if it turns out the credible evidence against the perverts was true”. That is a major point, and it is – alas – subjunctive, as ‘Dan’ notes with his “if”.
He will again try to deploy his “cherry-picking” bit (although one might consider his entire approach to Scripture to be precisely cherry-picking, and of a particularly uninformed nature). So in the Dan-verse here what we get is that if facts don’t support his preferred cartoons, then noticing those facts is mere “cherry-picking”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 252AM:
He confuses the public-opinion and the legal forums in terms of his bit about ‘guilt’. But (as I have often explained at great length on this site) it was precisely an element of the Stampede that the media (especially the ‘Globe’ after January 2002) skewed its reporting so as to induce the public to imagine that the accused were guilty even before any trials – such few as there were – began.
And also, such skewed reporting actually served to ‘taint’ the jury pool – i.e. the public – even before jurors were chosen; which constitutes a neat form of jury-tampering that is not prosecutable. Which goes to my long-standing point about the synergy of the Stampede: when the public is tainted by media before a jury is even empanelled, then the chances of objective and accurate justice are significantly reduced.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 252AM:
And – I would also point out again – this skewed reporting so influenced public opinion that the tort attorneys saw their way clear to initiate those many civil lawsuit settlements that were built on the legal tactic known in the trade as “strike suits” (i.e. lawsuits): enterprising tort attorneys could surf the waves of public opinion and bring a lawsuit that, in light of the state of public opinion and thus the probable attitude of jurors and the cost of litigation, would induce a sued entity (and its Insurers) to settle with payouts rather than defend against the suit(s) at trial.
Excuses. excuses, and more excuses. They settled and paid out because they were guilty. They knew they could save money by just settling out of court, keeping much of the information from reaching the ears of their brainwashed sheep, protecting the church's "holy" status reputation and the anonymity of their child molesting perverts. Granting them the opportunity to continue to molest their sheep's children by the droves, while parading their piety as the only true, pure, moral authority church on earth. To this day, dealing with cases in house and still claiming those same virtues. Oh doth the "spotlight" of the Lord "shine in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine!
If the church had any conscience, they would generously pay for every child's life they destroyed, Statute of Limitations or not. Just sell the Pieta. It's only one of your millions of idols and you can pay off all victims generously. None of your idol statues are going to do you a damn bit of good where your going anyway. I wonder how they'll all look covered in soot and ashes. Dan, servant of the Only True God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 252AM:
Given the histrionic carryings-on of ‘Dan’ in regard to the questioning assessment of his own claims, assertions, stories, accusations and interpretations, one might only smile at his huffing about the Church ‘whimpering’ about “being treated unfairly”.
And he demonstrates further his ignorance of the law by saying that the Church “claims the statute of limitations’ – which is a legal requirement that would be in effect whether the Church claimed it or not.
And from what we have seen of the quality of clerical sex-abuse trials (surely the Doe mess in Philadelphia is an outstanding example) then the Church was hardly ill-advised to avoid such legal swamps whenever allowable in law. (And surely, ‘Dan’s own numerous misadventures with the legal and police and judicial systems should have alerted him to such difficulties.)
You claim the Statute of Limitations would be a legal requirement anyway. Well then they could just say they were giving a donation to the victims, and they still would be ahead, with all the thievery they've done throughout the centuries.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 252AM:
Thus his simplistic and dismissive mantra that he crows here (“Guilty is guilty”) not only fails here, but also undermines his own protestations about “lies” and innocence in his own legal misadventures.
But this histrionic huffing and puffing – incoherent as it may be – then gives him the opportunity (so beloved of Abuseniks) to deliver his pronunciamento: “Despicable!”. Add a ‘harrrumph’ in there for the proper effect.
I just can't wait for Judgment Day, so God the father can grant me the justice and freedom from all my false accusers, especially you, peewee. servant
But then ‘Dan’s comment of the 1st at 302AM also undermines his own protestations (new readers may want to consult his comments on the immediately previous thread here): when things are made “evident” and “come to light” he is the first – if the “light” is uncongenial to his purposes and assertions – to seek to avoid any such “light” and claim “Lies, lies, lies” (with scream-caps and exclamation points).
I love and have no fear of the "light". That is why I am honest in what I have told you and anyone else. Because you're such a liar, doesn't make others the same, except in your peewee little brain. Have a God-gram for you, explained in more detail in the previous topic. Know how you appreciate the Lord's Word, so I didn't want you to miss it.
"I AM the Word of the world and it will always stay the same, and it does not matter how hard they try to change the Word, it cannot be done, ever." Thus saith the Lord
In regard to the ‘Dennis Ecker’ comment of the 1st at 740AM:
His entire point is based on the presumption that “Catholic clergy were using children as play toys for their own sick enjoyment” as if it were widespread and demonstrably a matter of some sort of “rape culture” within the Church or – as some would put it – the only reason and purpose of the Church for centuries or millennia.
And that is precisely the point I (for one) have objected-to. There can be no doubt that some priests failed profoundly and must be held to consequences, and that the Church – as it has – had to take stronger corrective steps.
But a) to apply the heightened sensitivities of one cultural era to another cultural era and b) to ignore the grossly skewing effects of the synergy I call the Stampede, is not conceptually legitimate and at this point, as we see, is reduced to going over old cases (that in many instances were dubious even when their originating allegations were first lodged).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 1st at 740AM:
He then slyly tries to imply that if it were not for the statute of limitations (and “the world” failing to insist upon it) then “many more priests would have seen the inside of a courtroom” – which, given what we have seen of clerical sex-abuse trials is rather thin gruel indeed.
And he even more slyly tries to imply that such priests would also have “seen the inside … of an 8×10 cell”, thus manipulating us to presume that they would have been guilty. But again, given what we have seen of clerical sex-abuse trials this is rather thin gruel indeed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 1st at 740AM:
Whether the commenter here – familiar as he is with the ins and outs of disability cases (of which the Stampede cases are surely a variant) – might be hoping for a local lifting of the Statutes of Limitations to enable a further claim in regard to sexual-abuse by clerics … is as it perhaps might be.
But the slyly manipulative presumption that there were or are many more genuine victims remains a speculation, and a convenient one for Abuseniks of any stripe. Surely, the number of ‘current’ as well as ‘historical’ allegations against priests has fallen off tremendously.
And while it may legitimately be postulated that it was “not until 2002” that “society took a harder look at the Catholic church”, yet the results of that “look” clearly indicate that it may have been ‘hard’ but – under the deranging influences of the Stampede – it was not an accurate “look”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dennis Ecker’s of the 1st at 740AM:
He then riffs on further to the effect that he is at least happy that now “the facts have come out”, but once again, we are being manipulated into presuming that the ‘reporting’ we have seen is ‘facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts’ – and that is demonstrably not a tenable assertion, as we are increasingly discovering with the assorted (and apparently inherent) troubles with so very many of the few clerical abuse trials that have taken place.
He is “willing to be patient”, he says – and interestingly enough indeed.
And he then, curiously enough, takes up the point about “billions of dollars … being given to victims” (their genuineness also presumed here) and so on. He may reveal more than he wishes with his crowing declaration about “Better late than never” (scream caps omitted).
The Ball Must Be Kept Rolling, as I have said before about the Abusenik agenda and its assorted sub-objectives.
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! P You have nothing intelligent to say. SHUT UP! ENOUGH SMOKE BLOWING.
Anyone reading this crap for the first time: P is a smoke blower who monopolizes with personal attacks any conversation here. He represents the complete lack of morality in the Catholic church of today. The sane have left the church and Publion is what has been left behind.
As far as I can see the rest of the posters here are all blowing smoke too. Running on tangents and ignoring the simple fact that less than 15% of it's sex abuse victims have been compensated in the U.S. by this "church".
In a Patheos blog called the friendly atheist dated 11/4/15 states the catholic church has paid $3,994,797,060.10 as a result of the sex abuse scandals. According to research done by NCR Jack and Diane Ruhl the amount is estimated at $4 billion dollars and warn us this is an underestimate since they are unaware of how much has been spent on victim therapy. . On top of that , you must consider all the money the church has lost through donations because a lack of attendance estimated at another $2.3 to $3 billion dollars a year.
New readers alert. Publion HOGS any chances for a decent dialog here. He's a paid smoke blower. Wear your gas masks. The church doesn't want you to know that it has done next to nothing compensating the children it raped. This place exists to pretend none of us victims are telling the truth about our rapes. It's here to pretend that the real victim in all this is not it's raped children but the church itself. This is their much self heralded morality at work.
On the 1st at 1039AM JR – as he so loves to do – delivers a pronunciamento that has absolutely no backing through any sort of explanation or demonstration.
Why would it be “absurd” for TMR to point out the problems with the Columbia School of Journalism article? Has TMR misquoted the article? If so, where has TMR misquoted? Has TMR drawn conclusions from or about the article that are not supported by the text of the article or the quotations presented from the article? If so, where?
As ever, all this is too much thinking for JR to handle, and he is happy to simply bray “absurd” and call it a good day’s work.
On then to JR’s of the 1st at 203PM:
Once again – as we also saw on the previous thread with his extended repetitive post “and on and on” – he appears agitated by the material but can’t seem to explain why. So he will now simply demand that I “shut up” (scream-caps, exclamation points, and repetition omitted). How wise the torties were not to put themselves in a position where he would have to be put on the stand.
And in regard to all the points I raised? It’s all merely “smoke blowing” (scream-caps omitted). This resembles closely ‘Dan’s preferred evasion and escape: that whatever he doesn’t like is “lies” (scream-caps, exclamation points, and repletion omitted).
And in between the scream-caps he also manages to slip in – had you been waitttttingggg forrr ittt? – another pronunciamento to the effect that I “have nothing intelligent to say”. Readers may consider the reliability of JR in assessing intelligent material.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 1st at 203PM:
But there is something new in his second paragraph: he now broadcasts to “anyone reading this crap for the first time” … and repeats a) his “smoke-blower” bit, b) his “monopolizes” the conversation bit, and c) his “personal attacks” bit (as in: anyone who questions JR is making a “personal attack”, and d) his “lack of morality” bit (as in: anyone who questions his material lacks morality).
Four of his favorite evasive gambits in two sentences. Not a bad performance, in its way.
And – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – he finishes off with an epithet against both the Church and myself. Neato.
And after the dust settles, readers may note that he has not made a single substantive comment to back up any of it at all.
And it seems he is so enamored of his new bit that he will try it again on the 1st at 211PM: he’s on again with his “new readers alert”.
And then takes the opportunity he has created for himself to toss in another of his favorite evasions: I ‘hog’ “any chances for decent dialog here”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 211PM:
Let me try an “alert” of my own: JR’s personal definition of “dialog” is that he is never questioned and that he is only agreed-with. Anything else is – as noted above – a “personal attack” and he will respond with a range of juvenile, often scatological, epithets.
Because – doncha see? – anyone who doth make a “personal attack” by questioning his material deserves nothing more than juvenile, often scatological epithet.
But otherwise, he would be a competent and insightful and mature commenter.
But as it is, when he is ‘victimized’ (or ‘re-victimized’) by “personal attack” (as he defines it; see immediately above) then he is clearly justified in putting up the stuff he puts up … as if it were a competent response. And you’d better not say that you’ve noticed he doesn’t make competent responses because then you too will be making a “personal attack” on him.
He will then deploy exaggeration to claim that this site “exists to pretend none of us [the sly self-advertisement] victims are telling the truth about our rapes”. What is actually the case is that a) none of the allegations we have had a chance to examine here have provided credible demonstration of their veracity and b) there exists – for a number of reasons including i) the Stampede dynamics and ii) the aforesaid dubiousness of the allegations presented here – no small probability of deception in the lodging of allegations under those circumstances. (A point that is further explicated at great length and with demonstrated examples in the article that is the basis for the immediately following thread on this site, about the Joann Wypijewski-Counterpunch piece.)
I would also point out that this Columbia Journalism Review article clearly reveals – as I noted when the ‘Spotlight’ film was first discussed here – the film as a product playing upon that vital Stampede synergy that involved the media.
Following in the footsteps of other ‘journalism’-friendly films such as the Woodward-Bernstein film about the heroic journalists of the Nixon era (who, it turns out, mostly merely acted as stenographers for the secret leaker ‘Deep Throat’), the ‘Spotlight’ film almost guaranteed itself a strongly friendly journalistic reception.
After all, this is a film about heroic and truthy journalists risking all to confront the utter monstrosity (as the script necessarily requires) of the Church.
What employed journalist was going to note any problems with this film?
But there’s more.
I would refer readers to an op-ed piece in the New York Post of Tuesday, March 1st (page 23 in the print edition) entitled “Scaring Parents Silly” by Lenore Skenazy (who is not a professionally employed journalist but rather an author).
She raises another interesting and relevant angle on the ‘Spotlight’ film: (not only journalists but) Hollywood and the Academy had to award the film at the Oscars.
Since the Academy and the ‘industry’ in Hollywood was on the hook for its alleged ‘racism’, then they had to find some other moral high-ground, and they chose “rape”. Viewers of the Oscar ceremonies may recall that there was a) Vice-President Biden himself on hand to speak about “campus rape”; b) there was also a song concerning rape; c) there was a group described as “young rape survivors” (“on stage with their stories written on their wrists – eerily reminiscent of Holocaust tattoos” – as Skenazy notes); d) Brie Larsen was awarded Best-Actress for her role in a film entitled “Room” which involved a rape; and e) there were numerous commercials for a new ABC TV series entitled “The Family” about an abducted child.
I didn't read anywhere in the article, where "Hollywood and the Academy had to award the film at the Oscars". Oh! That's your worthless opinion? We've seen enough of your worthless opinions, which usually rate more as "lies or excuses". You would definitely win an Oscar in that category.
Continuing with my comment of the 2nd at 406AM:
You don’t have to be an inveterate, decades-long viewer of Oscar ceremonies to realize that this was highly unusual and you might even imagine that this was a highly-scripted ‘full court press’ specifically written-into the Oscar ceremony (which by amazing coincidence awarded ‘Spotlight’, a film about journalists heroically confronting rape – alleged or genuine, it doesn’t say – perpetrated by priests).
But why would Hollywood go to such (obvious) lengths?
Skenazy – quoting another author, Nancy McDermott – says that in light of the ‘racism’ problem Hollywood is facing, then “the only way the academy could get back any moral authority was to fixate on child abuse”.
And I would add: oh-so-liberal Hollywood could simultaneously make an implicit pitch for the Democrats in a hugely-contested election cycle by showcasing (Biden figures in here especially) that Party’s focus on rape issues.
We don't need your worthless imagination either.
So – just as we saw with the initial roll-out of the ‘Spotlight’ movie a few months ago (and discussed at length on this site at that time) – we see again the carefully-constructed ‘full court press’, involving media and journalists and Hollywood’s well-oiled scripting and PR machinery.
And – of course and as was noted back then – precisely not involving ‘victims’ any more than was absolutely necessary, and keeping them at arm’s length so that their tales and mood would not ‘bring down’ the well-employed celebrants who were self-celebrating their heroic truthiness.
But given what we have seen here of the Stampede, synergizing powerful interests including politicians, well-heeled tort attorneys (a noted interest group heavily involved in lobbying for itself), media and journalists … then who can be surprised, really, at such an intricate and interlocking set of performance-events?
I ignore the bull. . NCR's a lying sack o"shit. I would trust them as far as I would trust the biggest smoke blower here. The question, Dennis, is why do you believe them? Why would you believe any Catholic on this subject? They are proven liars and child rapers yet they're going to tell you the truth about how much money's been paid out. If the insurance companies are paying half the settlements and according to NCR the church has laid out 4 billion $ that means $8 billion dollars have been paid to U.S. victims. Have you seen such massive settlements in the U.S.? Neither has anyone else.
You just don't want to pay for your sins.
You want to pretend no sins were committed.
Awwwwwwwww! You're so cute.
Good luck with that.
Hello and thank you for your brave detailing of what to my eyes seems the gross abuse in our culture of sexual abuse victims.. who are mostly uttterly ignored, and too the wildly disproportionate isolation of the Catholic church as the abuser par excellence in a western world where the sexual abuse of minors was the norm. And so too the ignoring of the efforts of the church to treat offenders using the same secular resources used by the Dept of Justice and while ignoring the public schools systems entirely shows that most media and the culture has really no interest at all in the sexual abuse of minors unless a priest can be found to pin it on. Media reports of Charal Shakeshaft's study in California proved this beyond any doubt. By all means let the church rightly suffer for the ills she is responsible for, but what we see in the west generally is something a lot sicker. Bigotry trumps abused kids in this culture. Keep up the excellent work which will at least make it likelier that westerners might face this duplicity at long last.
I'm not sure what culture your referring to, but I'm of the belief that child molesters, especially repeat offenders should be put in prison and left to rot there. They are a danger to society and to our children. The church found out that you cannot rehabilitate them. Problem is that child molesters and pedophiles shouldn't have been in a church that claims Godliness in the first place. The fact that they thought they could conceal their malfeasance and get away with it, is proof that they are not God's church. They deserve all the scrutiny they get and then some. If they used the "same secular resources used by the Dept of Justice", then where are all the imprisoned priests and hierarchy of the church. I've also had the chance to witness the workings of our Justice System and found it to be totally unjust and corrupt in many ways. "Power corrupts and absolute 'Power' corrupts absolutely." I found that catholic cops and catholic judges have no conscience and will do all in their power to back their corrupt cult and their false accusations, to the detriment of justice and innocent victims, everywhere. The whole system needs a complete overhaul, and most of that will have to come apparently from the hand of God. Birds of a feather flock, (and back each other), together. Despicable, period. And it gets tiring to hear the Catholic Stampede so willing to blame the media, unless they can use the media to promote their disgusting agenda.
And the catholic bigotry against victims of their abuse is ridiculous, unjust and uncalled for.
And the "duplicity", deceit and the deception of the catholic "cult" should be stopped.
P.S. Why does p and his cronies feel they have to put my name in quotes. servant
"what we see in the west generally is something a lot sicker" I don't know what part of the west you're from, but there has been nothing "sicker" than what has transpired from the great religion and "cult" of the moral authority, in every diocese, city, state, country and continent, around the globe. Time to wake up to reality and make right on your many wrongs, "catholic cult".
Dennis have you learned nothing. Founding a fake committee or news source is what the church does. It creates public opinion. You've TMR. Do you actually think it and Cipriano arn't planted. You think they grew naturally? From what Matrix? They sprang like mushrooms over night. The question is which little Catholic fairy spread the spores? Friendly Atheist is a title who knows it's funding. You can surely see that a wave of attacks against the very concept of church victims being real is what's happening here. Newsweek; Cipriano and the woman reporter in the next TMR post. All are fired up. It takes money to fire something up in this world. Do you wonder where the money comes from? The engine is being reved up here but by who? What's next? I can hardly wait. Another lone reporter will find new evidence about a fraud and victims will be made bad. The PR show is underway. There is no blow you, the oppressor, won't inflict. And all because we told the truth.
We can leave most of ‘Dan’s bits right up where they were put.
But two require response:
On the 3rd at 533AM he claims he was unable “read anywhere” in the article where (quoting from me, not the article) “Hollywood and the Academy had to award the film …”.
I refer him to the final paragraph of the Skenazy op-ed where Skenazy quotes Nancy McDermott: “the only way the academy could get back any moral authority was to fixate on child abuse”.
My characterization of “had to” was based on the actual statement of McDermott that it was “the only way”.
Dan’s difficulty with reading comprehension – already demonstrated in his Scriptural exegeses – appears no better when dealing with contemporary documents.
I have no "reading comprehension" problem. You give your "worthless opinion" based on someone elses worthless assessment, "the only way the academy could get back any 'moral authority' was to fixate on child abuse". Show me proof that the academy "had to" regain any "moral authority", when they surely aren't gonna represent my idea of any "moral authority", any more than your disgusting cult can claim to be a moral authority. I believe the academy at least knows that they're not a moral authority, just take a look at how the women of Hollywood dress. When will the church come to grips with the fact that they are not the true church or "moral authority", bunch of pedophile creeps. servant
Then (the 3rd at 1033AM) he will further demonstrate his lack of psychological chops – and who can be surprised, since he has already informed us that (a, the, some, any, his) ‘god’ had told him not to read books?
The current state of psychological assessment is that genuine pedophiles (perhaps he would want to check the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for the specific clinical definition) are not ‘curable’ by any means currently known.
However there is no clinical diagnostic category of “child molesters” (or “repeat” child molesters). The term ‘child molester’ is not a clinical term but rather a media-contrived term that has passed into common parlance. But the term itself is hugely unreliable since ‘molesting’ can cover a broad range of actions that can be variously sourced or seated in the patient and thus can be variously treated.
Once again, ‘Dan’s substitution of his personally-preferred cartoons for any actual knowledge is evident.
I don't believe God ever said I could not read any books, so unless you can show me that statement, then we'll just have to chalk it up to more of your "lies". Your "mental institution" episodes apparently have helped you with your "psychological assessments" and "clinical diagnostic[s]" chops, but maybe that knowledge would be better left for your doctors, rather than peewee psychos.
You claim, "child molester is not a clinical term but rather a media-contrived term- hugely unreliable since 'molesting' can cover a broad range of actions." Who says it's a 'media-contrived term"? Oh, is that in the peewee dictionary of nonsense. I chose it for the legal definition- Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecents or sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 14. In psychiatric terms, these acts are sometimes known as pedophilia. I purposely chose the words to broadly cover all your "cults" perversions and disgusting sicknesses. You grasp at straws, claiming it to be "media-contrived" and "hugely unreliable", thinking your manipulations and lies will convince some of your dumb sheep that you know what your talking about. Sadly your material isn't any more accurate than your interpretation of Scripture. So keep on mocking and lying. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1033AM:
Thus the Church did not “find out that you cannot rehabilitate them” since – to the extent that this “them” refers to ‘repeat child molesters’ – there is no basis for his assertion that they cannot be rehabilitated.
We then see a revenant of the old fundamentalist idea of “Godliness”, i.e. that some people are ‘Godly’ and others aren’t – which is certainly not a Catholic doctrine. The Church has never claimed that any persons are ‘Godly’ in that sense; all are sinners and capable of sin – from popes to laity.
Perhaps the Church realized – on top of the Scriptural and especially New Testament theology – that such a doctrine of “Godliness” would open the door for anybody sufficiently deranged to suddenly a) proclaim themselves ‘Godly’ and on that basis even b) denounce one or many others as being ‘un-Godly’.
You think your church doesn't claim to be Godly, when corrupt and perverted popes, bishops and priests claim to be another Christ on earth. Glad it's not a "[c]atholic doctrine", because what I have witnessed from you and many other lying catholics and clergy, are some of the most ungodly creeps I've ever met or conversed with. I've met atheists holier than thou, and that's no lie. I agree with you, "all are sinners and capable of sin", but I have never run into as big a group of greedy, lying, threatening, obscene perverts, and hypocrits, even showing those traits after walking out of their heathen masses. servant observant, Dan
P.S. And what would your church know about "Godliness" when they don't know or follow "Scripture [or] New Testament theology". Guess it was my serve again.
God-gram for p- "How they put up a front in church, and when they come out, they're the most deceitful liars that ever lived on earth." Thus saith the Lord….. Got this one 2/29/16 and realized it fit well with my previous material.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1118PM:
We get here merely more demonstrations of ‘Dan’s (conveniently) inaccurate comprehension of the Church.
First, we get an instance of that fundamentalist-y “Godly”, as if any human beings could claim to participate directly in the competence or purity of God (which, nicely, is pretty much ‘Dan’s conception of himself – or Himself).
Second, the Pope is considered in Catholicism as the Vicar of Christ on earth, but not “another Christ”. The doctrine then applies – to lesser degrees, one might put it – to Bishops and priests. But in no case is any ordained or consecrated human being considered to be directly and fully participant in the competence or purity of God the Father or Christ the Son. And all human beings – without regard to ecclesial status – are most surely considered to be, as are all human beings, sinners and capable of sin.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1118PM:
We then get his signature reference back to the staffers of that Catholic school whose students he chose to involve himself with across the fence in one of his ‘Servant’ misadventures: they were “lying” – apparently in regard to their concern that he was unhinged, rather than merely proclaiming the content of his god-grams to the students, with a degree of intensity and perhaps aggressiveness that can only be imagined from some of his more florid performances on this site.
Then he engages in various bits of epithetical riffing, concluding that sequence by complimenting himself as being “observant” – which, as I have often said, does not at all appear to be an accurate characterization, especially in regard to himself (or Himself).
And he concludes by complimenting himself (or Himself) – as contrasted with the Church – as not being ignorant of non-compliant with “Scripture” and “New Testament theology” (which, as we recall, he (or He) gets directly from God without the necessity of reading books.
Readers may consider ‘Dan’s ‘insight’ of the 4th at 1217AM as they may. The quotation – as may not be clear from his post here – is from himself (or Himself) although he (or He) appears to consider it as qualifying for that “Thus saith the Lord” … and readers may further consider as they may.
On then to JR’s of the 3rd at 1137PM:
He opens – as so very often – with a couple of epithets, bringing us back to that table in the back of the school cafeteria.
Then he tosses in his old “sociopath” bit, once again oblivious to the danger of its recoil.
Just what “argument” I “make up” that he has “never made” is anybody’s guess. And the rest of that paragraph – as so often – trails off into some incoherent bits that wrestle with whatever images hover over him as he types his stuff. Which, all things considered, isn’t really so “Amazing!” at all.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1137PM:
He then works to reinforce the (Victimist-required) image of a 16-year old as a child. A 16 year-old may indeed be legally a minor, but considering that in that era one could in some States get a permit to drive a car and was only a year away from being eligible to volunteer for the military (once he turned 18) then clearly JR is over-relying on the ‘child’ bit. A toddler or a ten-year-old he most certainly was not.
Thus then again the (Victimist-required) “shattered” bit. And we are once again into the question of the pre-existence of characteristics in relation to any claimed consequences of allegedly being grabbed in the groin.
And then that paragraph concludes by attempting to imply that I don’t “acknowledge any victims”. As I have said on several occasions here, when I come across a demonstrably genuine victim, I will be sure to acknowledge that. And since he was not present at any other ‘victim’s (fill in the blank: rape, statutory rape, abuse, molestation) then one still wonders how he is so sure he has encountered any.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 1137PM:
As to his exaggeration to the effect that “We’re [meaning ‘victims’] all liars and would happily fxxk up an innocent persons reputation for money” (sic) … readers may consider that as they will.
But the final epithetical bit is a sly one – almost too sly for JR’s demonstrated chops: I – in his construction here – apparently do indeed ‘fxxk up’ “an innocent persons” (i.e. himself) “for money” (i.e. that I am being paid to comment here).
But the only mistake of relevance here is one that I have not made: I have not confused genuine victims with persons quite probably otherwise classifiable.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1033AM:
And yet – with no apparent thought as to the effect of declaring it in regard to his own position here – he reports that his “chance to witness” (i.e. those misadventures with the police and the courts) the “workings of our Justice System” has demonstrated to his satisfaction that the system is “totally unjust and corrupt in many ways”. (“Totally” and “in many ways” are incoherent here, as they are deployed together to describe the same entity.)
He would like us merely to apply this insight to the claimed injustices of his own misadventures, but there is no reason why it cannot also be applied to the system as it works and has been working under the influence of the Stampede, as I have often and at length explained.
And his comment riffs on with the usual bits.
Still flapping your gums P? Do you think anyone reads your guff?
Moral integrity coming from a douche bag like you? You have all the moral integrity of the Catholic church. Which is just like having none at all.
You must be proud. A sociopath talking "moral integrity". Any idea what those words mean? Nope I didn't think you did.
Go and sin no more!
Who ever said I wouldn't answer questions? You make up an argument for me that I've never made. Let's see SNAP makes up victims issues and you make up my issues. You folks do it for us all. It's all church all the time and all lies. Speaking for victims. Amazing!
And I was a very young 16 year old. Butchy boy Malcolm may have seen himself as a man at 16; but I didn't see my self like that. I was shattered. And that's not the half of it. But why acknowledge any victims? Let alone those of us who post here.
We're all liars and would happily fuck up an innocent persons reputation for money.
Why P, you've mistaken us for you.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 953PM:
He now claims – after I had pointed out that he had missed the relevant point I made from the text of the article – that he has “no ‘reading comprehension’ problem”.
Because – doncha see? – he apparently saw the material but didn’t need to pay any attention to it because it was simply my “’worthless opinion’ based on someone elses worthless assessment” (sic) and – doncha see? – he needn’t pay any attention to such “worthless opinion” because – doncha see? – he already has all he needs to know (from his god-grams, doncha see?) in the first place.
This is the level of mentation we are dealing with here. Which the Stampede invited and upon which it relies.
Well, congratulations are in order for you, publyin'! This is definitely the best "assessment" you've made in regards to your "worthless opinion" and your "worthless assessment" of another catholic's "worthless assessment". And yes, I do have all I need to know from God's- [G]od-grams, but don't leave out Holy Spirit inspired Bible Scripture. And I appreciate the complement that my "level of mentation" is spot on, and maybe that's due to the fact that I respect the Creator, rather than think I'll get away with mocking Him or His chosen.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 953PM:
He then tries to go JR’s “proof” route and wants “proof” that the opinion of the author I quoted is accurate. He is clearly unfamiliar with the process of building a case through exchange and assessment so I’ll walk him through it.
That is her opinion (as is all of his material, although he dwells in the cartoon fantasy that his material is not “opinion” but is rather the directly-inspired Word, Thought, and Will of God).
We consider a) the utter strangeness of an Oscar ceremony including so many uncharacteristic inclusions as the various ‘rape’-themed bits already discussed; then we consider b) the problem that Hollywood and the ceremony had been having with ‘racism’ issues; then we consider c) the well-known left-leaning nature of Hollywood generally and d) the context of a highly-contested election year.
And on the basis of all those elements, readers then can consider the probability and accuracy of the Skenazy quotation from McDermott.
This process is not one ‘Dan’ is familiar with, since he simply delivers his cartoon ‘opinions’ (and that is all they are) as if – as I have said – they are not his opinions at all but rather the directly-inspired Word, Thought, and Will of God.
And ditto then as to his opinion as to what he doth “believe” about the academy – it’s an “opinion”, and perhaps closer to “worthless” than he would care to imagine.
You're "building a case through exchange and assessment" is as lame and weak as you and all your material. Maybe you should try "building a case" based on truth instead of insinuations, excuses and lies, but I don't think your capable of such. And now you think God's "directly-inspired Word, Thought, and Will of God is some "cartoon fantasy". You better beware of your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mr. Mocker. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1049PM:
He can’t recall ever having said that God didn’t want him to read books. In his comment of the 31st of January at 1256AM he said “And I find there is no need to read other books once you've found and understood "The Greatest Story Ever Told". I prefer to spend my free time rollerblading, hiking and sharing my life and love with others.”.
Had God not told him to go outside and play since there was no need to read books? Or is this just ‘Dan’s adult decision … not to read books since they are unnecessary?
He then apparently seeks to imply that I have also had “’mental institution’ episodes” – and that is not accurate (his own of course, are reported to us by ‘Dan’ himself).
And again with the queasy child-focused “peewee” bit, which seems a fixed characteristic in his thinking and imagining.
So you found my quote, "And I find there is no need to read other books once you've found and understood "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (That would be the Bible, for the slow learner, publiar). The key words in this sentence would be, "I find there is no need". In other words, I was absolutely right in claiming I never said God demanded that I read no other books. Again, we can chalk that up to another of your many lies. Boy, I feel like I'm teaching a first grader, that I might have to hold back a grade. Maybe in kindergarten you'll be able to "go outside and play", seeing that you have a "ominous fascination" with childish and immature fairy tales (i.e. schoolyard fantasies).
P.S. And I assume you've forgotten that your claims of my being in "mental institution[s]" was just another of your lies.
Then, having just recently discovered the mimicry of competent adult thinking, he tries it again here: he wants proof that “child molester is not a clinical term but rather a media-contrived term”. He can look in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and he will discover that there is no such diagnosis. He seems not to realize that such ‘knowledge’ as he imagines himself to possess – not coming from books – actually comes from the media-soused surround, from which he picks his preferred bits like a pack-rat.
He then claims – after another deployment of that queasy “peewee” – that he was working with the term “child molestation” as a legal definition, thus as a crime. But he had mentioned it in terms of “rehabilitation” and that creates a psychological context that requires a psychological definition.
And he would then have to realize that the legal definition also doesn’t discuss rehabilitation, which is the context in which he originally raised the point.
He then riffs further, tossing in his usual points about “cults” and Catholics and so on.
And again that somewhat ominous fascination with “perversions and disgusting sicknesses”, which – through the wonders of clinical projection – offer some indication of just what is actually going on, under the guise of proclaiming the Word of God.
I leave it to psychotics to figure out the "psychological context that requires a psychological definition", so you remember to research that and I'll make it a point to ignore it. I prefer God to assist me in assessing the psychos in this world. Speaking of such, you claim I have a "somewhat ominous fascination with 'perversions and disgusting sicknesses'." That's pretty comical, when it's your abusive, pedophile, and child molesting hierarchy whose guilty of doing the nasty, dirty deeds. And I must say your one sick bastard yourself for attempting to pin that on me with your "wonders of clinical projection." servant of the Word of God
Publyin' claims I have an "inaccurate comprehension of the church". I'm totally aware of the pope being wrongly titled "Vicar of Christ", meaning substitute for Christ. And your grasping at straws, doesn't think that's close enough to be also considered "another Christ". After all he's only a falsely glorified bishop. And what does Christ say about giving people titles?
"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your 'servant'. Whoever exalts himselt shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23;9-12 And just about all of Matthew 23 describes the failures of your heathen cult. Now what are you going to claim and twist? That these aren't Christ's words, when they, like what you disrespectfully call [G]od-grams are most definitely, THUS SAITH THE LORD.
And I love that you claim I'm wrong about calling the pope "another Christ", and yet you don't deny, along with bishops and priests, that they're all perverts (and at the very least perverters of truth). At least I can say you know some things to be the truth. "Hilariass". Talk about, "Straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel." MT 23: 24 "You blind guides."
Catholics beware of these people who put themselves on pedestals and claim they're the one who can teach and interpret Scripture for you. Read the Bible and you'll find God will assist you in finding who is really is telling you the truth and who is the liar. servant
P.S. I'm glad you realize that no one in your church can be considered "Godly", because liars, idolaters and perverts are far from any "purity of God". You can depend on your "Queen of Heaven" for your hope and mercy, and I'll rest in Christ, not any other false christs!!!
Malcolm Harris- Might want to check out my post here at 11:10 am. May help you understand just what type of titles would be considered "grandiose" and the title God prefers us to take as "servant". "Servant of the Almighty" would still be a title of humility and have no greater meaning than calling myselt "servant", other than saying who I am servant to. Hope that's of some help.
I’ll go down the pile of ‘Dan’s new comments in the order they appear on the site.
On the 5th at 607PM ‘Dan’ merely affirms his basic cartoon approach and appears quite proud of his “level of mentation” – and readers may consider it as they will.
If he doesn’t agree with material or if it isn’t congruent with his personal cartoons, then it’s “worthless” while his own stuff – doncha know? – is the genuine Word, Thought and Will of God (while also awarding himself the status of “His chosen”.
As readers may have inferred, my purpose here is to demonstrate by drawing-them-out just how Abuseniks and other Stampede-y types think and process information. And the Stampede gave them a platform.
No one is capable of "awarding himself the status of 'His chosen'," nor am I. This is a God given gift of the Holy Spirit.
"For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn of many brothers." Romans 8:29
"In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will." Ephesians 1:11
Oh, excuse me. Forgot you have a problem understanding Biblical truth.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 617PM:
What we see here is the clear demonstration of the cartoon-dependent mind’s attitude toward “exchange and assessment” : it is “lame and weak”.
The cartoon-dependent seem to find some sort of (faux) sense of strength, masculinity, competence and power by simply creating their own cartoons and blast-faxing them all around.
He then also demonstrates – for good measure – his conflation of his own material with the actual Word, Thought and Will of God. It ‘Dan’s own material that is the “cartoon fantasy”. Although – who can be surprised? – the distinction is lost on him. And in his case, necessarily so.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 640PM:
As I had said above on the 5th at 1049AM, either he had avoided books as the result of instructions of his god-grams or else he had made his own choice not to read books (other than his favorite version of the Bible).
Apparently – if his claim in this 640PM comment is to be believed – he made the choice himself. Fine and dandy then. But yet he insists on tossing around material on subjects about which he is greatly misinformed (above and beyond his Biblical material, whose only redeeming quality as he deploys it is that it is accurately transcribed … most of the time).
He then tosses in an epithetical bit to the effect that he feels “he is teaching a first grader”. Again with the focus on small children – one wonders what age and grade the children were whom he accosted at the schoolyard fence.
The more he goes on, the more I see why the staffers were concerned; and also the police and the judge(s) those six times he was jailed and sent for psychiatric observation by a court. (About which more below.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 640PM:
In his “P.S” he then presumes that I’ve “forgotten that [my] claims as to [his] being in ‘mental institution[s]’ was just another of [my] lies”.
And yet again I refer readers to my comment of the 31st of January at 428PM, which quotes ‘Dan’s of the 23rd of November, 2015, at 1219PM:
“I'm speaking from experience because Catholic clergy and laity have laid upon me terrible accusations that were completely false. They lied and claimed I wanted to kill them. Said I trespassed when I didn't. Threatened me and then put that charge on me. Four thug cowards, of the church of my youth, jumped me from behind because I had a beautiful, prophetic message to the school children. Two weeks later reported this to the vacationing principle, and she said the thugs were accusing me of saying dirty things to the children. Lies, on top of lies, backed by more lies. Been called by church clergy and members, Satan, devil, crazy, pervert, child molester, threatened and cursed several times and called every other rotten, vulgar name in the book. On false accusations, been thrown in jail 6 times and in mental institutions 6 more times times. Paid restitution for accusations that were absolute lies and forced to plead guilty if I didn't want to spend more jail time. My only crime was speaking to lost souls about the bible and speaking out about the crimes of the church and exposing them.”
Thus readers may consider the quality of ‘Dan’s assertions, declamations, and claims of truthiness.
I wasn't able to find which article this was posted in, but will take your word for it, that that's the exact quote. If so, I do apologize for my mistakingly writing "mental institution", because I have never been in a "mental institution". I looked on google maps and have never been in any of the listed mental institutions in California or anywhere else. Sorry again, and I'll remove that lie from your list of many other lies. By the way, was "times times" my mistake or yours. Shows we all make mistakes. I stand by everything else I said in this paragraph, and that's the reason that it's so unfair for you to make claims of accosting or haranging, when they are so far from the truth, unless describing the threats, obscenities and lies of your cult of thugs. I also notice you're stepping up the mocking in almost every post. Hope that works out well for you.
This statement is also missing the fact that my younger sister called the msgr. of the church and he said, "Dan said nothing bad, let alone obscene to the children." So why don't you grow up and stop your nonsense, little peewee. Also, quit with your childish cartoons, building blocks, and immature berating and someone might think you have some false "sense of strength, masculinity, competence and power" and stop calling you little peewee. Until then, if the shoe fits you're gonna have to wear it. servant
Found my post from 11/23/15 @ 12:19, and saw my mistake of repeating "times" twice. I must have been on those anti-depressants and hallucinogens that I never was given at the "mental institutions" that I was never in. Because I was never "convicted or "jailed" or saw a "judge" because I never "accosted or haranged" any children at the schoolyard. Enough of your schoolyard fantasies.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 7PM:
As we have seen with another noted Abusenik commenter here, a person largely (and it would appear admittedly) lacking in psychological knowledge does seem to have one or two psychiatric diagnostic bits in the 3×5 epithet file.
In this case, ‘Dan’ seems to be familiar with the term “psychotics”. As I had previously said, it would seem probable that they gleaned their psychiatric bits not through any specific study, but rather through their own unhappy experiences on the far side of a clinical desk.
He will then – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttt? – fall back on (a, the, some, any, his) version of ‘god’ while revealing that in his considered assessment the “psychos” are out there in “this world”.
The observation as to his fixation on “perversions and disgusting sicknesses” arises from his own material here and readers may consider it as they will.
But he will attempt to neutralize that problem for himself by opining that it is I who am “one sick bxxtard”. And we may perhaps presume that this bit is from ‘Dan’ and not from (a, the, some, any, his) ‘god’ – although perhaps his ‘god’ is indeed capable of such descent into scatological epithet.
Still mocking, you "sick bastard". I love your saintly impression of never spelling a swear word, and yet have no problem lying like a dog. More mocking? servant
And by the way, the only scat I find is that left behind by you.
And finally to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1110AM:
His grasping at the definition of ‘vicar’ is, as applied to the stated doctrine of the Church, eccentric and inaccurate – thus his “inaccurate comprehension of the church” (sic). And even in its definition, a “substitute” is not to be mistaken for the real McCoy, as it were, so his effort here fails on that score as well.
And even he seems to be aware of that on some level, since in his immediately following sentence he has to appeal to what a reader might “think” about his little cartoon-construction here being “close enough”. It may be “close enough” for his own cartoon’s purposes, but it is clearly – and demonstrated by his own effort in this sentence – not definitive (let alone accurate) in any way whatsoever.
You say by definition, " 'substitute' is not to be mistaken for the real McCoy". So it would be better if we call them fake Christs instead of "another Christ". I like it, because it fits better with your fake church and it's false teachings. You forgot to mock in that one.