Carrying Water: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Promotes SNAP’s Public Defiance of Federal Court Orders to Reveal Truth About SNAP’s Activities

Gilbert Bailon St. Louis Post-Dispatch : David Clohessy

Together against the Church: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editor-in-chief Gilbert Bailon (l)
and David Clohessy, National Director of SNAP (r)

After years of haranguing the Catholic Church over its alleged "lack of transparency" in its handling of abuse cases, David Clohessy, the national director of the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, is again not only defying a federal judge's orders to hand over important documents in the case of a falsely accused priest, but he is also now orchestrating a fraudulent media campaign about it.

As we have reported before, Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang has filed a federal lawsuit against his accusers, SNAP, and members of the St. Louis police department for publicly and wrongfully accusing him of being a child molester.

After SNAP openly defied two court orders directing them to turn over important documents in its possession, Fr. Jiang's lawyers are now asking the court to sanction SNAP for its contumacious refusal to obey the court's discovery orders.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch promoting SNAP's lies

Rev. Joseph Jiang

Bravely fighting back:
Rev. Joseph Jiang

Jiang's legal team seeks to obtain SNAP's communications to prove its case of defamation, yet Clohessy and SNAP are fiercely trying to hide behind the silly claim that SNAP is somehow a "rape crisis center" and that divulging its communications would reveal "painful, intimate details" of a victim's "suffering."

In truth, there is no "painful, intimate details" or "suffering" in this case, and SNAP knows this.

Clohessy is desperately trying to dupe the public into believing that the court's order seeks to publicly divulge the names of abuse victims and violate their privacy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Jiang already knows the names of his accusers, and he has already proposed to redact any unrelated third-party names in the documents.

And the obvious reason that Clohessy does not want to reveal SNAP's communications is that they would likely uncover the fact that the abuse claims against Fr. Jiang are completely bogus and that SNAP knowingly defamed Fr. Jiang. They would also likely uncover the sordid relationship between SNAP and plaintiffs' contingency lawyers.

So in its effort to avoid complying with the court orders against them and sway public opinion, SNAP turned to the always-willing media to advance its phony story line. Naturally, the bleary-eyed gang at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch were more than eager to oblige.

[***Click to read Fr. Jiang's motion to sanction SNAP (court docs)***]

Kowtowing to SNAP, the Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier and Valerie Shremp Hahn published apologia articles (1, 2) for SNAP's refusal to obey the law, and then the paper's editorial board chimed in with a painfully biased editorial that dutifully echoed SNAP's media talking points.

It was obvious that either SNAP itself or SNAP lawyer/contributor Ken Chackes – or both – provided information to the paper's editors for its attack on the Church and Fr. Jiang, as the editorial, with its one-sided presentation of past cases and events, read more like a press release from SNAP than any kind of even-keeled analysis. And upon the editorial's publication, SNAP then seemingly petitioned a bunch of its wild-eyed "members" from around the country to flood the paper's comments section to cheer on the group's cause.

Yet what was most notably absent from all of the Post-Dispatch's biased reporting was even a scintilla of information from the mountains of evidence that Jiang has obviously been falsely accused. For example:

  • "The alleged victim had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse";
  • "[The accuser's] parents had a history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain";
  • "[The accuser's] fourth-grade teacher indicated that [the accuser] was a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional'";
  • The same teacher has stated that it was "virtually impossible" that the abuse took place as claimed;
  • "[The accuser] has never had any personal acquaintance with Fr. Joseph, and he could not even identify Fr. Joseph's name when he made the allegation";
  • "[A parent of the accuser once] physically assaulted the principal of [a Catholic school] by choking him or her";
  • The accusers already have 2 liens and 16 judgments entered against them in other cases, they have avoided service of process, and still other process servers are trying to serve them with even more legal papers.

In other words, the mob at the Post-Dispatch has zero interest in justice and truth in the Jiang case, and it certainly does not care that SNAP's Clohessy – a lawyer-funded zealot who has a long history of bigotry against the Church – is flouting court orders to shine a light on SNAP's activities while perpetually berating the Catholic Church for not being open enough.

SNAP's hypocrisy is off the charts once again.

Same as it ever was.


  1. Chris Browne says:

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  It wouldn't surprise me if SNAP were funded by George Soros, as well.

    • Lars says:

      It is a left wing lawyer group calling itself a rape center.



      Good job Post Dispatch.



  2. malcolm harris says:

    U.S.District Court Judge Carol  E. Jackson may not be inclined to 'turn the other cheek' when she reads the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Namely their unfair reporting concerning her court orders against SNAP. The newspaper totally misrepresents these court orders, and the protection they already contain for third-party privacy.  Yes….'trial by media' has worked effectively against the Catholic Church. But this time SNAP is directing the same tactic against a Federal Judge. Not a good idea? This could get very interesting?

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    SNAP is was and always will be a false flagged creation of a conservative element in the Catholic church in the Mid-West. It was founded by right-wing Catholics. Sponsored by nuns, who illegally let SNAP use their, the nuns, non-profit number till SNAP got it's own. Headquartered SNAP in a former convent in Chicago that is still Catholic church property. The church has even chosen the lead lawyer "against" them, Jeff Anderson, who in turn has chosen lawyers who become lead lawyers for victims who can sue. in various states and nations. (I only wish his was a bad dream I was having but it's the truth)SNAP like it's owner, the Catholic church, is "universal". It has created similar organizations world wide  that commit the same fraud SNAP does. Every chance SNAP gets to make victims look bad it takes by SNAP doing something lame. example. Like refusing to testify or pretending to be a "rape crisis center" (Which it is not because it has no professional rape therapists on it's staff nor has it ever claimed to be such a center to any victims attending it's rigidly controlled meetings) SNAP takes every "opportunity" to weaken victims and our cause in the public eye.. (Victims,who never chose SNAP to speak for us. know SNAP was handed us by our own church picked lawyers)  SNAP always takes the wrong path for victims needs, because that is what SNAP was created to do. How convenient cost wise AGAIN that this latest fiasco all happened, along with SNAP's founding, in St. Louis Mo. David Clohessy's home town. The cheap church has to save money. Why pay for David's transportation and hotels, after all? Just have the priest and his suit be close to home. Your church in part at least (along the Mississippi from Louisiana all the way to Chicago) is a Germanic (in the Nazi sense) wet dream. If there are any moral intelligent Catholics reading this. I'm telling you the truth. The usual clack here are paid to be here ( paid either on earth or in "heaven") to confuse obfuscate and support the myth that SNAP represents victims interests when the exact opposite is true.


    • malcolm harris says:

      Jim Robertson, on the 5th, jumps aboard a favourite hobby horse…. re SNAP"s origins and motives. Well he can ride it as much as he wants, but he has lost me. Because SNAP has, more than anybody, been responsible for the witch-hunt against priests, and bankruptcy of many dioceses. So how on earth can it be an instrument of the Catholic Church??. 

      But getting back to the real topic, David Clohessy…the guy is actually running true to form. He previously defied court orders about 4 years ago, in Missouri, in a separate case. He was almost charged with contempt of court, for failing to obey court orders, to hand over relevant documents. He was only saved by the contingency lawyer… withdrawing the suit. Surely an act of desperation to save Clohessy, the boss of SNAP. However this time it is different, the suit can only be withdrawn by the plaintiff, and that happens to be the same guy whose reputation SNAP has mercilessly trashed. So bad luck David Clohessy.

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    How many churches haven't gone bankrupt that should have that haven't due to SNAP's not taking them on? Only 15% of victims compensated (if that according to the John Jay report 2 (I think)

    Why are you so naive to think that a church that attempts to regulate the sex life of adult humans would have any problem cheating for their own financial gain?  Their morality is so out of whack but they make big bucks on their deceptions that instill guilt where there is none naturally that "sinners" might "try" to buy their way to heaven. These are the people you trust? The same people who covered up the abuse and enabled known priests to continue fucking kids? These are your moral arbiters? Of course, they would want to control victims our families and even the lawyers we "choose"  Money is the real doctrine of the church.The smallest Catholic child knows that. All the other "doctrines" are there to enable the cash flow. One must sin to be forgiven of sin. How convenient for priests.

    If SNAP is being put on the line. It's because it's need as the control mechanism  for the church's victims is through; and / or maybe too many questions are being asked about what SNAP has really done to victims as compared to the little it's done for victims. SNAP has to end on an unctuous note for victims. That's SNAP's real job. It's to fail badly at unnecessary  trials. Trials brought on by stupid SNAP accusations. Accusations meant to fail. Watch and see. 


  5. Jim Robertson says:

    And isn't it amazing? How much an Australian Catholic living in Australia presumes to speak as if he knows that SNAP is what it pretends to be. You've had at least 3 victims post at this site their hatred for SNAP and their sure knowledge that SNAP's the church. A man in Australia knows that SNAP is what he 's never seen; compared to victims who've dealt with SNAP, daily, for YEARS. There's a disconnect of the first order. Always believe someone who's never even been to a SNAP meeting over Catholics who were molested and have gone to SNAP for help. Sheeeesh!

    • malcolm harris says:

      Jim Robertson, on the 8th at 1.40 a.m., is up to his usual tricks, trying to muddy the water and obscure the facts. Long-time contributors to this site have become a little exasperated with his propoganda tactics. That is…. he repeats over and over assertions that are unsupported by facts. Perhaps many others have simply decided they don't have the time, or inclination, to continue to argue with him. As for myself, I am retired and have few demands on my time, so I can continue to engage in debate that is relevant to all Catholics, no matter where they are living. What JR tries to obscure is the fundamental right of all citizens to a good reputation, and also due process. The United Nations has proclaimed that all peoples should be protected by…. Universal Human Rights. One such right is the right to a good reputation, and nobody should wrongfully take away that reputation. This witch-hunt against Catholic clerics is a wicked attempt to remove that universal right. And it is all motivated by bigotry and greed. JR himself tells us he was given a settlement of one million dollars. For what?. Allegedly for being groped by some sicko religious teacher, many decades before. The legal system has really lost it's sense of proportion…due to bigotry and greed.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    My question is this: Why hasn't TMR ever published anything in support of its' own Catholic victims? Why has TMR from its' inception taken the line that the church is being cheated and or pilloried in the media for no good reason? When in fact, your bosses hid child molesters and transferred them to rape, at will, again.  the victims have all too rarely been compensated at all by the church. (15%) You keep backing the wrong horse and the only victories you've been handed have been by SNAP's willful fuck ups. Nobody could be this stupid, neither you nor SNAP. Cui Bono? Certainly not the 85% of victims unhelped by you or SNAP. Please try thinking. Why has SNAP never demanded Federal hearings? Why has SNAP never published the story about so few victim compensations if money is all they are after. SNAP's not doing those things shows you who they really work for. Think about all the contradictions between the needs of victims and the needs of the church; and who SNAP is really helping.  I have faith you can do this analysis honestly, that's if you have any morality at all.

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    LMFAO! I didn't set the boundaries of awards in California. Juries did. Juries were/are awarding victims between $3 and 6$ million dollars. The church settled with 550 Catholic victims for an average of $1 million each. That's the cost of fucking your own children, Father Harris.

    Your own Australian govt. has been holding hearings for 3 years now. Evidently they care about damage done to children, even if you don't.

    And everything I and other victims have said about SNAP's fraud is true. Just because you refuse to see the facts I've posted here. doesn't mean those facts aren't true.


    • malcolm harris says:

      Jim Robertson, on the 9th at 2.59 pm, suggests that I refuse to see facts. Well his facts are something to be looked at with great scepticism. For example his calling me "Father Harris" is not a fact, and never has been. But his intention is to associate me with the accused party, and imply that I am just an advocate.  Well perhaps I am an advocate for justice, something that we all should aspire to.  In my country we like to think that we believe in a "fair go". Sadly not always the reality… and I am convinced that Catholic clerics are not getting a "fair go".

      They are being railroaded. And the motive is not new, this has become a money-driven cottage industry. Note those sums that JR refers to in his own post…..really big bucks!.

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    Saying accused priests haven't had a "fair go" ("fair dinkum" I think is also the phrase.) is not a fact. They have had chance after chance to molest again and again. You are also "convinced" that there's a life after death and a reward system in that afterlife without one scintilla of proof. So it seems if you feel" or would like or believe something to be true like: "They are being railroaded" it is true. Well sorry but your fantasies are simply your fantasies not fact.

    According to your logic: Since juries award damages to people who sue; ALL cases seeking reparations would be false simply because money is used to ameliorate the harm done. That dog won't hunt.

    "They (priests in general) are being railroaded" by whom? Judges? Juries? Police? Self-admission? All of the above? The media simply report accusations; investigations;arrests; sentences and awards and/or settlements.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Have I ever asked you or anyone else here not to examine my facts? Have I asked you to take what I say to be true without investigation? No, I have not. Dismissing what I say without examination is prejudice. Accepting what you say as fact based on your "faith" is not fact but fantasy. It's time to grow up, Sunshine. "A wish may, according to the song, be a dream your heart makes" but wishing that some priests weren't; or aren't; or have never been child molesters is just that. Your child like "dream".

    Your own Royal Commission hasn't only been investigating the Catholic church, now have they? Anglicans; Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews the state etc. have all failed at protecting children.  Investigations have brought similar crimes to light committed in other "faiths" in our country as well.

    Every claim you make is based on your feelings, not on facts. Therefore, your opinion can not, and should not, be taken seriously.

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    I called you "Father Harris" because you always and only take the clerical side in this argument. Washing them all clean bar none. That's a fact based stance according to you? I also called you "Sunshine" does that make you "sunshine"?  Have a little wit.

  11. Donald Link says:

    ​Kind of  reminds one of the 1950s and the days of the Lawyer's Guild, a communist front organization that engaged in all sorts of legal abuses in order to promote the party line.  They were a thoroughly disreputable bunch but like all of their ilk caused considerable turmoil before they faded away.  SNAP is certainly in good company.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      America's done so well since it silenced American Communists in the 40's and 50's.

      If you still had a real left, do you think Trump would be the republican nominee?  Do you think Hillary would be the Democratic nominee?

      The McCarthy era is gone, but the Nazis still rule.

      Religion is for frightened idiots.

  12. malcolm harris says:

    This topic re SNAP'S boss, David Clohessy, and his apparent resisting of court orders, is significant and important. Too important  for us to be sidetracked by JR's bag of tricks. Our nature as human beings is to continue with patterns of behaviour that worked well before. So Clohessy was virtually on automatic pilot when he handed out, to media buddies, slanderous accusations against Rev. Joseph Jiang.  Clohessy, based on past experience, never expected to have to show proof of these slanderous assertions. He never anticipated court orders. But now he must put up or shut up. Or be shown up as an irresponsible fabricator. My bet is that he said something along the lines of there being several accusers?.

    But now he will have to prove they actually exist?. Gee…what tangled webs we weave………..?

  13. Publion says:

    As has been the case for years, there is no progress to be made with JR’s submissions: he has his little pile of dog-eared 3x5s, they go up, and after a while, they go up again as if for the first time ever and everything goes back to square one.

    There is one difference this time around, although it is in Style rather than Content: in the current crop we see relatively well-formatted and even multi-sentence paragraphs, which is not his signature style at all. However, the whole is sprinkled with enough of his ‘signature’ epithetical and snarky stuff to establish his ‘presence’ in the material.

    That being noted, we proceed.

  14. Publion says:

    On the 5th at 1113AM we simply get again JR’s Frankenstein-stitched theory that he has fabricated to cover all the bases he wants to toss plop at:

    SNAP is a tool of the Church / run by ‘conservatives’ and “right-wing” Catholics (SNAP, then, isn’t connected to the ‘liberals’ in the Church) / Jeff Anderson, tortie extraordinaire, is also merely a tool of the Church (along with fill-in-the-blank numbers of other torties who have scored big off the Stampede) / since the Church is “universal” then this SNAP scam – run, you have to recall, by the Church – is therefore also “universal” / SNAP is a “fraud” / SNAP is a fraud because it always takes “every chance … to make victims look bad” / and “victims … never chose SNAP to speak for us” (so it isn’t ‘democratic’, either) /  SNAP “always takes the wrong path for victims” / it was soooo “convenient cost-wise” to sue SNAP in St. Louis where Clohessy lives / the Church in St. Louis and all along the Mississippi basin is a “Germanic (in the sense of Nazi) wet dream” / and “if there are any moral intelligent Catholics reading this” then they can be very sure that JR is “telling you the truth” / there is a “clack” (no doubt he was going for ‘claque’) commenting on this site that is only here to “confuse obfuscate and support the myth that SNAP represents victims interests when the exact opposite is true”.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Quoting me is, probably, the only time you've come near to telling the truth here.

  15. Publion says:

    ‘Malcolm Harris’ was correct in noting that some commenters here are not retired and have other things to do, but I’ll make time in the schedule later today and address the points in the 1113AM JR comment of the 5th, along with the others.

    In the meantime, regular readers can refresh their familiarity with all of JR’s old 3x5s.

    We have here another opportunity to deal with this dog’s breakfast of the usual bits tossed up to make the Stampede seem like a good thing.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    "dog's breakfast" ? "3x5s"? You'll "make time in the schedule" "and address"?  JESUS WILL SPEAK! JESUS WILL "ADDRESS". I was hoping you were dead; but no such luck. Just proves there is no god. Not if he lets lying sacks of shit like you go on lying.

    The GREAT SNOB's going to speak! Halleluia! He's going to insult his victims. He's going to never mention any of the crimes committed by his church leaders or question their rule.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    Let me start taking you on with the same tone you address victims.

    How can you possibly even imagine an unnamed liar would be defending pedophile priests and their enablers while pretending to be morally superior to Catholics who were fucked by priests as children? Priests who were protected by their bosses when their Catholic victims weren't.

    How can it be possible that a liar who invents a false supposition of a media conspiracy out to "get" an innocent church, with literally no proof of such a conspiracy existing, dares to feign the "moral high ground"?

    P has but one 3×5 card that he reads from and it says one word: "stampede". A description for a fantasy he's invented.

    Australia's been having Royal commission hearings on sex abuse of children in all institutions and it's been going on for 3 YEARS in the Aussie press daily. Yet America's having a "stampede" without a single governmental hearing on the issue of the U'S' child citizens being fucked by a tax free institution?

    I'd love to know how many Catholic morons are buying his P lies.

    Dave Pierre, how many hits do you get at this crock shop?

  18. Jim Robertson says:

    What does P's busy schedule consist of? Taking kids to amusement parks? Buying them toys, ice cream? Long drives to a cabin?  You need to name yourself P so that we can protect the children you're most likely diddling.

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    Malcolm, how hard is it to investigate charges brought against a priest? Did David do that? Was David Clohessy set up to believe the accuser? Why does SNAP have a problem with obeying court orders? Are they afraid victims names might leak out from under their control? Or are they being advised by the same people I claim are working for the church, not for victims?

    SNAP's errors are always made to make victims look bad. What are the odds have those "mistakes" occurring naturally? Name one victory SNAP has initiated for victims??? Just name one. Can't do it can you? Now, name all SNAP's errors that made victims look bad. That list goes on and on.

    I don't know if Fr. Jiang is guilty or not.  I do know SNAP's history is a litany of screw-ups that hurt victims.

    Turd bucket P will now take each of my words and start mocking. That's all the asshole's capable off. No adult conversation between equals here. Only P's ROYAL pronouncements. Even sheep like religious people can see through his degradation of Catholic victims. That's why the CLAQUES been created. The church's peanut gallery for consensus. Paid affirmations for things that don't exist. 15% of your victims compensated in 25 years of SNAP's rule. Some fucking stampede!


  20. Jim Robertson says:

    How does my asking people to look at my evidence (which I've posted here) equate to my having a "bag of tricks"?
    No evidence is good as far as you're concerned, but looking at factual material is bad? 

    You are all a moral backwater. Your morality stinks. You get an F in decency. That's a pretty poor showing for believers in the "true faith". Or are you just carrying on the one, really true, Catholic tradition of lying to protect money?

  21. Publion says:

    On, then, to JR’s of the 5th at 1113AM:

    Regular readers will see that many of these points have been covered before but with JR’s stuff there is no yesterday (except for his claim of abuse, which is – of course – eternal).

    In regard to SNAP: Its original history may have begun as a victim-focused organization under the auspices of some formally-recognized Catholic religious group. Whether that group of nuns was “right-wing” or not has never been demonstrated, although this assertion fits in nicely with JR’s overall strategy of stitching together all of his bêtes-noires into one convenient cartoon masquerading as a true and accurate historical narrative.

    Whether SNAP used that organization’s tax number and whether that was done “illegally” has never been demonstrated and remains merely an assertion.

    Whether SNAP’s headquarters remain on “Catholic church property” has never been demonstrated and remains merely an assertion.

    To the contrary, Michael D’Amato revealed in his book Mortal Sins that it was in the late 1980s that Jeff Anderson had coffee with SNAP leadership and offered that then-ailing organization a new role: as a front and funnel for torties who were barred from actually going out and trawling for allegants.

    It was at that point that SNAP – reborn as that front and funnel for the torties – began the far more high-profile existence we commonly know as SNAP today.

    It was at that point, I would say, that SNAP became the “false-flagged” organization (to use JR’s term) it is today: it does not primarily exist for ‘victims’ but rather to trawl for allegants who can be passed on to the torties. SNAP’s false-flagging serves the torties, not the Church.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:

    The assertion that the Church had somehow “chosen” Jeff Anderson as “the lead lawyer” defies rationality and no evidence for the assertion has ever been produced.

    Anderson – as D’Amato reveals – went to SNAP on his own with the proposal (which would no doubt include contributions to SNAP from the torties once the game was up and running and the cash had begun to flow).

    It cannot be rationally assumed that the Church would ‘choose’ a tortie who would demonstrate the capability to cost the Church billions in settlement monies.

    Nor can Anderson be called “the lead lawyer”; he is not the primary attorney of record in all Catholic clerical abuse lawsuits. Rather, he was the first to see that the time had come to offer SNAP a vital role in starting up the long-established tort strategy of amassing so many plaintiffs that no defendant corporation would opt for trial rather than settlement.

    Once he had done that, any enterprising tortie could rely on SNAP to provide the allegants for whatever lawsuit a tortie would choose to put together.

  23. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:

    In this sense, then, SNAP’s presence might be construed as “universal”; but not because the Church is universal, but rather because the legal process of tort-action is universal (in the West, anyway).

    However, it is interesting to note that while the US legal system’s comparatively broad tort-law opened many possibilities for the torties to bring lawsuits, yet the US Stampede result has not occurred in any other Western country.

    I would say that this lack of replicability of the Stampede is the result of several factors: other nations’ tort-laws are not so broad and set a higher bar; other nations’ mainstream media do not have the influence that the US media have to help foment a Stampede; other nations’ governments may realize the dangers in loosing a Stampede template into their political, legal and cultural affairs – especially the creation of a precedent for lawsuits against any large and “deep-pockets” corporate entity, private or even public (and even in the US we have seen how carefully – and sometimes blatantly – legislators try to pander to Victimism by reducing Statutes of Limitation in regard to religious entities while carving out an exemption for public entities (schools, hospitals, etc.).

    One wonders why – if Statutes of Limitation are actually as obstructive of justice as the Stampede claims – state and federal legislators don’t simply abolish all such Statutes across the board in the entire legal system forthwith.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Other nations may be owned by the church, just like this one is.  They, the hierarchs,  got off scot-free here. In Catholic countries, Ireland etc,and even in non Catholic countries like Australia, the state was/is a codefendant in liability. Because the state let the church have control of the children. The church and the state! A tag team from Hell. Hence lower settlements. You are so upset because a few victims were compensated? No jail time for Bishops and Cardinals. No over view of the crimes,and the enabling criminals and no counting of victims by the media and no follow up. No BIG PICTURE, nation wise, let alone no world view. And this is the "stampede" of which you imagine? Why can't you people tell the truth?


    • Dan says:

      As par for the course, like your cult's repetitive prayers, such a multiplication of words with so little valuable content. Must it always come down to everyone elses fault rather than your own. It's "mainstream media". No, it's that "Stampede". Oh, no! It's "tort lawyers". Maybe it's 'bigots', 'catholic haters', 'witch hunters' or those 'haranguing' our spotless, pure clergy and hierarchy. You cherry pick the few cases that you think you can twist the facts and somehow turn the table on everyone else. If your cult wasn't so rampant with flesh starving perverts and pedophiles, than there would be absolutely no reason for the opposition you've received. "You reap what you sow." Very clever for you to "wonder why" – "legislators don't simply abolish Statutes of Limitations", when you're well aware that your cult's corrupt lawyers and lobbyists do all they can keep these rules in place, knowing it saves their buts large convictions and payouts. Your church's malfeasance is slowly but surely becoming exposed and brought to light. Wake up, catholics, don't go down with the ship.

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:

    JR would then (and yet again) have us believe that it is SNAP that works to “make victims look bad”, which is then to be taken as proof-positive that SNAP is merely a tool of the Church.

    Thus: if a ‘victim’ does or says something to “look bad”, then the only explanation for that can be that SNAP (and the Church) are evilly manipulating appearances to “make” that ‘victim’ “look bad”. Neato.

    But perhaps the ‘victim’ does “look bad” simply because s/he was exposed for doing a bad thing (such as spinning such a web of claims as we have seen exposed in the Philadelphia Doe cases). In which case it is neither SNAP nor the Church that has made the ‘victim’ “look bad”; it is, rather, the web-spinning ‘victim’ him/herself.

    Surely JR’s own recent exposure in regard to his long-bruited claim of child-rape cannot be ascribed to SNAP or the Church. He himself dug his own hole and strode right into it.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:

    JR will then claim that “victims … never chose SNAP to speak for us”.

    Leaving that slyly manipulative “us” aside, then JR’s plaint here should be taken up with the media; it is the media who (as perhaps Jeff Anderson also shrewdly foresaw) have chosen SNAP to be their go-to source in their long-running soap-opera of ‘victims’ vs. Church.

    JR himself went to SNAP and even worked for it, he says. Readers will recall that after a while SNAP and JR parted ways, apparently because SNAP somehow didn’t recognize his genius and his warrant.

    Hence its place on his personal plop-list. JR’s real beef with SNAP is not that it is false-flagged, but simply that it didn’t respectfully dip its (false) flag to him.

    As for the myriads of ‘victims’ not-well-served by SNAP: they appear to nobody but JR, upon the veracity of whose claims we must rely. Readers may consider as they will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Anyone who misses my "genius" is a fool. I count you as one of them.

      My warrant came from the fact of my abuse. Something you've always denied.

      Even after I accepted your definition of statutory rape. you've cut me no slack. Why? because you're a liar. You must invent a wrong done. even when I admitted my mistake in phrasing. Given I thought all sex interaction with those under the age of consent was statutory rape. I changed how I talk about my abuse. I never claimed to be a lawyer. No matter. You have to blacken my name because you love Jesus so much.

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:

    JR then will introduce the St. Louis lawsuit as some sort of proof of Church strategy: by bringing the suit in Clohessy’s home town, then – doncha see? – that helps Clohessy because he saves on bus or train fare to court.

    The law requires that a lawsuit be brought in a cognizant court; the court in St. Louis is legally cognizant (one or more Parties reside and/or conduct business there); and that’s the reason why the case is in St. Louis.

    But then JR proceeds from the ridiculous to the sublime: he riffs on the “Germanic” (as in “Nazi”) “wet dream” (always with the sexual stuff) that is the Mississippi Valley culture from Louisiana to Chicago. Readers may consider it all as they will.

    And yet from there JR proceeds to the stunningly sublime: on the basis of the prior two silly bits, JR puffs up his pinfeathers to address “any moral intelligent Catholics reading this”. Yes, let moral intelligence apply itself to considering the Germanic/Nazi “wet dream” of the Mississippi Valley and Clohessy’s bus fare.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Maybe if I hadn't had my hand forced down my teacher's pants, you stupid asshole, I wouldn't use sexual references so much.

      Since you and your fellow perpetrators broke me. You don't get to complain that I'm broken. You are so deeply evil. Never a kind word to anyone. You're a sociopathic dick

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 1133AM:

    And JR then insists that he is “telling you the truth”. About himself, perhaps, and more than he might wish.

    And his accusation of others here being in a claque to “confuse [and] obfuscate” has to be contemplated alongside his own recent exposure in regard to his claim of child-rape.

    And then, to wrap the whole bit up, JR does more confusing and obfuscating: nobody here whom I can recall has ever asserted or claimed that SNAP represents ‘victims’ and thus that it not the point in question.

    The core question is: whose purposes does SNAP actually serve? And the answer to that, I would say, is that SNAP has served the torties and its own organizational interests since at least that meeting almost 30 years ago between Jeff Anderson and SNAP.

    Just whose interests JR serves remains food for thought and a subject for any “moral intelligence” one might wish to apply.

  28. Dan says:

    Ahhh! Yes. We're all waiting with bated breath for one of your wonderful assessments. I thought you had gone away, but apparently you still think way too much of yourself.

  29. Publion says:

    On the 8th at 141AM JR tries to build some sort of accusation on the bit about only 15 percent of the victims having been compensated.

    That percentage – he slyly and even sleazily bleats – comes, if he recalls correctly, from the second John Jay Report, he doth “think”.

    But that point was taken – as any regular reader knows – from a long outdated Wiki article that was by its own admission a partial accounting even when it was first put up.

    The only thing that John Jay did was to tally up the number of formal allegations, and nothing more. Were any allegations that were formally made then rejected? Were 85 percent of the allegations that were formally made then rejected? It seems very improbable; and surely such a massive turn-back of formally lodged legal claims would have received attention in the media, which have hardly been ‘friendly’ to the Church during the Stampede.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 141AM:

      He then tries to connect – with that sly implication of any unconvinced reader’s being “naïve” – the Church’s teachings on sex with JR’s assertion of financial gain. There is no logic in it; whatever force connects these two disparate elements in his own mind is surely not logic.

      As for the Church’s morality being “so out of whack”: readers may consider as they will whether JR is any judge of “morality”. If he wishes to explicate how – to his mind anyway – the Church’s teachings on sex are “out of whack”, then he can do so. If he can. 

      And as usual, he tries to distract from the weakness of his point by tossing in some juvenile scatology. And among whatever “kids” were ‘fxxked’, we now know that JR is not one of that number, contrary to his long-held insistence.

      Readers may consider as they will JR’s further riffing in the attempt to reduce the Church’s mission to merely “control” and “money”. 

      And his further effort to make it seem that even when they signed onto lawsuits allegants were being ‘controlled’ because – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrr ittttttttttt? – all of the tort attorneys involved in these abuse cases were actually tools of the Church all along. 

      As to what “the smallest Catholic child knows” about the Church (i.e. that it is all about “money”), readers may find that JR here delivers more revelation about himself than he does about the Church. 


    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 141AM:

      He then tries to insinuate this bit: if SNAP (already a tool of the Church, in JR’s cartoon) is now being brought to court by a priest of that Church, then that’s only because SNAP is no longer needed as a “control mechanism” for the allegants. Why would that be? JR doesn’t bother to say. 

      Or perhaps – as he tries to pin another possible tail on the donkey – “too many questions are being asked” about SNAP’s activities. But if that were true, then SNAP could defend itself simply by pointing out in open court how it has been a tool of the Church and how it has been “controlled” by the Church. Surely the Church would not put into open court an organization that – if JR’s cartoon is accurate – has so much evidence implicating the Church as the ultimate puppet-master of the Stampede. 

      No, what we are seeing here – and all that we are seeing here – is simply a recitation of the whackjob bits JR tells himself in the mirror to try to keep his own cartoon going. 
      And he tries to make his way off the stage to the wings by delivering the ominous and self-important line “Watch and see”. Given JR’s many insistences and assurances over the years, readers may prepare themselves for further developments as they may.


    • Publion says:

      JR is back on the 8th at 149AM: 

      Now he’s going to try something a lot closer to his usual level of operating: he will attack ‘Malcolm Harris’ as being from Australia and therefore – we are to presume – hardly in a position to be talking knowledgably about SNAP. 

      This is myah-myah sleaze right from the back tables of the high school cafeteria. 

      How about if we try it this way: ‘Isn’t it amazing? How much somebody who has been shown to have lied about his own child-rape presumes to speak as if he knows that SNAP is what it pretends to be’ … ? 

      And now we know what JR pretended to be all this time … and wasn’t. 

      So that then reduces the number of “victims” posting here by at least one, and that presumes that any of them were genuinely the victims they claim to be at all. That’s a relevant reality “of the first order”. 



    • Publion says:

      On the 8th at 227PM JR is back with another familiar bleat: “Why hasn’t TMR published anything in support of its’ own Catholic victims?” (sic)

      And my answer to that would be – yet again: Because this site has tried to examine the Catholic Abuse Matter and is not therefore simply just another of those sites that presumes the utter veracity of all the claims and then proceeds on that basis. (Which, in JR’s case, has proven itself to be a rather wise stance indeed.)

      And when JR then bleats “Nobody could be this stupid”, one is moved to consider JR’s own stuff and wonder. On what legal basis could SNAP – even as a front for the torties – ‘demand’ Federal hearings? 

      And for that matter, if SNAP is indeed a front for the torties, then that politically connected bunch isn’t going to want to see all that come out in any Federal hearings. And for that matter, no savvy pol is going to want to call for Federal hearings that would embarrass the torties. 

      So I would advise JR to take his own advice: “Please try thinking”. 

      And perhaps SNAP has “never published the story about so few victim compensations” because even SNAP knows that such a claim is not only baseless but easily refuted. This is what happens when you drink your own Kool-Aid, presuming that the cartoons you spin to console yourself are actually factual and veracious, and that therefore the world’s failure to take them seriously must indicate all manner of skullduggery in the world, rather than in one’s own skull.

      JR then tries to conclude the service by donning the Wig of Pastoral Concern: he has “faith” that readers “can do this analysis honestly” – which term, in JR-speak, means doing it and seeing it JR’s way. 

      But – heck – JR is just JR even under this or that Wig. Thus he can’t really help himself when he adds that final snarky bit: “if you have any morality at all”. Given the demonstrations of JR’s own morality, one may judge as one thinks best.


    • Publion says:

      On the 9th at 259PM JR will point out the amounts that (Stampeded) juries were awarding in California, referencing his own case. But surely we now know that JR got his million without being ‘fxxked’ at all. 

      And – as usual – in an effort to bolster a weak point with some form of distraction, JR calls ‘Malcolm Harris’ “Father Harris”. 

      And then it also escapes his “analysis” that for the three years the Australian government has been holding hearings, it hasn’t come up with much at all. Perhaps the Australian government is also a tool of the Church, along with the US torties and judges and police and media and maybe the Irish government (remember the Magdalene Laundries?) and the Dutch government (remember the Dutch Abuse Report?) and whoever else has wound up on JR’s cartoon hit-list.

      Oh, and everything JR and the other ‘victims’ have said about SNAP’s fraud “is true” and it’s your own fault if you don’t see it. Because – doncha see? – just because readers don’t believe what Abuseniks say doesn’t mean that what Abuseniks say isn’t true. 

      It also works this way: Just because Abuseniks say or claim or assert or insinuate something doesn’t mean it’s true. 


    • Publion says:

      And on the 10th at 859PM JR will insist that it isn’t true that “accused priests haven’t had a fair go”. As we have seen – in great detail – in the Philadelphia Lynn case, they haven’t had a fair shake in court, and even the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts have so ruled. 

      As for the dynamics of the afterlife, there is not “one scintilla of proof” because scientific proof can only deal with some form of this-worldly material reality, and the afterlife is not a this-worldly material reality. 

      Once again we see here Science staring into its sonar scope and declaring that since it cannot see any aircraft on the scope, then there are no aircraft. And such a conclusion based on such a presumption is indeed a ‘fantasy’ “of the first order”.

      And we see here another classic example of the Abusenik shell-game: suddenly now all of the judges and juries and police and media who are not to be trusted because they are tools of the Church are suddenly now to be trusted because … well, because the cartoon needs them to be trusted for the moment. Tune in tomorrow and that may change, if the Abuseniks need it to. 


    • Publion says:

      On the 10th at 923AM we get another familiar bleat: Has JR ever asked anyone here “not to examine [his] facts?” Readers may recall – or consult the archived record – as to the resistance JR put up against examining even his own “fact” of child-rape. 

      And thus the rest of his riff here can be taken for what it is. 

      And once again, I cannot do any better than to proffer to JR his own advice: “It’s time to grow up, Sunshine”. 

      And as for the recoil of assertions, one cannot do better for an example than JR’s assertion that “Every claim you make is based on your feelings, not on facts”. And thus, in regard to his own material, JR’s conclusion is also valid: “Therefore, your opinions can not, and should not, be taken seriously”. 


    • Publion says:

      And on the 10th at 928AM JR will – as usual – attempt to explain away one of his juvenile nasty bits as just being a bit of humor, but also that ‘Malcolm Harris’ deserved the epithetically-charged “Father” because – doncha see? – “you always and only take the clerical side in this argument”. Oh my, that’s a mature and convincing explanation for the snark. 

      As for the “Sunshine” explanation: JR claims to be a victim. Does that make him a victim? 

      Once JR grasps the substance and significance of that question, he will grasp the need and purpose of this site. And if not, not. 


    • Jim Robertson says:

      The significance of the reality of my abuse, of course, would be lost on a lying sociopath because he only tells the truth if it suits his purpose. Normal human beings don't do that. I had and have no need to lie about being abused. You seem to have a very great need to make me out to be a liar. Now exactly why would that be? Let's talk about that need of yours. Why does it exist? Cui Bono? Even when I admit i was wrong in calling my abuse statutory rape. You don't forgive my error.  ERROR. No lie but an admitted mistake on my part. you take that as a sign that I lie about my abuse. It's impossible to please a sociopath obviously. And you claim to be a Christian ?!!!??? Hon, you wouldn't know Jesus if he sat on you.

  30. Dan says:

    EWTN – Who commands it's brainwashed sheep to "Live Truth – Live Catholic", had this ending to their day 7 Novena of which there are 9 days with the same repeated closing prayer;

    "O Brilliant star of purity, Mary Immaculate, Our Lady of Lourdes, glorious in your assumption, triumphant in your coronation, show unto us the mercy of the Mother of God, Virgin Mary, Queen and Mother, be our comfort, hope, strength, and consolation. Amen.

    Catholics – Mary can show you no mercy, comfort, hope, strength [or] consolation. She is dead and like all humans waiting for Judgment Day. Nothing but lies from hypocritical liars.

    Remember, Christ died and rose from death and alone can lead you to the Father. "For there is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ." 1 Tim 2:5  To pray to anyone else is absolute idolatry and an abomination. Be Not Fooled.


  31. Publion says:

    We now have a first set of responses to the initial material I put up on the morning of the 12th.

    From JR we get … what?

    On the 12th at 1227PM he will merely try to go for the personal – ad hominem – while also continuing to toss up his usual claim that I am “lying” (his own exposure as to his long-held claim of child-rape seems not to occur to him).

    A new twist, however, is that he lists himself as among my “victims” – which serves to do nothing so much as indicate his rather elastic sense of what “victim” means and his readiness to toss that charge against anyone who doesn’t buy his stuff.

    Underlying that is the script in which he is the simple bearer of truth who is bethumped baselessly by the powerful. Back then to JR as Tribune of the Victimry. Again, we are seeing here merely a typed version of the assorted bits JR tells himself in the mirror, where he receives in reply from that object only complete and total agreement – which is the only way JR likes it.

  32. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 12th at 1246 where he will settle down to his fallback tactics: I am “unnamed” and am a “liar” and am “defending pedophile priests and their enablers” (which will – to his mind – constitute his “evidence”; “evidence” to JR is simply his making claims and accusations that were previously rehearsed in the bathroom mirror).

    He claims there is no media conspiracy (I had used the term “synergy”, which is not the same thing). Readers may consult the record of this site for the many articles and comments on assorted media efforts to Keep The Ball Rolling through selective and even false ‘reporting’. Without the media’s embrace of the Victimist script the Stampede could never have succeeded as it did.

    He tosses in stuff about the years-long Australian hearings (so far without substantive result) and about the lack of US government hearings. I addressed those points in my comments of late on the 12th.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! "keep" what "ball rolling"? You don't fuck kids you don't get talked about, moron.

      You write more than anyone else here but you say nothing. You imagine you've posted facts but there are none in what you write. You talk but have nothing to say. You are an empty jug.

  33. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1252PM he merely tries to expand his signature defense since he was exposed in regard to his child-rape claim: I must be doing all sorts of child-rapey things and that’s why I am busy.

    What other defense has he got though, really?

  34. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 211PM he will borrow a phrase from his mind-mate, ‘Dan’, and characterize my handling of his material as “mocking”. And tosses in – but of course – some juvenile scatological epithet, while characterizing my analysis and assessment of his stuff as being “royal” (scream-caps omitted).

    And repeats the utterly non-credible claim based on the old Wiki article as to only 15 percent of victims being compensated. Which point I have addressed in my comments later on the 12th.

  35. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 222PM he then adopts the Wig of Hurt and Innocent Competence and bleats about his asking people to look at his “evidence”. As I said, in JR-speak, “evidence” merely means whatever bits he imagines and finds consoling to himself, which he then tosses up on the screen.

    That type of “evidence” – he accidentally but rightly surmises – is not acceptable or sufficient.

    But then his internal fire spreads and he can’t help but get down to the real JR: he tosses epitheticals at everyone as being “a moral backwater”. (Again, his own exposed untruths don’t apparently occur to him.)

  36. Publion says:

    And then (the 12th at 1012PM) ‘Dan’ gets in on the game, with substantively nothing to say.

    Which is followed by another bit on the 12th at 1115PM which starts us once again down the swamp road into the Dan-verse with more ‘prophetic’ pronouncements.

    JR and ‘Dan’ are two peas in a pod. They have formulated a batch of self-consoling bits; these bits are neither accurate nor coherent but that isn’t their purpose. The bits are simply there to hold their personal ‘world’ together and through the marvels of the internet are now here as well.

    I have made the best use of those bits that I can, using them to further an understanding of the dynamics and types of mentation that have been drawn to the surface by the Stampede’s roiling of the troubled waters. I will continue to do so.

    • Dan says:

      Once again, the multiplication of words, lacking any valuable content.

    • Dan says:

      Why do you act so threatened by bible quotes, calling them "Dan-verse". You lack the capacity to realize that you're mocking God's Word when you make these accusations. If you're claiming my quotes of your repetitive prayers to Mary, Queen of Heathens, is "prophetic", then I would have to correct you. They are most definitely PATHETIC and Antichrist and Anti-Christian. For this, and many other misquotes, misinterpretations and disregard for the Lord's Word, is the very reason that led your idol worshipping cult to doing all the disgustingly nasty crimes against His children and all humanity. Read Romans ch. 1, describing your cult and it's clergy of hypocrites in fine detail. Maybe you need a few lessons in theology in order to understand what's written plain as day. We're tired of hearing all the lame excuses your catechism dreams up for disobeying the Lord's Word. Good luck with that.

  37. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh! Thanks for your definition of faith. the unbelievable ability to believe in what isn't there. Excused,according to you, by the fact that science can not measure the never was.

    Should I clap for fairies too, Peter Pan? Clap. Clap. Clap. I do believe. I do believe.

    Proof?  Zippo. = delusions, imaginings; fantasies.

    Thanks for sharing nothing.

  38. Jim Robertson says:

    I grasp the significance and need for this site alright. To hide the truth. To spin everything against the simple fact that your church didn't protect its' children but served them up,as if, on a platter(or altar?) to be sacrificed to pedophiles over and over and over again UNIVERSALLY. Good job church! You just "loved" us kids to death.

  39. Jim Robertson says:

    Saying something is "utterly un-credible" doesn't make it true. It just makes you a propagandist for very evil people. You poopooing others only makes you look like the empty piece of crap that you are.

    I'm not insulting you here. I'm describing you here.

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan glad you found the right religion for you. Religious contradictions are better fought in a forum about those contradictions. They don't really apply here. But smoke must be blown.

    I wonder if P's a little like Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady all snobbery and servants. I wonder who serves him tea as he scribbles his poison pen-ery by the hour. Poor soul!

    • Dan says:

      Jim, How you've come to the conclusion that I don't belong in this forum is beyond me. Could be that your fight for some financial gain, has blinded your eyes to the battle that's really being fought in this arena. This is a fight between good and evil, God the Creator and Satan, the accuser and slanderer of all that is good and righteous in this world.

      Have you not witnessed the flight of a hummingbird, a worm morphing into the most beautiful butterfly, or the cheetah, leopard, hyena, vulture or lion, and how perfectly they fit into God's feeding plan and how beautifully they coexist with all the rest of nature, a delight for the eye to see. Then I could understand your denials of a Creator.

      I find you to be very confused as to what is right and wrong. The difference between God's people and the religious that you've come to believe represent God and His Son. If there is any smoke billowing on this website then it would have to becoming from Satan's nostrils, his deceivers, liars, excusers and enablers, but also from the unbelievers and deniers

  41. Publion says:

    And on the 13th at 1239PM JR digs the hole even deeper.

    For openers – had you been waittttingggggggg forrrrr itttttttttt? – an epithet: I am “a lying sociopath”. Regular readers will recall just who has been exposed as “lying” here and the oddity of JR’s only familiarity with psychology being the deep-seated characterological problem of sociopathy.

    Then he ignores the dangers (and dynamics) of projection and accuses me of being the one who “only tells the truth if it suits his purpose”, larding onto that the pronouncement that “normal human beings don’t do that”. No, they don’t. He should take that to the mirror.

    He then  – yet again – bleats that he has “no need to lie about being abused”. He was receiving a poor grade from the teacher he accused and he has demonstrated here just how vengeful he can be when he doesn’t get what he wants (once I had nailed down his “obfuscation” and so forth about being child-raped, he simply retreated to calling me a pedophile and so forth). And his claim, when lodged in that massive Los Angeles 500-plus plaintiff case, yielded a rather hefty sum. And if he wasn’t abused, his entire career (in his own mind, anyway) as Tribune of the Victimry would have lost its creds.

    That’s quite a bit of “need”.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1239PM:

    He then tries a bit of mental judo: It is not his lie, but rather the “very great need” that I “seem to have” to “make [him] out to be a liar”. In other words: he’d the like the focus to be not on his (long and oft asserted) lie about being child-raped, but rather about why I would expose it.

    And perhaps he would like this bit to be stretched to cover my questioning of a great number of his claims and assertions: why would I question them? Or – in his own words – “why does it [my questioning] exist?”.

    My questioning exists because I sense questionable material – claims, assertions, and stories – on a rather important subject.

    Readers may judge as they will whether JR’s responses i) answer or ii) raise more questions than they purport to answer.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1239PM:

    JR came to this site well after the case in Los Angeles. During the preparation for that case his attorney had to have disabused him as to the legal accuracy of any claim of child-rape or statutory rape. So JR didn’t make a mere “error” (scream-caps omitted) when he claimed here, quite some time after that case, that he was child-raped. JR had to have known already that the experience he claimed to have undergone did not constitute child-rape or statutory rape. And yet for so long here he insisted that it did.

    That isn’t an “error” or an “admitted mistake” (admitted only after some years of questioning). That is a deliberate and sustained insistence on an untruth.

    JR’s sly but hardly adequate solution to that uncongenial reality is to sigh that “it’s impossible to please a sociopath, obviously”. That’s a thought that has often occurred to me when dealing with his material.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1239PM:

    And then – slyly – he tries to head for the high-ground by impugning my Christian charity: I don’t “forgive” his “error” and yet I “claim to be a Christian”. Which is a neat job of combining epithet, innuendo and insinuation – no doubt he’s had a lot of practice over the years.

    And he heads off-stage for the wings while delivering – yet again – a gender-bendy bit of snark.

  45. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 1247 JR then thanks me for my “definition of faith”, which he doesn’t quote so it’s hard to know just what he’s going on about.

    He’s clearly trying sarcasm here, but the bit fails to reach the complexity of the point my “sonar” imagery raised: you aren’t going to find planes with technology designed to locate submarines; for planes you need a different modality.

    And he – as have many before him – tries to whistle-away that problem by merely claiming that there isn’t anything ‘up there’ that needs to be searched-for anyway in the first place. Readers may consider the reliability of that presumption as they may, coming from JR or anybody else.

    And then some riffing on various fairy-tale characters.

    And then a quick stab at logic (not one of his strong-points) with a barely comprehensible bit about “Zippo” and so forth.

    Which enables him to at least get back on ground more familiar to him as he concludes with a stab at more snark. What else has he got, really?

  46. Publion says:

    And on the 13th at 1253PM he insists that he does indeed “grasp the significance and need for this site”: it is – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – “to hide the truth”. This from the recently exposed long-term and insistent obfuscator and hide-r of the truth.

    And he riffs on with more bits that have been largely addressed in my prior comments on this thread.

    But note his tactic here: he tries to distract from his own rather serious truth-problems by trying to wave the bloody-shirt of “pedophiles”, which is precisely a point so deeply at issue and about which so much doubt legitimately exists: just how much actual and verified pedophiliac activity has been demonstrated to have existed (which demonstration requires more than the mere claiming of it).

  47. Publion says:

    And – just to keep things tidy – there is the comment of ‘Dan’ (the 13th at 745PM), who simply tries to run his old I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s not his own material that lacks content, it is mine. Readers may judge as they will.

  48. Publion says:

    At this point I would invite readers to consider an editorial from The Wall Street Journal entitled ‘Chevron Shakedown Rout’; it appeared in the print edition of Tuesday, August 9 of this year, on page A-12.

    The editorial discusses the end of a case – brought against Chevron – which it characterizes as “One of the most egregious legal frauds in history”.

    A  three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously  affirmed a lower court’s decision and “ruled that an Ecuadorian[lawsuit]  judgment against Chevron was the product of fraud, coercion, and bribery”.

    We are into the realm of tortie tactics and strategy here, which is the relevant point for this site.

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Chevron case:

    The court found the tortie’s conduct to be “corrupt” and “legal terrorism and ransom at the highest level”.

    The tortie – the editorial continues – had strategized seeking an “ad terrorem effect” which would have had the result of “impelling Chevron to agree to a settlement”. In other words: so terrify the defendant (a deep-pockets corporation) that it would have submitted to a settlement.

    This is a vivid example of the same type of tortie tactic deployed against the Church in the Stampede (and most certainly in a 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit such as was pulled-off in Los Angeles a decade ago).

    The attorney had “lined up environmentalists and even actress Daryl Hannah to create a media circus that would force the company to settle”. What the tortie lacked in this case was a steady supply of ‘victims’ who would ‘report’ their ‘victimization’; the Stampede could deploy an apparently endless supply.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Chevron case:

    Two years ago a federal district court judge found that the tortie “had committed acts that would qualify as violations of the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act and nearly every standard of decent professional behavior”.

    And this then also goes to JR’s bleating about “federal hearings”: would the Stampede torties really want to be exposed for their various tactics deployed in the Stampede? Would any pols want to put so powerfully influential a group at risk of exposure?

    And it also goes to JR’s pooh-poohing of any media role: creating a “media circus” was a vital part of the plan from the get-go.

    The judge wrote – the editorial continues – that the tortie’s handling of the lawsuit was “an exercise in pure extortion” and was “offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law”.

    So much for any attempt to cast the Stampede torties as merely simple truthy folk doing their humble bit for justice; they are capable of strategies designed to terrorize a targeted defendant into agreeing to a hefty settlement (with accompanying hefty fees and divisions of the swag).

  51. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the Chevron case:

    The editorial concludes: “Faced with an activist trial lawyer [and] media blitz, most companies capitulate and settle to avoid the huge potential costs of litigation and the risk of unpredictable verdicts”. Which is precisely what the Church did in the Stampede, when faced with all that plus a far more media-seducing stream of ‘victims’ ‘reporting’ their ‘victimization’.

    And it observes that the Second Circuit is “hardly a conservative venue”.

    • Dan says:

      Ohhh! Geez, we sure do appreciate your indepth, longwinded analogy comparing pomegranates to zucchini squash. You're a cult of pedophile whores and deserve to pay everything you have and so much more. Tell the creeps to keep their zippers up and their dresses on. Hey, speaking of gas, it sure would be nice to put a cap on the stuff seeping from your mouth.

    • Dan says:

      And let us not forget that the church settled many cases out of court in order to continue their facade of a pure and loving cult and further perpetuate the secret, so they could continue on course of screwing every little boy that they could get their slimy hands on. The jig is up.

  52. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 1215AM ‘Dan’ will try a further sly trick:

    “Why do you act so threatened by bible quotes …?” he bleats.

    First, I am not threatened; I am a questioner and I find much of his material questionable.

    Second – and we’ve been over all of this before – I don’t take exception to the use of quotations from the Bible. I find ‘Dan’s own material – the assertions he makes and conclusions he draws from the Bible material – very questionable. As I also find his contortions in trying to wave away his own behaviors and actions as he himself relates them and also the even more contortionist efforts to wave away the problems caused by his efforts to explain how his own material doesn’t indicate some rather notable derangement.

    Whether anyone wants to get into his sandbox or swampbox with him and go back and forth as to whether his own stuff is “God’s Word” and whether his assorted invectives against various aspects of Catholicism constitute “prophecy” or mere personal invective and rant … we’ve been all over that ground before too and readers may consider as they will.

    • Dan says:

      Funny how you can't resist jumping into that swampbox, you lying troll.

    • Dan says:

      "I don't take exception to the use of quotations from the Bible." he oinks. Surely you don't, as long as you can twist the meaning to make it fit the lies you're in agreement with. You should summon the church to crown you as a speshullist in the theology of the catechism of the catholic church, where you can twist and make excuses to pervert God's Word to mean whatever fits your lying, idol worshipping, immoral lives. Then you can pray repeatedly, God forgive me for my sin, my sin, my most egregious sin. No secret to those sins. Unforgivable.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1215AM:

    He then indulges in yet more of the same type of stuff, insisting that his points of view are merely perfect applications of Bible passages that he insists are “plain as day”.

    I would have to correct him: his own points of view may be “plain as day” – to him, anyway – but the Bible passages – yet again – are not at all so easily reduced to the invective simplicities of his own derangement.

    Once again – and quite like JR – ‘Dan’ has come up with an extensive tissue of his own mentation, in which everything he tries to shoehorn into his own particular agenda has to be simplistically or fantastically squashed into the shape he needs it to take. If the world doesn’t respond approvingly – as does his bathroom mirror – then that merely proves that … the world is deranged. And he then will be its redeeming illuminator.

    Then the obligatory blanket reference to the first chapter of Romans and the instruction to just “read” it. Such a reading will – he is sure – simply demonstrate the rightness of his own point of view and agenda. Which it very well may … if one puts on the same type of glasses or goggles through which ‘Dan’ views Scripture and so much else.

    • Dan says:

      First off, I have 20/20 vision and no need of glasses. In regards to your insistence on labeling me deranged, to cover for your own ignorance and stupidity in understanding scripture, SORRY, not my problem.

      I invite any catholic to read Romans 1: 18 – 32 and explain to me how that doesn't perfectly describe a cult of idolators, "making images (i.e. statues) resembling mortal man, birds, animals and creeping things." If you don't see a connection to your cult, then you've never seen the abominable sculptures of Vatican City, St. Peters Church or the creepy, skeleton bone churches and Catacombs. "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity….God gave them up to dishonorable passions." Romans 1: 24-26 "….men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1: 27 If God calls homosexuality, dishonorable and shameless, then what do you think He thinks of old disgusting perverted and pedophile clergy creeps and the despicable things they did to little boys. You can believe a publyin', pedophile excusing, enabling creep, tell you that I'm deranged or you can read the Bible for yourself and see if I'm the one who's misinterpreting God's Word. After that study, take a look at Jeremiah 44's description of how God felt towards the worship of the Queen of Heaven and follow that up with Rev. 17: 1-9, a perfect description of the colors of your cult, it's riches and it's golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. Believe in someone asking you to read the Bible for yourself, or listen to your churches perverts explain away how that surely can't be talking about them. After all, they're the true and pure, greedy hypocrites and "BABYLON THE GREAT, MOTHER OF ALL WHORES", they'll always tell you the truth, even though their father is Satan, the father of all liars. Servant of the Almighty

  54. Dan says:

    Continued from August 14, 2016 @ 4:31pm post -

    of God the Creator and His Son, Jesus Christ. I don't believe you understand how denying the Almighty God and His Son works to benefit Satan's agenda. You think it's cute to poke fun and criticize the very one you need to assist you with your problems. I'm saddened to watch you in your pride, think your more powerful than the one who made you and believe you will suffer no consequences. I think you've come to a crossroad and a choice of deciding which side you'd rather be on. I wish you the best in that decision.   Dan

    P.S. I will be letting God decide who belongs on this forum and who doesn't. In my own pride, I once thought that I knew better, but He had this wonderful way of knocking me off my high horse. My hope is that you don't find that out the hard way.


  55. Jim Robertson says:

    You keep using the word "bleats". Why? You say I bleat you say Dan bleats You seem to dislike sheep and or have a problem with discerning between human beings and sheep. Isn't Jesus called in your silly faith: "The Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world"? Isn't he the blood sacrifice that he offered to himself to save us from the sin of stealing one apple?

    Dan, I don't believe in a supreme being, no God without proof, thank you. No Satan without proof either. You keep trying to swing the conversation to religious nonsense, Dan. I think you're a plant here. the Frick to P's Frack. You must make the religious right in the Catholic church feel attacked by Protestant theory. Dueling fantasists.

    Meanwhile real victims, girls as well as boys, Dan get nothing. No help. No support. No compensation and no truth fro this particular molesting institution.

    But Dan, The Catholics aren't the only ones to fuck their children. Protestants; Jews and Atheists have done it too.

    The Catholics like to pretend they are being victimized here, as an excuse for allowing the people in power, who caused the abuse, to remain in power, one. And as an excuse for doing nothing for their victims by pretending that the only victims are the church and "innocent" priests.two.

    The church has been playing this fake bullshit since Cardinal Bernadin's "false" accusor  appeared16 years ago. They are playing the same scenario in Philly  and now in St. Louis where SNAP may finally have given the church what it has so desperately needed , an innocent priest falsely accused by SNAP. 2 birds to be killed . First Bird SNAPcan be cut off the church's payroll and ended. Second bird, One falsely accused priest can be held up as the "real" victim. Again completely ignoring the hundreds of thousands truly fucked with Catholic children.

    What makes you think your Protestant theology is news to Catholics, Dan? How does your disclaiming the nonsense these people believe in, make your nonsense any better? And what's it got to do with anything relevant,here. (Granted there is little that is relevant here, in all of TMR's and P's nonsense. )

    I only post here hoping against hope that one day a real reporter might look at this site out of curiosity and discover the truth I attempt to share. If TMR's the only place where this subject is talked about. TMR is the place I have to be.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, I can't quite get my head around where you're coming from. To claim I'm some plant is absolutely ridiculous, when I've sided with victims in almost every one of my posts. I get that you think belief in God is nonsense, and that to me is nonsense, so I guess that would make us even? I know there are child molesters in every religion, and that's one of many reasons why I don't belong to any of them. Where you've gotten the idea that I'm Protestant, I can only guess. Because publiar calls me a fundie, doesn't make me fundamentalist, any more than you calling God nonsense, makes God nonsense. All Christian religions spun off the catholic churches nonsense and I have definitively nothing to do with any of them. Please refrain from labeling me something I am not, let alone "the Frick to P's Frack". If you wish to make an enemy of me, that's fine, you've seem to have created many other imaginary enemies in your travels. I would be very careful of making an enemy out of the One you think is nonsense. I believe He must be really impressed with your insults and boldness. Hope you don't suffer the consequences for those actions.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Yea Dan, I'm just a maker of "imaginary enemies in my travels". What  "imaginary enemies" ? What "travels"?

      So why are you here Dan? To tell Catholics about God?

      To tell me to watch by step around this Prince of Peace, this God of Love? Presumably because he might smite me for my non belief? He kills us all anyway, the bastard, so I'll take my chances. 

      What do you have to add to this dialog that doesn't obfuscate?

      Everyone knows P's a prick. You do insult him well. And I admire you for that; but why are you here? What are you doing for victims by being here?

      If you don't like that I don't believe in God? Swell but how does that make me a maker of "imaginary enemies"? Why would you even imagine I do that? I distrust anyone who isn't focusing on the fight this site engenders. And it isn't between Protestant and Catholic or Athiest and Catholic. It's about whether the media is attacking the Catholic church by simply mentioning their crimes.

        I am distrusting why you are here because I can't see why you are here; other than to debate about God and Catholic beliefs vs. Protestant beliefs.  It seems kinda weird to me.

      So between you and Chatty Cathy you both take up a lot of space and blow a lot of smoke in the comment section. Granted P is the worst at yammering nonsense at extraordinary lengths but why are you here? I don't see your motivation. If it's religious views, why here? These people are pretending they haven't molested any children. I say not only that they have ; but that they continue to defend the fact that they do; by denying what they have done. Not in some broad sense about the religion overall but specifically about their victims. What do you bring here but digression?

      I will go on admiring your most accurate insults of P. The rest is smoke to me.

  56. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 509PM we get more from ‘Dan’.

    First, a conceptual trumpet blast: God and Christ are announced, as if it is on Their very special authority that ‘Dan’ now doth declaim. While I don’t doubt at all that ‘Dan’ is kinda speshull, I am not at all convinced that he is ‘special’ in the sense he would prefer to be taken.

  57. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:

    And then ‘Dan’ hunkers down to his favored fallback position, i.e. threatening those who don’t buy his stuff. Because – doncha see? – anyone who is “denying the Almighty God and His Son works to benefit Satan’s agenda”.

    Quite so. But – alas – we are not talking about anyone “denying the Almighty God and His Son”; we are simply talking about anyone denying ‘Dan’s stuff as representing “the Almighty God and His Son” so very purely and perfectly and directly that to question the former is to deny the latter.

    But – of course – that pure and perfect and direct welding and melding of ‘Dan’ to “the Almighty God and His Son” is precisely the axial point in his derangement. As if from an old-timey cereal box, ‘Dan’ has acquired for himself (or Himself) a speshull badge and magic secret decoder ring that nobody else on his block has. And they all had better respect him (or Him) for it. Or else.

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:

    He then seeks to manipulate: he presumes to imagine that I “think it’s cute” to question his stuff. I don’t think that at all. It’s a chore to have to wade into that mess in the first place.

    No doubt ‘Dan’ doesn’t like being the object of “poke fun” and – on a much deeper plane – being ‘criticized’. That’s not the stuff he gets from his bathroom mirror. And he doesn’t like it one bit. But the solution to this problem is to stop putting up so much stuff that invites such responses as poking-fun and criticism.

    And then – the toothy alley cat claws through the pious kitten costume: I need God to “assist” me with my “problems”. Therefore I shouldn’t poke fun at and criticize the Almighty God/His Son/Dan – which is the actual working Trinity presiding in the Dan-verse.

  59. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:

    Then – suddenly but hardly surprisingly – the alley cat purrs slyly: in the accents of a rueful divinity, he, speaking for the other members of his Trinity, is “saddened” – doncha know? – to see my “pride”. It’s “pride” – doncha see? – because if you don’t humble yourself to ooh and ahhh at ‘Dan’s stuff then you are prideful against “the Almighty God and His Son”. Surely that much must be “plain as day” to any normal person, no?

    And then it’s back to the Wigs: ‘Dan’ bemusedly and piously doth wish me “the best in that decision” to be for the Almighty God and His Son and His ‘Dan’ or against that illustrious little Trinity.

    But since what is actually “plain as day” is not anything about the Almighty God and His Son, but rather about the whackness of the ‘Dan-verse’, then I’ll be for questioning the ‘Dan’ stuff, since the former has little if any substantive conceptual connection to the latter.

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:

    But wait! There’s more!

    ‘Dan’ being ‘Dan’, he cannot really hide the claws that actually constitute his core operating stance toward the world: he doth declare and declaim that he “will be letting God decide who belongs on this forum and who doesn’t”.

    Is this supposed to imply that ‘Dan’ is expecting ‘God’ to shut me up and stop the criticism that so irritates ‘Dan’? Where does this point about who does and does not ‘belong’ on this site come from in the first place? Nicely, only the Abuseniks and ‘Dan’ have ever raised the point about getting people off the site on the basis of their idea of who does and doesn’t ‘belong’ on it.

    They will only accept from anybody else the same adulation and agreement that get from their bathroom mirror. Otherwise, they will seek to squelch what they don’t want to hear, what they can’t deal with, what they can’t answer sufficiently.

    • Dan says:

      Is little publyin', so obsessed with his bathroom mirror still playing with himself in front of it. Maybe you can rent a room in Fr. Shanley's motel. Creep

  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 509PM:

    And then ‘Dan’ casts himself (or Himself) as St. Paul, while – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – uttering that smarmy God’ll-getcha threat for not buying ‘Dan’s stuff.

    Two peas in a pod: both JR and ‘Dan’ threaten, when they can’t have their way.

    Although since JR has dealt himself out of using ‘God’ as the authority, he must rely merely on the usual Victimist substitute: outrage and the various posturings that flow from it.

    ‘Dan’ – long ago – glommed onto ‘God’ as being a bigger and better hammer to back up his threats.

    • Dan says:

      Again you have demonstrated your stupidity and might want to look into some glasses for yourself. My post on August 14, 2016 @ 5:09pm clearly states "Continued from August 14, 2016 @ 4:31pm post -". So you spent several pages with your ignorant questioning and assessing to a post that I directed to Jim. Well done, "Mr. Know It All". I'll say one thing, Your "deranged mentation" gives me plenty to laugh at. Pretty dumb of me to think you could ever understand scripture! And by the way, you've surpassed Jim in poking fun at God with your new low of mockery, adding myself in place of the Holy Spirit in the "Trinity". You must be awful proud of yourself. I would have to say, you're one poor excuse of a Christian, though I never thought of you as one from the very beginning. You might want to return to your swampbox, but apparently you've never left it. Later, you despicable, lying, blasphemous troll.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Peas in a pod"? Broad brush work there P icasso. As if you do nothing when your nonsense isn't adhered to P. You snipe, snark and insult . That's you modus operandi. I'm sure God just loves how you are.

  62. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 1047PM ‘Dan’ will scrape together more bits to defend his personal cartoon.

    First, a juvenile stab at literalistic reading, bruiting his physical eyesight (and thus slyly sidestepping the actual gravamen of my goggles imagery, i.e. his deranged interior vision).

    Second, he tries to sidestep my “labeling” him as “deranged” by burbling that my considering him deranged is not his problem, but merely a result of my “own ignorance and stupidity in understanding scripture”. Readers may judge as they will.

    Third, ‘Dan’ – in his official capacity as a member of the sovereign Trinity of the Dan-verse – doth exhort and “invite any Catholic” to just “read” a passage from Romans and then “explain” to him how his goggle-visions do not “perfect describe” … and so on as the riff riffles on.

    In other words: ‘Dan’, fully encased in his goggles, just cawn’t think why anybody else wouldn’t see how precise and perfect is the vision that his goggles present to him (and his bathroom mirror affirms for him). Readers clinically inclined may consider it all as they will.

    His brief tour of the art of Vatican City is certainly a keeper, for a certain type of file.

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1047PM:

    Then he seeks to wave-away my questions and the difficulties with his bits that I have pointed out: he simply reverts to epithetical invective against me. Though clearly more versed in particular verses of Scripture than JR, ‘Dan’ brings no more competence – and much the same type of distractions – to the table than the former Tribune of the Victimry.

    I ask nobody to “believe” me because I have made few assertions. Readers are welcome to consider the questions and points I have raised, but unlike the Tribune and the Trinity Member, I am not looking to manipulate anybody’s beliefs.

    And the whole bit riffs on to its conclusion in much the usual fashion.

    • Dan says:

      You wouldn't be "looking to manipulate anybody's beliefs" because you lack anything close to any Godly beliefs yourself. You're not having any problem promoting and manipulating belief in Satan's agenda though. I would have to say you're ready to join the catholic hierarchy, if you're not already a pervert and pedophile creep. You definitely qualify as a mocking troll.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Bringing "competence" to scripture is impossible. You can't fix stupid.

    • Dan says:

      Really Jim? "Bringing 'competence' to scripture is impossible. You can't fix stupid." Now that's got to be the stupidest statement I've heard from you. What's with all your anger against anything to do with God and His Word. I understand that you don't believe, but I'm positive that God isn't to blame for the things you think He's guilty of. You know, I've talked to many people who hate anything to do with The Creator, based on their past experience with the catholic church. Seems like they guided many towards atheism or just plain confusion when it comes to matters of faith, hope or love, in this wicked world. My catholic upbringing brought little to the table when it comes to my beliefs. Nor did any other religious organizations. I make no apologies for who I now am in Christ. When I lived in darkness, well that was really stupid.

  64. Publion says:

    In response to my discussion of the Chevron case, ‘Dan’ (the 14th, 1112PM) will attempt to wish the whole thing away by going for the idea that I am trying to compare “pomegranates to zucchini squash” (my, he is the foodie, though) with my “longwinded analogy”.

    The point of my analogy was to reveal a long-standing legal tactic that is a staple of tortie operations and which certainly bears definite and precise similarities to the Stampede. That apparently escaped ‘Dan’s notice, or else he is trying to make sure it escapes any other reader’s notice (perhaps by seducing them into thinking about what to have for lunch).

    And the whole bit riffs on to its conclusion in much the usual fashion.

  65. Publion says:

    Two hours later (at 125AM), having no doubt conferred in the bathroom mirror with the rest of his Trinity, ‘Dan’ then tries to shore up his prior bit by asserting – with no proffer of demonstrable evidence – that “the church settled many cases out of court” merely to “continue their façade” (whatever that may grammatically describe) and so on.

    And ‘Dan’ can forthrightly assert this … how? Apparently on the mere basis of his consultations and séances held in and with his bathroom mirror, that inner sanctum and Holy of Holies at the core of the Dan-verse.

    Readers may consider and judge as they will.

    Dan’s reely reely against screwing around with children, and takes many opportunities to accost stranger children to inform them of that. Thus the busy days of one appointed by his bathroom mirror to deliver “beautiful prophecy” to children.

  66. Publion says:

    But on the 15th at 131AM, a few minutes later, the Bearer Of Beautiful Prophecy To Children reverts to his basic form, and the result of this sudden but not surprising transmogrification is the revelatory epithet about being a “lying troll”. No doubt the staffers at the schoolyard – among others – had had much the same thought as they sought to remove him from the children.

    • Dan says:

      You are such a creepy lying troll to continue pushing your disgusting lies of my accosting children. You are a forked-tongued snake from hell and should be ashamed of the false accusations you put on innocent people. You are an insistent mocking jackass that really makes jackasses look pretty smart. Your day will come and I'll be praying for it to be soon.

  67. Publion says:

    I would also like to introduce an interesting bit regarding media coverage and the Stampede.

    This link is to the article to which I am referring

    Ron Unz, administrator of the Unz site, had recently put up an article in which he opened by making a greatly complimentary reference to the Spotlight team of the Boston Globe (he was hoping, in the article, to see some similar keen investigation and exposure of a major policy issue that was the actual subject of his article).

    But then he was apparently made aware of the many problems with Spotlight (Team and movie).

    As a result, we have the article I have linked to here in this comment. He backs off his complimentary approach to Spotlight (Team and movie), acknowledges that didn’t have any “personal expertise on this issue” (of the Catholic Abuse Matter), and – very impressively – reprints a February 2016 article by Joann Wypijewski, an author and investigative reporter who has published on the subject.

    Her article looks closely and carefully at the role of the media and the operating dynamics of the Stampede itself, involving media, prosecutors and law and the types of ‘victims’ lured to the surface by the roiling of such troubled waters.

  68. malcolm harris says:

    The St. Louis newspaper,The Post-Dispatch, appears to be muddying the water, in an attempt  to assist David Clohessy, the boss of SNAP. They want to obscure the real purpose of the lawsuit. The  real purpose is to uphold the rights of all citizens, and that must include the clergy. The International Declaration of Human Rights says we all have a right to a good reputation. If this right is crushed then other rights are also lost. Such as the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence. Any person being accused of sexual abuse will always lose, if public opinion has been manipulated… into thinking he is already guilty, before the court proceedings start. 

    This is the witch-hunt scenario that the clergy are facing. This lawsuit is putting the onus on the public accuser, Clohessy, to prove he had justifiable reason to attack Fr. Joseph Jiang.

     He didn't.. and that is why he is not obeying the court orders. His stated reasons are laughable. The real reason is he was using his usual tactics to smear.. such as innuendo, inference, ambiguity, and outright lies. 

    His objective was to destroy this man's right to a good reputation. There are curious parallels to the Chevron case, that Publion has recently commented on, but more about that in a later post.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If David fucked up he was told to do it. Where did he get his misinformation? The police? Jeff Anderson? Fr. T. Doyle?

      If he didn't screw up and the charges are valid against this priest. Why are you betting they aren't? And why are you, TMR and co, backing this one so hard?  Acting as if false accusations by disreputable people are a common occurrence in this situation. All a part of your propaganda ploys.

      Again all handed you by SNAP. SNAP makes the errors and real victims are made accountable for their, SNAP's, choices. With nary a victims vote to back their self proclaimed "legitimacy" as our representatives.

      Again as a life long activist on the Left, I have NEVER seen anything like this shit.

      Never has anyone stepped in to speak for me without my permission the way SNAP has.

      That in itself should have made me suspect the truth earlier. But I didn't know that the church had picked our lawyers for us. Thanks to SNAP.

      The looneys here will now mock, but I swear on everything that matters to me, that what I've told you here is the truth. The whole truth and nothing but.

  69. Dan says:

    Oh yeah! Just what the doctor (of the church) ordered. Nothing but propaganda and a bunch of BS. You'd like to believe that since you're such a habitual liar, that all victims accusing priests are the same. The real "VICTIM" was the "ATM that is the catholic church, password VICTIM". Once again the church having more concern with it's money than it's raped children.

    Read the paragraph on Fr. Shanley. They'd have you believing he was a sinner, yet really should be crowned a saint. Like many of the catholic excusers posting on this forum, he was an admitted liar (though most of you won't admit to it). Admitted having sex with teenagers, ran a counseling service and a motel with a fellow priest for a mostly gay clientele. Sounds like a pretty good resume for a grooming service and lodging for men with little boys. No mention of his speech at NAMBLA as a practicing priest that would make the hair on the back of your neck raise, if you have any moral conscience at all. He was a pervert and of course he preached "mercy". Why do you think the pope declared this a year of mercy? So dumb sheep can forgive all the pedophile creeps and perverts of their cult.

    Be careful of all the propaganda and articles that might be introduced by the excusing, lying creeps that troll this forum. Take a good look at yourself in your bathroom mirror, but don't be surprized when it tells you that all the most disgusting superlatives fit you perfectly. Lying mocking troll.

  70. Jim Robertson says:

    How did P find out about the vehement Protestant Dan and the school kids? (The creation of the part of Dan could be rather good. The insulting zealot who yells at Catholic kids about God. And comes here to do the same) I'm sorry but I joyfully don't read P's junk. So I don't know how this info about Dan slipped out. I wish some one would briefly fill me in. Interesting though that the zealot who attacks the church about child abuse just happens to attack Catholic children in their school yard about their faith.  Some strange goings on and at such length to. I find reading P boring and though Dan is excellent at insulting P. I don't read Bible verse. Because I've read the novel cover to cover and seen the movie and the comic books and the coloring books. thank you. Enough.

    The battle here is not over faith but over cover ups, false flags, and misdirection.

    When the battle is bent to disagreements over faith. This blog's comment section then becomes a haven  for boredom, confusion, and personal insult.

    Why would people want to read that? They can get those things at home.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, There was absolutely no "attack [on c]atholic children in their schoolyard about their faith." This is the work of a fairytale, initiated by some cowardly fairy, in order to destroy my reputation, in hopes that all his slander will make readers believe in his nonsense, rather than those who tell the truth. This is the MO of most of the hypocrites I've come across, who excuse, enable and lie for the pedophile creeps and perverts of their cult. Think that's just a coincidence?

  71. Publion says:

    I just noticed that I missed a few comments.

    On the 13th at 1208PM JR tries to explain-away the failure of a Stampede to start up in any other country – especially those with Western law – by proposing that “other nations may be owned by the Church, just like this one is”.

    Where to begin?

    If the US is “owned by the Church” then how did the Stampede get going here?

    And readers may consider just to what extent the Church ‘owns’ any country (except the Vatican State itself), especially in those Western European-derived countries that were the core of Latin Christianity from the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment, where those countries are working to embrace modernity by replacing Christianity with some form of the French secularism that stemmed from the 1789 Revolution or some form of the related Communist materialist secularism that branched off from French Revolutionary secularism.

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1208PM:

    JR then tries to lard on a second explanation that actually works against his first explanation: governments might be “co-defendant” with the Church since those governments – at some point in their history – allowed the Church to provide various social services.

    But this implies that the governments are not ‘owned’ by the Church but rather that those governments are simply operating out of self-interest and aren’t really concerned one way or the other with the Church itself.

    For more than a millennium the Church was the only organized institution committed to providing services for society’s weak: unwed mothers, the ill – physically and mentally, and orphans. Even as governments began to form they often relied on the Church to perform such services in the absence of government capacity to take on the task.

    • Dan says:

      Well, of course your cult would be "the only organized institution committed to providing services to society's weak: unwed mothers, the ill – physically and mentally, and orphans". What better way for pedophile priests and hierarchy, to gain control of your targets you  realized most easy to groom and exploit, than to make them believe you were there to assist them. Unwed mothers, who didn't have a husband around to beat your ass for raping their wives. Far more desirable to you sickos were the vunerable, fatherless, male children or orphans, some with mental deficiencies, deaf, dumb or blind, left defenceless and with no one willing to believe them or step forward to protect them. This is the very reason why I consider your priests and bishops to be despicable creeps. And you publyin', thinking you can deceive others, while being yourself deceived. The only ones you may be capable of fooling, may be a couple dumb sheep. How about you crawl back into the swampbox you slithered from. servant

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1208PM:

    At any rate, what have we seen?

    The once-bruited Dutch Abuse Report of half a decade ago found 109 cases of some sort of abuse (however defined) over a half-century period, which works out to about 2 cases per year in the entire country. And yet since early 2011 we have had nothing more from that quarter.

    The Magdalene Laundries case in Ireland suddenly disappeared, with the authoress whose claims originally started the brouhaha backing away from her prior claims.

    The Australians – very much a Western country though geographically far removed from the core lands of Western Europe – have been conducting hearings for three years with little to show for all of it.

    And the Austrian choir matter involving Benedict XVI’s relative is revealed to have been mostly dealing with corporal punishment with only a small proportion of sexual abuse (however defined, as always) and its ‘moment’ also seems to have passed with little to show for all the brouhaha.

    All of which has been pointed out before here.

    • Dan says:

      Pretty hard to have much "to show for all of it", when most of your deceiving, hypocrite priests and bishops do nothing but deny and lie, deny and lie, sound familiar, liar publyin'.

      As far as your figures on pope RAT-zinger's brother goes, 41 of the 230 plus cases were sexual in nature. And your insinuation that there weren't that many, so no harm, no foul, is also most utterly despicable. You're not yet aware that your cult is more than willing to remain silent in hopes that there disgusting crimes will be forgotten. Oh! And by the way, what happened to papa frank's Tribunal, set up to try enabling bishops, June 10, 2015. Thirteen months later and we hear that's been disbanded because the bishops put pressure on the old wolf in sheep's clothing. The world is watching and boy are we pissed. I can't imagine how angry God is with all your lies and deception. HYPOCRITES.

  74. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1208PM:

    JR then continues to push his “few victims were compensated” bit, although at this point it must be clear that his entire assertion is groundless – leaving us merely to accept or reject the fulminations from JR’s bathroom mirror séances.

    And in the absence of any demonstrated evidence and proof in any case, then on what basis would Bishops and Cardinals be jailed? The only instance of prosecuting a Church administrator that I know of is the Lynn case in Philadelphia and that has not turned out well for the prosecution at all.

    And as for JR’s attempt to fall back on “the big picture” (scream-caps omitted): his “picture” requires the prior presumption that all the claims were valid and veracious to begin with, leaving us once again to either accept or reject not the Big Picture of actuality, but rather the Big Picture that keeps appearing to JR in his bathroom mirror.

    And the pictorial productions of his bathroom mirror do not in any acceptable sense constitute “the truth”.

  75. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 1216PM JR asserts that “anyone who misses [his] genius is a fool”. Readers may consider that assertion for what it is worth.

    He then further asserts that his warrant for all his stuff comes from “the fact of [his] abuse”. Which, he goes on, I have “always denied”.

    I have questioned the plausibility of his claimed “abuse”, which is not the same thing as ‘denying’ it. And readers may consider the many elements now in the record here that militate toward the implausibility of his allegation and claim.

  76. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:

    JR then tries to extricate himself from the lethal problem of his knowledge of the legal definition of statutory rape of a child or minor by whining that he had merely taken “my” definition of that crime (thus, perhaps, going for the idea that this whole problem is my fault). But the crime of statutory rape of a child or minor has variable elements that differ over time and in various places.

    Readers may consult this 1999 article to get a sense of how the legal definition has changed

    Be that as it all may, the key point – again – is that when JR came to this site he was already well beyond his own case’s being completed in 2006 or so. And during the work-up for that case, it is inconceivable that his attorney did not enlighten him as to the fact that under applicable California law for the period in which his allegation is claimed to have occurred, his claimed experience did not rise to the level of statutory rape of a child or minor.

    Thus his entire performance here – based for so long on the claim that he was ‘raped’ – had to have been conducted after he had to have been advised to the contrary by competent legal counsel.

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:

    Then he whines that I still “cut [him] no slack”. What is this? A game? But that is precisely what it appears to be to JR. And that ‘game’ approach is both a) an indication of the essential sociopathy involved in his performance and also indicative, I would say, of b) an element nurtured by the Stampede: it’s all a game and you have little chance of being called-out by a referee and it’s all in a good cause anyway and there’s lots of money in it for you.

    This same element is evident in the allegants described in the Unz article to which I linked here yesterday.

    And – again – “mistake in phrasing” doesn’t begin to address the depth of JR’s performance in this matter. This self-serving characterization is as neat and clear an example of ‘minimization’ in the clinical sense as one is likely to encounter.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When you attack me with the very word I've used to accurately describe you, sociopath I say: Is there no low no depth of chicanery to which you will not stoop?

      Get your own fucking writer and quit stealing my stuff.

      We were investigated by your and your insurances' lawyers and detectives. And I still was apologised to, before in the '90's by the Western head of the Marianists and after my settlement in 2007 by Cardinal Mahony.

      I see you're pretending ,again to practice medicine without a license by diagnosing people, A Felony, mind you. Are you a clinician? Are u licensed to practice? No? Then not only are you a liar but you are a criminal.  You are the perfect representative of the real Catholic church.

      If that's not good enough for a guy who hides behind a post name, so he can't be investigated. Tough shit.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Is this a game"? Trying to talk to you is definitely that. Why?  Because we never agree. You won't let agreement and connection happen. Your job, in this game, is to deny I was ever harmed. You never deviate from that lie. So somebody's making the worst part of my life a game, a lie that you've made up about me, that you play with to harm me again. I don't like that. Who would?


  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:

    Nor does his further effort at scamming work: he has “never claimed to be a lawyer”. He is the beneficiary of quite a large sum that was achieved only after the completion of a court case for which he received benefit of competent counsel who would have gone over very carefully just what charge he could formally lodge and what charge he could not lodge. He had had the services of a competent lawyer and the fact that he himself is not a lawyer is hardly relevant.

    And the fact that he has now “changed the way [he talks] about his abuse” here now – although only after years of claiming otherwise and then finally being exposed – is also evasive: what we are faced with is the fact that for years here he sustained a claim which he already had to know was false, demanding to be ‘believed’, threatening and subjecting to all manner of epithet any questioning of his claim.

    What sort of person does that?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Our settlement came out of a civil suit , genius, not a criminal one. No crimes were mentioned because no one could be prosecuted thanks to statutes of limitations.

  79. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1216PM:

    And the answer to that question is partly revealed in his concluding effort, which is to make himself out to be – had you been waitinggggggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – a ‘victim’. And specifically, of me, the questioner.

    But I didn’t – using his manipulatively rhetorical bit here – “blacken [his] name”; he himself engaged in the activity which was finally exposed.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You don't question.You define. Who authorized your point of view as being either accurate or honest? Why you did. Wonderful! It seems you are in charge of everything. I must have missed that memo.

  80. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 1222PM JR then tries to bolster his prior bits by describing what he claims to be his experience: at the age of 16, he “had [his] hand forced down [his] teacher’s pants”. Could any person – even one totally lacking in knowledge of the law – have honestly mistaken that for any form of rape at all?

    As usual, he seeks to reinforce it all with a scatological epithet.

    And then – in a fine demonstration of the Victimist Playbook – he seeks to insinuate that that experience – such as it may or may not have been – has been so utterly life-deforming that more than half a century later it determines his excessive use of “sexual references”. Readers may consider that possibility as they will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      STATUTORY RAPE was what I thought any sex act with a juvenile was called. My lawyer never defined by abuse as rape or anything else in my documents . She only described what happened to me. I erred in my use of the term for me. There's the big evil conspiracy in a sentence. Fuck you! You lying asshole if you can't accept the truth and an admission of a honest mistake on my part..

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 1222PM:

    And – in a marvelous display of the sociopathic possibilities unleashed by Victimist ideology – he then tries to imply that I (??!!) and “[my] fellow perpetrators” “broke” him. And, of course, note that even in his bleat he manages an epithetical attack on me as being a “perpetrator”.

    But there’s a method to the madness and it is pure Victimist method: since I wasn’t “broke” (and he, allegedly, is) then I “don’t get to complain that he is “broken” (especially since I too am one of the “perpetrators”).

    Thus: if you are not a victim then you can’t question victim claims. But how do we know if he is or isn’t a victim at all in the first place? And that’s the Victimist shell-game: you just have to accept the claim with no questions asked. And thus the game begins on first, not with an at-bat.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But you ARE a perpetrator. You defend them. You deny our abuse happened. You don't care about the truth at all. You enable more rapes and abuse by protecting perpetrators and their enablers. You are a perpetrator. Why else the need for you to hide? You don't want to be investigated, Why?

    • Dan says:

      Jim, it's pretty obvious, that this unnecessarily longwinded speech of ignorance, is an attempt to destroy your reputation, that this is a system that has taught their hierarchy, priests, nuns and blind followers to attack their victims, slander and accuse them, in hopes that their dumb sheep and others will not notice their absolute evilness and crimes against innocence. They did the same to me, with a myriad of false allegations, of which publiar has added more lies and slander. This is why, what best can be said in regards to them, is their religious organization is filled to overflowing with despicable, disingenuous, lying creeps. I've had simular discussions with other religions, and yet none of them has slandered or attacked me with such evil intent, as this wicked organization. They truly are a cancer to our society.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dan, I know they didn't teach all Catholics to do anything but obey and give money. Only a very few are liars consciously. The vast majority of all people follow their conscience and try to do the right thing for their own moral well-being. They have to live with themselves. So I'd never say or agree to what you've generalized about all Catholics. They have to be lied to pretty hard to make them not want to do the right thing.

      This place is a different kettle of fish.  It has ambitions and delusions of grandeur. It's a propaganda vehicle that doesn't seem to be going anywhere..

      I see it as another committee created to set public opinion and policy but nobody's jumping on board. They are shouting to no one.

      I believe the majority of all people are good or very close to it. I think only a very few Catholics have done me and victims wrong. I think if they, the majority, knew the truth they would do right but where are they told the truth inside the closed Catholic system? The Catholic Left thinks SNA P is virtuous;and have banned its critics. The Right don't think at all. they obey. And imagine themselves being victimized. They are ,but it isn't by the press and victims. It's by the people they support.  And per usual the Right always supports the wrong.

      I'm no one's enemy Catholic or Christian.  TMR has to create enemies where none need be.

  82. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 135PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to wish-away all the material uncongenial to his cartoon and the revelations from his bathroom mirror by insisting that it “must always come down to everyone elses fault rather than your own” (sic).

    He mistakes me for the Church or whatever, but let that pass.

    I have provided demonstrations for the role of “mainstream media” and of the validity of the “Stampede” characterization and the strategies of tort lawyers. I have never said “bigots” or “witch hunters”, although in my conception of the Stampede synergy, anti-Catholicism – either from fundamentalists or secularists – is surely a contributing and enabling element.

    I have pointed out publicized cases; ‘Dan’ will try to wish them away – again – as being ‘cherry-picked’. The cases are there for everyone’s examination. And those cases indicate and demonstrate precisely the elements that I have claimed are constitutive elements of the Stampede. As are the assorted public-affairs developments that I have introduced as relevant to further understanding and illuminating the elements of the Stampede.

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 135PM:

    And – not surprisingly – ‘Dan’ claims I “twist the facts” but proffers no examples. What really irritates him is that his own self-consoling phantasms – approved by his bathroom mirror – are revealed with all their incoherences and implausibilities as set forth in the record here.

    And he then tries to justify himself and all the Abuseniks by claiming that “if your cult wasn’t so rampant with flesh-starving perverts and pedophiles, then there would be absolutely [absolutely, mind you] no reason for the opposition you’ve received”.

    Not necessarily so. If my Stampede theory is accurate, then there may very well be the presumption of all that “flesh-starving pedophiles and perverts” (flesh-starved, I think he means), especially if there are elements in society that would very much like to imagine it so and there are media who will do whatever they need to do to feed the flames. And there are plenty of torties willing to dangle the prospect of lots of cash for no risk in front of whomever might be inclined to get in on the game.

    • Dan says:

      publyin' oinks, "If my Stampede theory is accurate"? Do you mean as accurate as your slander and lies you use to malign myself and others who challenge your nonsense? Or as empty and useless as your questioning and false assessments? Yeah! I'd have to say your theories are just about that accurate. Keep perpetuating your filthy lies, Beelzebub.

  84. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 135PM:

    He then tries to wish-away my point about Statutes of Limitations (I had wondered why, if the SOLs are as obstructive of ‘justice’ as Abuseniks and Victimists claim, legislators don’t simply abolish SOLs across the board and eliminate them completely from the legal system).

    Marvelously – for a bunch that always sniggers at the idea of “conspiracy” – ‘Dan’ will simply claim (similarly to JR) that it’s because it’s the Church’s “corrupt lawyers and lobbyists who do all they can to keep these rules in place”.

    The concept of Statutes of Limitations has been an element in Western law since the time of the early Romans (thus pre-dating the Church). Readers so inclined may enter a phrase such as ‘statutes of limitations history’ into a search engine and get a sense of their history and the justification for them.

    Thus ‘Dan’ reveals his legal comprehension to be limited – by ignorance or design – to the current Catholic Abuse Matter.

    But on the basis of that ludicrous phantasm, ‘Dan’ thus has cleared his way – in the bathroom mirror anyway – to puffing up his pinfeathers and ominously intoning that Catholics had better “Wake up” so that they “don’t go down with the ship”. He likes to do that ominous intoning stuff.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Out of fear of the Catholic vote that could , they fear, be turned against them. Legislators do what they do and are bought by who wants to buy them. The church didn't spend $20,000,000 to fight against gay marriage in Ca. for nothing.

      I wonder who P speaks well of, Dan? Probably fellow perpetrators are jake in his book. He's always defending them.


  85. Jim Robertson says:

    P the Church is early Rome.   It's still an Empire a direct linear heir to ancient Roman religions It's still the Roman Empire and it's still acting like one in its enforcement of its will.

  86. Jim Robertson says:

    You never talk about what you and your church are ignorant of. Why is that? Is it because as a fellow perp you and your friends have known what's been going on with the church hurting children and you both saw it as a perk? Come on Fr. P, confession's supposed to be so cleansing.

  87. Publion says:

    My series of comments here is going to jump around a bit, since there are so many bits to deal with; as always, I will indicate at the outset of each of my comments precisely to which comment I am responding.

    Some of comments from JR and ‘Dan’ don’t really require response since readers can simply contemplate them for what they reveal rather clearly.

    And with those pre-notes taken care of, let us proceed.

  88. Publion says:

    We begin with ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1032PM:

    He opens with an epithet, revealing his similarity to JR.

    He tries to wave-away my comment with the huffy bleat that he had been addressing his comment to JR. As always, I point out that this is an open site and person-to-person ditties are best confined to email between the two parties, since anything on the comments board is open to comment by any and all.

    The rest is a rant and not a surprising one.

    And it concludes with more epithet.

  89. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1043PM:

    ‘Dan’ delivers yet another pronunciamento, no doubt received in one of those séances in and with the bathroom mirror: I, he doth confidently assert and declare, “lack anything close to Godly beliefs” myself.

    Readers may take that assertion as they may; whether it reveals more about me or about ‘Dan’ is one point to consider.

    He bolsters that by claiming that I ‘promote and manipulate belief in Satan’s agenda’. Neato: if you question ‘Dan’s speshull-ness, then you are an agent of “Satan’s agenda”.

    And the comment trails off in a further epithetical riff.

  90. Publion says:

    Back to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 958PM:

    More epithet, larding the bit about ‘Dan’ assuring us that he doesn’t go around “accosting children”.

     Readers may consider the record and the story of the schoolyard here and judge for themselves. And they may consider what might have prompted the other five or six times – according to ‘Dan’s own report – that landed him in front of a judge and thence to a facility for mental observation.

    But most of the comment is epithet, except for the last bit where – marvelously – he deploys ‘prayer’ as a threat. Wheeeeeeeeee.

    • Dan says:

      Slander, mock, whimper, make excuses for creeps, or lie. Quite the resume you've made for yourself. I'm telling you, I have to say, I think you're ready for infant baptism.

  91. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1225AM:

    He tries to make the point that I am a “habitual liar” because – he says – I am making “all victims accusing priests” to be “the same”.

    I didn’t say any such thing. I simply point out clear and extant examples of just how things can go in the Stampede. Readers must then consider for themselves the plausibility and probability of similar dynamics operative in other allegations made in the Stampede.

    It is not I who characterized the Church as an “ATM” and perhaps ‘Dan’ intended this paragraph for JR.

    Or perhaps he is trying to glom onto JR’s it’s-all-about-the-money trope. Who knows?

    For that matter, who knows how many genuinely “raped children” there actually were? Certainly, whatever number there was, is minus one who was exposed here. And “rape” was one of the smaller sets of formally-lodged allegations in the first John Jay Report. But at this point – and due in no small part to the Stampede and Victimist ideology and praxis itself – we really don’t know at all.

    • Dan says:

      No idiota, this was directed to you and the stupid propaganda article you introduced. And in regards to Fr.Shanley, you reap what you sow. If you're a creep and a pedophile, then sooner or later it will catch up to you. Guilty or not, his small punishment here will be minor compared to what God has waiting for the hypocrite creep. Don't think yourself as their excuser and enabler, will be overlooked by The Supreme Judge. I spent jail and hospital time based on the lies and slander from your cult, and you'll pay for the ones you've repetively added to theirs. I'd bet my salvation on that. I'll be waiting for your oinking, HeeHawing and whimpering of how I'm using God to pick on little peewee. Cry elsewhere, you immature creep.

    • Dan says:

      Duh! I'm publyin'. You know AKA – "Mr. Know It All". And according to my account and in-depth assessment, and through my exhaustive questioning and slandering of anyone who claimed to be a victim, yes, I have come to the only correct conclusion that any apologist, excuser or enabler of my cult, would have to agree with me that beyond a shadow of a doubt, we do not believe there was ever any legitimate cases of "rape victims" or pedophilia. In conducting a "seance" just the other night, I ran it past all of the ghosts of previous, corrupt popes of my cult and they were unanimous in agreement that there were nun, I mean none. Little Fraudian slip there, we did rape our nuns, but don't worry, we swore them to secrecy. Told the gullible broads that they did it for the good of the church. Sorry, we got a little side-tracked there. Yeah. In regards to child rape; zero provable cases. And you know us popes are infallable when it comes to defining doctrine on faith and morals. We define doctrine, we never claimed we (hierarchy) have to follow it. That's why we have confession in the dark. Nobody knows, not even the big man upstairs. Better than that Las Vegas slogan or even the Army, "Don't ask, Don't tell." Speaking of the military – "Don't you just love when the little boys dress in there little uniforms. Sexy!!" – Bunch of creeps.

  92. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1225AM:

    As for Shanley himself, I am certainly not on record as supporting him. Personally, I think he was not a fit candidate for the priesthood in the first place, despite his talent at outreach. But the key point is whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him, and the Wypijewski article strongly indicates that he was not.

    To the Abusenik and fundy mentality, such a point is mere hair-splitting. And to the Victimist mentality as well. Which is why Victimist ideology and praxis constitute such a danger to the rule of law.

    The rest of the comment trails off in a further riff against this and that aspect of Catholicism.

  93. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 552PM ‘Dan’ tries to wave-away the history of the Church’s corporal works of mercy ministries as they were exercised starting from the beginning and extending into the desolate centuries after the fall of the Roman empire and beyond.

    It was all – his bathroom mirror has perhaps revealed – just ‘grooming’ for sex. Readers may consider the quality and reliability of that assertion as they may.

    And as he riffs on with his molten virulence, readers may consider whether they’d care to have him educating their children – or even being around them, even to deliver “beautiful prophecy” … or whatever his bathroom mirror has directed him to peddle.

    • Dan says:

      You continue to be a jackass and HeeHaw your slander and lies in regards to the children, CREEP. Why don't you oink and Wheeeeeeeee – wee all the way home to the swampbox, peewee.

  94. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 629PM ‘Dan’ will attempt to wave-away the lack of any results from all those various national investigations or inquiry-commissions by simply claiming that those efforts have so little to show for all of it because – had you been waittttingggggg forrrr itttttt? – the priests and bishops are all denying and lying.

    And thus – we are to believe – entire governments are utterly stymied even though – according to Stampede calculations and ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror – there must be untold myriads of victims just waiting for a chance to ‘come forward’ and tell the stories they have.

    And as for the Austrian choir matter – which has been discussed at length previously here – they are not “cases”, they are allegations. And we have all see how easy it is to make an allegation; yet how few of them seem to have any demonstrable evidence to back them up. In fact, few if any actual legal “cases” have resulted from all those allegations.

  95. Publion says:

    Now to some of JR’s stuff.

    On the 16th at 323PM he makes the ludicrous assertion that “bringing ‘competence’ to scripture is impossible” because “you can’t fix stupid”. Yuk yuk. Is this JR’s considered opinion or just an attempt at his particular – if not completely peculiar – brand of ‘humor’?

    And just whose stupidity is it that can’t be fixed? It is grammatically unclear.

  96. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16that at 340PM:

    Here the former Tribune of the Victimry, having – he says – been a laborer in the fields of SNAP himself, tries to wave-away Clohessy’s problems by claiming that if Clohessy did go wrong here, then “he was told to do it”. Utterly no supportive evidence or reasoning for that whopper is provided.

    But the assertion does thus provide the platform for JR to launch some innuendo: was it “the police” or “Jeff Anderson” or the still-Father Doyle who “told” Clohessy to go wrong?

    Or – I would submit – did Clohessy, secure in the belief that the Stampede was still strong enough to protect him from responsibility for his actions, simply try to cross a bridge too far and run some of the old scams and skullduggery that have worked for him and SNAP in the past?

  97. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 340PM:

    JR then loses control of his grammar – often a sign with him that his vitriol is getting the better of such conceptual capacities as he has – and tries to change the subject from the thorny one of what Clohessy did to – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr itttttt? – why TMR would focus on the case at all.

    This is right from the Victimist Playbook and we have seen JR deploy it previously, even on this thread (trying to change the subject a) from his exposure as a non-raped person b) to why anyone would want to expose the false claim and assertions he made here).

    But marvelously, he does give some of his game away: he accuses TMR of “acting as if false accusations by disreputable people are a common occurrence in this situation” (meaning, apparently, the Stampede). Well – ummmmmmm – yes, there does seem to be some possibility, perhaps probability, of that happening … as has been suggested by various elements and facts and cases discussed here on this site.

    “False accusations by disreputable people” … readers may consider as they may just whether they have encountered any instances on this site that might fit that bill rather snugly.

  98. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 340PM:

    This is all, as I have said, right out of the Victimist (and fundie) Playbook: if you bring up anything that makes us look good, then you are doing God’s work and are ‘for victims’ and if you bring up anything that makes us look bad, then you are doing Satan’s work and are ‘against victims’. And so on and so forth.

    And – as regular readers may recall – the seemingly arcane democracy-vote and “legitimacy” bit echoes another of JR’s bêtes-noires: at some point during his SNAP tenure he tried to get some ‘victims’ to elect him as something (in the Tribune line, I would imagine) and SNAP showed him the door for trying to engineer a little palace coup and now he’s got SNAP on his plop-list and we all know what that means.

    And he riffs self-approvingly on that for a while, seeing himself as the outraged victim … of SNAP.

  99. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 340PM:

    And how – you may ask – does he explain away the fact that way back then he didn’t take action? Easy: he didn’t know at that time that – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr ittttt? – “the church had picked our lawyers for us”. Yah.

    As D’Amato pointed out in his book, Anderson had made SNAP an offer it couldn’t refuse and things went on from there. (To which, of course, JR’s bathroom mirror would respond that Anderson too is and always has been a tool of the Church.)

    He concludes by assuring us that he’s told us here nothing but “the truth … the whole truth and nothing but”. Readers may judge as they will.

  100. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1233AM:

    JR asks how I found out “about … Dan and the school kids?”.  Answer: ‘Dan’ reported it himself in comments on this site.

    Then – weirdly but not surprisingly – JR (he who tells “the whole truth and nothing but”) doth declaim and assure one and all that he doesn’t “read [my] junk”. So … all of his comments responding to my material are made without his having read my material first … ?

    This incoherent little charade then continues with a supplicating bleat that someone “would briefly fill [him] in” on ‘Dan’s reported backstory.

    The relevance of this whole bit seems rather obscure. Readers may judge as they will.

    However, JR reveals himself further (no doubt unintentionally): he does indeed like ‘Dan’s excellence “at insulting”. Yes, that would appeal to the actual JR, bereft of whatever Wigs he dons when he’s up to one thing or another.

    • Dan says:

      You're such a habitual liar. I have never reported that I "accosted" children, "yelled" at them, "harangued", or any of the other slander with which you attempted to destroy my reputation. "If you throw enough shit against the wall, some of it has got to stick." oinks peewee. Problem with that is, before you know it, you're surrounded in your own shit. How's it feel, liar.

    • Dan says:

      "A pig goes back to wallow in his own shit."  by Dan – verse

  101. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 454PM:

    For this one, you really do need popcorn.

    JR puffs up his pinfeathers to bleat, whine and denounce my description of his actions as sociopathic. His own characterizations of me as a “sociopath” are, however – and had you been waitttinggggg forrr itttt? – “accurately” deployed.

    The Wig of Upright Outrage waggles and wobbles on his head as he declaims “Is there no low depth of chicanery to which you will not stoop?” (And he suggests that it is I who need to get a new writer to do my material … when clearly he has engaged the services of somebody who wrote for Sarah Bernhardt.)

    But abnormal psychology is not JR’s personal property, although he may in his way be rather immersed in it.

     And he riffs on from there … until he ends with a bit of juvenile scatological epithet.

  102. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 421PM JR will try to do something to distract from my point in the question “Is this a game?”.

    Readers may judge as they will.

  103. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 421PM JR raises the utterly irrelevant point that his monies were gained in a “civil suit” and not a “criminal case”. I had said a “legal case”, which covers either civil or criminal.

    Whether his point here was lodged through ignorance or design is a mystery any reader so inclined may attempt to solve.

  104. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 401PM:

    Here he tries to blame the mess about whether he was or was not raped on – had you been waittttingggg for itttttttttttt? And with popcorn ready?  – his own lawyer (the one who got him a million dollar settlement).

    Did his lawyer file a Complaint for the lawsuit that would have had to name a specific charge? And what was the charge? Did the lawyer not explain what the charge was (and why, perhaps, it was not, and could not be, a charge of Rape)? Or are we to believe that JR didn’t read the Complaint or take part in the process of formulating a charge based on the experience he claimed to have undergone?

    He got a million dollar settlement for having – allegedly – a hand stuck down his pants. And in all of that, the legal charge that formed the basis of his claim and Complaint completely escaped him … because his lawyer didn’t explain it to him? Really?

    Thus his “whole truth and nothing but” claim that he merely “erred in my use of the term for me” (another hash of grammar which usually indicates he is up to something) can be neither accurate nor veracious nor “an honest mistake” on his part.

  105. Publion says:

    On then to the 16th at 404PM:

    As if somehow aware that the foregoing wasn’t really going to do it, he quickly tries to change the subject … to me.

    I am (scream-caps omitted) a “perpetrator” because I ‘defend them”. That’s how the Abusenik mind and Playbook work.

    I don’t “deny” that abuse happened. I just look at the stories that come along and at the elements of the Stampede, with an eye to coherence and plausibility and probability. My stance – in regard to JR’s claim certainly – has indicated what it has indicated.

    As for JR denouncing that I “don’t care for the truth at all” … I can only hope that readers have some popcorn left.

    And it ends with the familiar innuendo and insinuation efforts that have been dealt with many times already.

  106. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 408PM JR will attempt to wave away the history of the Church’s corporal works of mercy with the historical howler – readers may have needed more popcorn than they realized – that “the Church is early Rome”. No, Rome had existed for centuries before the Church. The entire Republic came and went before the Church appeared.

    Readers may consider JR’s historical assertion that the Church is “a direct linear heir to ancient Roman religions” as they may (pausing for fresh popcorn if need be).

    And to save space, the 16th at 411PM is just another attempt to run JR’s usual innuendo and insinuation and so forth in order to try to distract from his own substantial veracity problem, which – readers may note – gets worse with every effort he makes to try to re-explain it away.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The church is early Rome with a Jesus veneer. The church inherited the wealth and privilege of the old religions and thanks to Constantine a connection from the state that continued the old religions' powers,politically, in new Christian forms.

      Oh! you may think you believe differently than the old faiths and you do, when it comes to talking about your fellow human as if you loved them. All the while imposing guilt where there need be none .  You maintain power and position just like the old Empire religions held. You are the continuation of the Roman Empire and you've been it for 1700 years.  If you weren't more about power and privilege, then why aren't we having grown-up discussions over the political and moral ramifications of your denial and victims' assertions here? Speaking to each other calmly; kindly.,without bombarding ;relentless; and perfedious attacks ?

      We just told you we were fucked with and you blew your tops. Why?

      The only people benefiting from your defense of the indefensible are child molesters and the bosses who helped them screw more Catholic kids.

      Let me know when you have more evidence that what you say is correct and accurate. So far so very little from you. If P's position is all you've got? You'll need a bit more to turn this in your favor.  Please have a peaceful evening and night.

  107. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, "Imaginary enemies"? Probably part of this was meant to throw back at you some of the insults you throw out at God. When you insult my beliefs you insult my intellegence. I'm far from some dumb cluck that p would like all to believe. My list of your "imaginary enemies" – God, Jesus, Scripture, Bible, Dan, SNAP, Fr. Tom Doyle, Jeff Anderson – Now as far as your vitrol or anger towards those last 3, maybe it's justified. I don't know because I haven't experienced what you have in dealing with them. I've heard some things I liked about what they were doing, but have also seen them flip-flop, possibly bending to the pressure put on them by the church. I think you're well aware of the cult's evil power. The first five on my list, I just find hard to understand. I do understand your disbelief, but can't grasp your anger and nastiness towards those who aren't your enemies. Hope something said here is helpful?

  108. Publion says:

    On the night of the 16th we are treated – once again – to one of those catty little ‘just entre nous’ exchanges between JR and ‘Dan’.

    More popcorn might be in order as readers so inclined tune in on these stagey bits.

  109. Dan says:

    Okay Jim, Apparently you'd like to know why I am here? I've several times asked that question myself, feeling like it's a waste of time, but also silently asked the same of you. I feel that this is a fight of good vs. evil, truth vs. lies and liars, God vs. catholic and protestant teaching and any other hypocrisy. Their disgusting lusts and denials are a big part of their sickness, but most definitely not the only part. As a Christian, it's my job to expose and weed out wickedness in all darkness, especially in high places. I think I'm here for just as good a reason you are, and maybe even for better reasons, for I have really nothing here to gain but a hope that someone hears my message, comes to their senses, and saves their soul. You may not like it, publyin' may not like it, but I don't have anything to prove to either one of you. I answer to a much higher authority and the only authority I'm responsible to. How about you putting yourself in my shoes, speak the truth about God, and as you've witnessed just a small example on this forum, all the hounds of hell will attempt to slander and attack you.

  110. Dan says:

    Cont. from 2:36pm -

    Jim, when I insinuated that catholics were liars, I did not say all, as quoted "blind followers". When you belong to a religious organization who's teachers preach nothing but lies to their brainwashed sheep, the outcome will possibly be that a certain percentage will become liars, excusers and enablers. Who spoke out as these atrocities were being committed. There were even parents who wouldn't believe their own children because they couldn't come to grips with the fact that their holier than thou priests, were perverts or pedophiles. Don't know about the catholics you've run into, but I've experienced hundreds who had no problems with slandering me (lying) in order to attempt to have me imprisoned or sent away. Only the lying hierarchy were the ones the cops would believe. Cops and judges just couldn't believe that these blatant hypocrites would lie. No, they're greedy, idolators, perverts and pedophiles, but never could they be liars. How naive is our justice system and unwilling to consider both sides of a story. And this is why I wait for God to mete out justice. He knows everything and He shall be just. Good luck to you if you want to depend on this world for justice.

  111. Jim Robertson says:

    We bleat? we are catty? My god P's Old MacDonald! We're farm animals who've "stampeded"? According to P. LMFAO! Ye Haw! Baa! and Meow!

  112. Publion says:

    The only really interesting points to be made about the most recent crop from ‘Dan’ revolve around the level of primitiveness he demonstrates whenever things get too close to the reality of his derangement: suddenly the smarmy Scripture-quoter becomes the scatological and almost incoherently vitriolic potty-mouth primitive. One might almost recall the scenes in exorcism movies where the purring demon suddenly loses it and starts snarling (although in this case, the ‘demon’ imagery is purely intended to function in the psychological sense, and not the theological sense).

    Thus his bits on the 17th at 347PM and 328PM and 557PM.

    • Dan says:

      publyin' Beelzebub, continuously trying to label me deranged, brings to light his scenes from the exorcism movies, as he recalls, while stuffing his pigface with his preferred slop, "popcorn". He remembers when he acted like a "potty-mouth primitive" or "purring demon suddenly los[ing] it and starts snarling", "Hey the popcorn's gone and I didn't realize I ate the bucket." He finally calms down and comes to his senseless, when Porky Pig his most favoritist "cartoon" comes on screen. "Abidi, abidi, abidi, That's all Folks." And Beelzebub returns to roaming the earth, looking for other souls to destroy.    servant

  113. Publion says:

    And if ‘Dan’ is accurate and veracious in his claim (the 17th at 305PM) that he himself has “experienced hundreds [of Catholics] who had no problems with slandering [him] in order to attempt to have [him] imprisoned or sent away” … then we see the darkly marvelous economy of his derangement: the more people seek to have him somehow legally restrained or “sent away”, then – tah dahhhhhhhh! – the more righteously ‘prophetic’ he must be; the desire of so many to have him restrained and confined must ‘prove’ how righteously right he must be.

    The observer must ask (for ‘Dan’ is clearly far too gone now to ever ask himself) just what it is about ‘Dan’ that has moved “hundreds” of persons to seek his confinement or removal. Is he merely irritating? Or is the felt to be threatening (to themselves, others, or children)?

    • Dan says:

      This will be quite difficult for you to understand, so maybe little peewee should ask his mommy to help explain it.

      "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."  Matthew 5: 10-12

      Just to give you a little help, until you arrive home from kindergarten – This simply means that filthy liars will tell all kinds of lies and slander against you, you shall be blessed. Go to your cracked "bathroom mirror" and look in to find out who this is talking about.   servant

    • Dan says:

      And by the way, could the english scholar, who gets some kind of charge out of correcting other's grammar, please explain to us dumb folks what this sentence means. "Or is the felt to be threatening (to themselves, others, or children)?" I've lived for quite some time now and never ran into threatening "felt". I've always thought it to be soft and luxurious. You're a joke.

  114. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 178th at 305PM:

    As I have said before: in the internet modality one only encounters the words and thoughts of someone, but one is not able to be in the physical presence of someone. What is it about ‘Dan’ such that experiencing his physical presence can move so many to see such stringent protective measures taken?

    Why is it that law enforcement and justicial officials concurred in that impression of ‘Dan’? (‘Dan’s neat stratagem for covering that point is that all of them were also tools of the Church … very similar to JR’s standard ‘explanation’ about so many aspects of the Stampede that otherwise complicate his simplistic cartoon of the Stampede).

    • Dan says:

      Liars. Idiota. Liars. Like yourself. How many times must I repeat that before it sinks into your peewee brain. Why did I ever wonder why it was so difficult for you to understand a simple quote of scripture. Are you aware that Scientology teaches a wonderful reading comprehension course. Of course you'll have to join another greedy, false cult, but I think you'd be gullible enough, since your cult has gained full control of your mind. That is if there are any brain cells left. I think you've burned out quite a few with your longwinded nonsense and ignorant, repetitive slander.

    • Dan says:

      You know publyin', there's been times listening to your rubbish that I wondered what your "physical presence" must be like. I did one of your in-depth assessment studies and I think you'd be impressed with the conclusions I've come up with. a) An effeminate little man who prefers to dress in a tight scarlet red suit, maybe with a pointed tail and maybe a goats head on your shoulders. b) A snake with a reticulated purple and scarlet red skin and the slimy forked tongue of a monitor lizard. Did I not nail it? a or b? Or is it all of the above, depending on the disguise you chose for that day. I'm sure you'll hiss or oink back to me soon.

  115. Publion says:

    I also point out ‘Dan’s effort (the 17th at 347PM) to wave-away the Wypijewski article as being merely a “stupid propaganda article”. Whereas, but of course, ‘Dan’s rants and screams and smarmy bits are to be taken as neither “stupid” nor disturbing nor even amusing; rather, they are, but of course, the pure and perfect Word and Will of those other two divinities who inhabit his bathroom mirror.

  116. Jim Robertson says:

    Today, I wish you all peace.

  117. Dan says:

    Congratulations – Your mocking has now brought God and Jesus to toilet level. If you were stuck in the toilet, I'd just flush it. Mocking "potty-mouth" troll.

  118. Jim Robertson says:

    Is everyone having a nice day? I hope so.

  119. Publion says:

    What can be usefully gleaned from the most recent crop?

    On the 18th at 822PM ‘Dan’ slyly tries to make himself out to be a ‘victim’: I am “trying to label” him “deranged”. Not quite at all; I am simply pointing out various of his bits that make quite a case for his derangement and explicating how they do so. Readers, of course, may consider his material and my assessment of his material and judge as they will.

    And, as if on cue, he begins this comment by equating me with the Devil (“Beelzebub”).

    Then a bit of a reach as he uses my “popcorn” imagery to imagine me as a “pigface” and a glutton. Readers may consider as they will whether this bit of his qualifies as juvenile epithet or not.

    That bit provides a lead-in for his personal riff on Porky Pig.

    And then that riff takes him back to “Beelzebub”.

    And that constitutes both his comment and a nicely clear demonstration of how his mind works.

  120. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 841PM:

    Another epithetical lead-in, this time that queasy “peewee” bit – to which he so often returns.

    I had said in prior comments that a) I had no problem with Scripture but rather with ‘Dan’s assorted stuff attempting to shoehorn Scripture into supporting his derangement and that b) the core element in ‘Dan’s derangement was in explaining-away his many and substantive personal issues by re-casting himself as a prophet (or “servant” or what have you) who has been specially enlightened  and empowered by ‘God’ to go out and deliver “beautiful prophecy” such that i) all of his behaviors and actions are merely functions of his carrying out that ‘divine’ warrant and that ii) anyone who questioned him was perforce “mocking God”.

    Here ‘Dan’ simply demonstrates the accuracy of my assessment by merely quoting a Scriptural pericope about those who are “persecuted for righteousness’ sake” and so on. In other words, ‘Dan’ is not an apparently very disturbing whackjob whose presence and actions have moved “hundreds” to seek his incarceration and confinement; rather, he is being “persecuted for righteousness’ sake”. And that those who doesn’t buy his stuff are nothing but “filthy liars” and so on.

    Ovvvv coursssse.

    • Dan says:

      publyin' oinks and whimpers, "anyone who questioned him is perforce 'mocking God'."

      I have no problem with anyone questioning me. Do you really believe that consistently piling your lies on top of lies is your idea of questioning. No you are a mocker of God and everything He is about, because you mock Him, His Son and the Holy Spirit. You are a liar because you tell lies and slander anyone who questions your nonsense and stupidity. It's that plain and simple. You use big words to make everyone believe your intellegent and actually are correct in your assessments, when much of your assessing and questioning is simply slander. It's simply that simple. A deceivingly simple mind, parading itself as having some form of wisdom, yet proving it's ignorance whenever it opens it's mouth.    servant

  121. Publion says:

    On the 19th at 1003PM ‘Dan’ – as I have so often noted previously – comes back on stage with more pearl-clutching ala the Great Bernhardt: “Liars. Idiota. Liars.” That’s all they are, all those who are threatened by him or question his stuff. He’s ready for his close-up, Mr. DeMille.

    He follows that up with a self-serving bit of histrionics as to how it was that he ever did “wonder why it was so difficult for [me] to understand a simple passage of scripture”. I understand the passage quite well; I just don’t see it as applying to ‘Dan’ as anywhere near an accurate or sufficient explanation for his many legal and psychiatric misadventures with “hundreds” of people and with the police and the courts and so on.

    Then a riff on Scientology, which (in a nice economizing) provides a lead-in to his usual anti-Catholic stuff and also into an epithet about the number of my “brain cells” and my “long-winded nonsense and ignorant, repetitive slander”.

  122. Publion says:

    On the 18th at 1008PM ‘Dan’ then tries to take issue with one of my statements, claiming he can’t make out the grammar of it.

    Perhaps if I stated it more directly, using the active voice and specificity: ‘Or do those “hundreds” feel that he is threatening (to themselves, others, or children)?’.

    And that question remains for readers to consider as they will.

  123. Publion says:

    And on the 18th at 847PM (though positioned at the end of the series in the comments) ‘Dan’ puffs up is divine pinfeathers and clutches his pearls to denounce my reducing “God and Jesus to toilet level” (apparently, he means the “bathroom mirror” imagery).

    One might ask: to what level has ‘Dan’ reduced the actual “God and Jesus” with all his self-serving and manipulative appropriation of Them in the service of evading the reality of his derangement?

    • Dan says:

      You'll have to explain how directly quoting scripture and trying to explain such to the simple minded is "self-serving and manipulative". You act as if I needing you to believe me, is in some way of some benefit to myself. As I told Jim, I have nothing personal to gain in this forum, but a hope that someone listening to my message, may come to their senses, and save their soul. I don't see anything "self-serving or manipulative" to that. I'm not looking for payback or some trophy for what I do. I do it out of love for the Father and thanks for the gift of salvation from His Son. He's the one who chooses or saves the soul. I'm only His mouthpiece and I hope you're proud to have brought out some of the worst of my mouth. Evil has a "self-serving and manipulative" way of achieving this from a true Christian. And p responds, Oh! boy! There he goes with that I'm Not/You Are bit. How about you change the record. The needle keeps skipping and were tired of hearing the same old tune. I'll be waiting with great anticipation for more of your mocking.   servant

  124. Publion says:

    Meanwhile, on the 18th at 835PM, having no doubt considered the formidable issues of his own untruthiness, JR has decided on an entirely different Wig for this performance: he doth today merely “wish you all peace”.

    How nice.

  125. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 111AM:

    He opens in a faux chummy fashion, but it’s just epithet about my “rubbish”.

    Then – what else has he got left, really? – another run of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: he doth acknowledge himself as having wondered about what my “’physical presence must be like”.

    And that provides him a lead-in where he can let his mind (and perhaps his bathroom mirror) take an exhilarating gambol through the lily-pads in his personal swamp. And that gambol produces merely more demonstration of the quality of his mind and mentation and readers can consider it as they may.

  126. Jim Robertson says:

    I wish you all a peaceful Saturday.

  127. Dan says:

    publyin', We always appreciate your priceless input, but request you leave prophecy alone.

    "The LORD gave us the strength and made us strong to deal with the troubles and stress we have in this world, each day. The LORD fills my heart with His faith and I feel the glow of the Son around my life. The LORD'S Word makes me slow down in life, as I rest beside a lake in the midday sun, and enjoy all the things of nature, He's created for us to see. The LORD"S love is instilled in us forever and never leaves the heart, if we keep loving Him, until eternity. The LORD gave us the strength and made us strong to fight the wickedness on earth, to keep believing and staying in Him, now and forever."

    I know it's tempting, but don't go there, mocker.


  128. Publion says:

    On the 20th at 1233PM we get another demonstration of the depth of ‘Dan’s derangement: he professes to have utterly no problem “with anyone questioning” him ………. But – doncha see? – he isn’t being questioned but instead is simply confronted with my “piling on [ had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttt?] lies on top of lies”.

    Since in the Dan-verse whatever he doesn’t want to hear must be nothing but “lies”, then he is effectively insulated from reality and can continue to in the warm glowing aura of his bathroom mirror and its assorted resident fellow divinities.

    And – as always – I am a “mocker of God … His Son and the Holy Spirit” – although in the Dan-verse those Three are actually just stand-ins for ‘Dan’, who – alas – by virtue of his issues is rather techy about being ‘mocked’.

    And, of course, no actual examples of “lies” that I “tell”.

    But – viewed through ‘Dan’s goggles, “it’s simply that simple”.

    • Dan says:

      Liar, liar, panties on fire. I've pointed out your lies and will not repeat them. You're well aware of your lies, or maybe haved just lied so often that you don't realize the difference between slander and truth. Go to confession and one of your lying pedophile priests will forgive you.

  129. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1254PM, where he insists that I’ll “have to explain how directly quoting scripture and trying to explain such to the simple minded is ‘self-serving and manipulative’”.

    Well, that’s easy enough: first, I have – to repeat – no problem with the direct quotation of Scripture; second, the effort to try to “explain” Scripture as if it could be simply shoe-horned into supporting ‘Dan’s cartoon visions, for the purpose of evading the reality of his derangement, is indeed something that reduces Scripture (and God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit) to mere tools in the Dan-project of keeping ‘Dan’ from having to confront his derangement, and that surely is “self- serving” and to the extent that it manipulates Scripture, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and anyone who has to listen-to or read his stuff then it is “manipulative”.

    • Dan says:

      publyin' oinks, "I have – to repeat – no problem with direct quotation of Scripture"

      So here is one for your insistence that since over hundreds of liars from your cult have falsely accused me, which led to my 6 arrests and 6 hospital stays (6 + 6 = 12, idiota) this is proof to my derangement. Seeing that you claim "no problem with direct quotation of Scripture", here you are, directly quoted from Scripture.

      "Then you will be arrested and handed over to be punished and be put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me. Many will give up their faith at that time; they will betray one another. Then many false prophets will appear and fool many people." Matthew 24: 9-10

      And what prophets could be more false than 'holier than thou', pedophile creeps, parading themselves in fancy dresses, while fooling brainwashed sheep, claiming they're the moral authority on earth. HYPOCRITES


  130. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1254PM:

    And then ‘Dan’ borrows a bit from JR: he tries for the idea that he couldn’t possibly have anything to gain by being anything but truthy.

    And is it conceivable that ‘Dan’ doesn’t need to be believed? Being believed would be “of great benefit to” himself since the only alternative is to face the alternative, i.e. that he is deranged and apparently “hundreds” of people have come to some conclusion along those lines.

    Thus ‘Dan is kidding no one but himself by bleating that he doth “have nothing personal to gain in this forum” by his carrying-on. He has a great deal to gain and an even greater deal to lose. He gains the sense (however phantasmic) that he is indeed some sort of special messenger of God; otherwise he loses that sense and would wind up alone with the awareness of his derangement – which possibility is, as I have said, the Big Bang experience that created the Dan-verse in the first place.

    Anyway, ‘Dan’ is rather annoyed and irritated by it all and wants me to “change the record”. Alas, but ‘Dan’ can’t be changed, his stuff can’t be changed, and he – and the record – will no doubt go on and on as they have for quite some time.

    And who is this “we” who are “tired” of it all? Is that ‘Dan’ manipulatively trying to speak for the readership? Or ‘Dan’ speaking for his fellow-divinities in the bathroom mirror?

    • Dan says:

      And the broken record keeps skipping, like an annoying parrot, your deranged, your deranged, your deranged, 6 times in 4 posts, thinking he'll get some fool to believe it. Then the mocking parrot repeats with more mocking, thinking he's cute, as the Almighty patiently licks His chops, looking forward to His Judgment on the wicked. You may want to read about yourself in Psalm 37, since you have "no problem with direct quotation of scripture".

  131. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 149PM:

    Once again that royal (or divine) “We”, only this time the “we” makes a request.

    And the request is that I “leave prophecy alone”.

    By “prophecy” – of course – ‘Dan’ means his own stuff. But that cornucopia of derangement is not “prophecy” but rather only the manipulative phantasmagoria ‘Dan’ always tries to put up as if it were somehow hot off the Divine presses.

    And then – as if on cue – ‘Dan’ provides a bit of “prophecy” and readers can consider it as they will. Apparently, and borrowing a cue from JR, ‘Dan’ has chosen to leave off the primitive stuff and strike a more appealing note, thus this ‘the sky is blue’ sort of “prophecy”.

    And readers may also consider the tone and Wig evident in this bit, and compare it with the primitive scatological epithetical tone of – what? – some other ‘Dan’ also crammed in the mirror with the rest of the Wonderland crew?

  132. Jim Robertson says:

    I hope all who read this have had a peaceful Monday.

  133. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, Hope things are going well for you.

  134. Publion says:

    Not all of ‘Dan’s most recent crop needs much explication since it is revelatory all on its own.

    However, a couple of bits are worth noting.

    On the 23rd at 1232AM ‘Dan’ – rather infelicitously – reminds readers of those “hundreds” whom he must classify as “liars” or else have readers wonder how a single person can evoke the alarm and concern of so many people.

    He then – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – proffers yet another Scriptural bit, this time about how genuine Christians and prophets will be “arrested and handed over to be punished” and so forth.  (And again: it’s not ‘Dan’s Scriptural quotes with which I take issue; it’s his effort to apply them to himself (or Himself) in so self-serving a manner, as I have explained in prior comments on this thread.)

    But he then includes the Matthean mention of “false prophets”, apparently secure in the presumption that nobody would think of himself as precisely one of that category. After all, since he has put up so much ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ that it is actually the Church and Catholics who are “false prophets” and “liars” then the security of his bathroom-mirror sanctum is neatly preserved.

  135. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1232AM:

    For readers so inclined, by the by, his bit of numerological calculation remains to be sussed out. Perhaps the “6 arrests and 6 hospital stays” which work out to “6 + 6 = 12” is supposed to be some sort of divine sign, since – what? …. – maybe the number 12 equals the number of Disciples/Apostles.

    And once again – unable to keep his excuses straight – he now acknowledges the “arrests” – which require the police and a judge, as do the enforced “hospital stays” (for psychiatric observation, not for his appendix or blood pressure).

    • Dan says:


    • says:

      Thank you for refraining from ALL CAPS next time. We appreciate it! :)

  136. Publion says:

    And then on the 23rd at 101AM, perhaps hoping to change the subject, ‘Dan’ will shout-out at JR.

  137. Jim Robertson says:

    Doing swell Dan, Peace is a wonderful thing. Hope you and everyone else here are well and happy.

  138. Dan says:

    Then Jesus declared, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind." John 9: 39      I threw this one in for you p 'cause I know how much you enjoy hearing Scripture.

  139. Publion says:

    In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 741PM:

    I don’t see how any explication can improve upon ‘Dan’s demonstration in the comment.

  140. Publion says:

    And after his startlingly vivid and revealing demonstration of the 23rd at 741PM, even ‘Dan’ apparently realizes what he’s gone and done, and thus tries on the 23rd at 1124PM to get things back to ‘normal’ (i.e. just tossing up his usual stuff).

    It won’t work. The comment of the 23rd at 741PM was a game-changer and if ‘Dan’ doesn’t see that (and who could be surprised?) then he can convene a conference with the whole Wonderland crew in his bathroom mirror and give it all some serious thought.

    • Dan says:

      False accusations, lies, and slander. What in the heck is wrong with you? "It won't work. The comment…was a game-changer." Clue me in here. What kind of a game are we playing? You're dealing with your mortal, mocking, slandering soul and there may be other souls in this forum who's future is in the balance, and you think it's some kind of game? Hey, grab your "popcorn", the "cartoon" is starting. I'm not playing around with souls at stake. If this is funny or some joke to you, then the joke is on you. I'm not laughing.

      And then you claim, He tries "to get things back to 'normal' (i.e. just tossing up his usual stuff)." First off, Dave left out my 11:16 pm comment, which might explain my 11:24 pm post. If you now claim my quoting the Word is "tossing up [my] usual stuff", now you've taken the new step of a disrespectful mocker of the Lord and His Word, and I bet you're proud of that.

    • Dan says:

      Just in case you don't get it. If anything is "startlingly vivid and revealing", it would have to be the depths that hypocrites of your cult are willing to dive into in order to slander an innocent person. Like I've said before, you are a perfect fit and member of a deceiving cult.   servant

  141. Publion says:

    On the 24th at 821PM ‘Dan’ cawn’t think how it isn’t crystal clear that he is nothing more than the victim of “false accusations, lies and slander” (by those “hundreds” of people, and the police and the court and so on).  He requests that someone “clue [him] in here”.

    Here we see the old Playbook gambit (it works for all sorts who for whatever reason are seeking to work a scam and distract from the scam’s weak points): let’s pretend we just started this back-and-forth and we’re all at square one.

    I’ve been clueing ‘Dan’ in for quite some time and he has simply brushed it all away as “false accusations, lies and slander”.

    Now he puts on the Goody Two-Shoes dumb blonde Wig and professes a need to be clued-in.

  142. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 821PM:

    “What kind of game are we playing?”, he then asks.

    It would be more accurate to ask what kind of game ‘Dan’ is playing, and we’ve been over all that before here.

    He then tries not simply to reach for the Victim-y high-ground but to actually create some Victim-y high-ground … by suddenly inventing the issue of “other souls in this forum who’s [sic] future is in the balance”. Who and/or what is he on about here?  Whatever it is, its purpose is to distract.

  143. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 821PM:

    In his second paragraph ‘Dan’ then brings up an unpublished comment (purportedly made on the 24th at 1116PM) that would have explained his 1124PM comment, which comment is just another Scriptural bit and not at issue in the first place.

    The key comment is that of the 23rd at 741PM (the one in all scream-caps) and if ‘Dan’ thinks that there is some missing comment that might explain-away that 741PM whopper , then he needs to windex his bathroom mirror very vigorously.

  144. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 821PM:

    And he tries to wrap it all up with another pearl-clutching and huffy epithet, going for the Victim-y high-ground of Outraged Prophetic Integrity by professing same at my referring to his tossing up his self-servingly-interpreted Scriptural pericopes as “tossing up his usual stuff”.

    That is his usual stuff; he traffics in it. Aside from tossing up increasingly contorted, dubious and incoherent ‘explanations’ as to why and how he is most surely not the notably unwell person that all his material actually indicates him to be, tossing up self-servingly-interpreted Scripture bits is his shtick and most likely has been for quite a long time and I can’t see how he can ever stop, since then he would have to confront realities he most surely does not ever want to deal-with.

    But again: my purpose in all of this is to demonstrate the types that have been lured to the surface by the Stampede, and the need to always closely consider their stories, claims and accusations.

  145. Dan says:

    Publyin', Are you under the impression that slandering and falsely accusing an innocent person, is some positive character trait? If hundreds of others of your cult did the same thing, and authorities, assuming they were christians, didn't think they would lie, does that make their accusations true? How is it that you're able to live with your guilty conscience, or do you even have a conscience at all? Do you weekly go to confession, so you feel that you can continually slander another? Valid questions I'd like answered, if you even have any answers.

  146. Publion says:

    On the 25th at 746PM ‘Dan’ will try to run a variant of the I’m Not/You Are gambit: he has questions he would like answered.

    OK, then; let’s to it.

    “Am I under the impression that slandering and falsely accusing an innocent person is some positive character trait?”

    Answer: Not at all. But ‘Dan’ is rather a far cry from being demonstrably “an innocent person” and the revelations provide through his material coincide quite closely with the behavior and judgment of those “hundreds” of people and the authorities.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, you're absolutely right. After you and your fellow hypocrites have slandered myself in every way possible, how could I be considered "an innocent person". If you're willing to mock God, His Son, His Holy Spirit and his Divinely Inspired Word, why should I be exempt from the nasty lies from you or your cult. Praise to my God and His Son, for the pleasure of joining in the persecution, from the same cult of hypocrites who crucified my Lord and Savior. God-gram sent to all the blatant liars of your cult of hypocrisy.   servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      And speaking of 'revelations', maybe it's time you review your cult's biography in Revelations chapter 17 and 18, and find what future the Lord has waiting for you.  servant

  147. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 746PM:

    Just because those “hundreds of others” and the “authorities” have judged so, “does that make their accusations true?”.

    Answer: If hundreds of persons and also those “authorities”, with far more closeness to the case(s) than we possess here, have made those judgments; and if those judgments mesh rather closely with the characteristics of ‘Dan’ that we have seen revealed in his material here; then … the probability of his being “an innocent person” becomes as low as the probability that the judgments of all those persons are utterly and totally wrong.

    • Dan says:

      And you had no 'closeness to the case(s)' whatsoever, and yet feel compelled to add your  ridiculously stupid input, that only amounts to more slander, and then claim your questioning and assessing is right on the mark. John 8: 44  Son of Satan, father of all liars.

  148. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 746PM:

    “How is that I am able to live with a guilty conscience” if indeed I “have any conscience at all?”

    Answer: I don’t have a guilty conscience in this matter since I have a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of my assessment of Things ‘Dan’. And I don’t think he has a guilty conscience simply for the reason that his derangement is so deep that his own conscience is rather significantly baffled.

    Do I “weekly go to confession” because of my “slander” of ‘Dan’?

    Answer: Since I haven’t done anything except assess the quality of ‘Dan’s assorted stories, claims, accusations, declamations and imprecations, then I don’t see the need for confession in the matter.

    • Dan says:

      Like I guessed – A totally seared, burnt and nonexistent conscience. Later mocker and liar of all that is good.  servant

    • Dan says:

      Are you sure all you did was "assess', or are you confusing that with making an ass out of yourself. I'd say chances are much better that the latter is true, as usual.  servant

  149. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 524PM ‘Dan’ now tries to extricate himself by claiming that he only looks bad “after you and your fellow hypocrites have slandered” him.

    Not at all. His own material, revealing as it does elements and aspects of himself that he has papered-over with his fixed delusional system of the ‘Dan’-verse, exposed him. He provided all the material for his exposure himself. I have simply followed the path that ‘Dan’ himself set with his material.

  150. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 536PM ‘Dan’ tries to wrench some space for himself by noting that since (as only a reader of the material on this site) I had “no closeness” to his various cases, yet I “feel compelled” to add my material.

    As I said in my original comment, while neither I nor any reader here has the personal experience of ‘Dan’ that so many others involved in those cases have, yet his material here provides more than sufficient material for the analysis I have provided.

    Do I “feel compelled” to analyze his stuff? I do. Because a) it’s a rather rich lode in and of itself and b) because it forms the basis of ‘Dan’s extended and vitriolic comments about Catholicism and the Church and thus requires response and c) because his stuff is a vivid example of the type of mentality and thinking that lies behind much of the Stampede.

    Of course, ‘Dan’ doth “feel compelled” to put up all his stuff (and to do all the things that got him involved in all of his arrests and so forth) because he is directed to do so by the divinities resident in his bathroom mirror. And – let’s face it – he seems very eager and happy to comply with those directions.

    • Dan says:

      I am going to attempt to make this as easy as possible. You state, "Do I 'feel compelled' to analyze his stuff? I do. You claim, 'Dan' accosts(lie), harrasses(lie), harangues(lie), and yells (lie), at innocent school children. This in no way can be considered assessing, questioning or analyzing. It simply is called lying, and yet you continue to nauseatingly repeat these false accusations over and over again.

      My 'stuff', as you rudely put it, "forms the basis of 'Dan's extended and vitriolic comments about [c]atholicism and the [c]hurch. Absolutely not. Your cult's crimes and sins form the basis of my accusations. Idolators(true), Mary worshippers(true), perverts(true), serial rapists and pedophiles(true), many liars(true), excusers(true), enablers(true), deceivers(true), Anti-Christ(true), Anti-Christian(true) and proven to be wrong in following God, His Son or the Holy Spirit(true).

      So my telling the truth about your cult, makes me a "deranged, vitriolic, catholic hater"? No! It only makes me an honest and true servant of the Almighty God. And you, Mr. Mocker, can twist, degrade, lie and slander as much as you please. You can do nothing to change my standing with my God or His Son. Simplicity for the simple-minded, or even the ignorant.