Time To Pay Up: Rolling Stone Writer Who Wrote Bogus Priest Abuse Story Now Slammed By Jury For Defamation In Bogus ‘Rape on Campus’ Tale at U-Va.

Sabrina Erdely

Finally busted for bogus journalism: Sabrina Erdely from Rolling Stone magazine

A jury has awarded $3 million to an administrator at the University of Virginia after Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Erdely defamed her in a bogus story Erdely wrote in 2014 about gang rape at a college fraternity.

However, as readers of this site already know, years before Erdely defamed the U-Va. administrator, she published a completely false and malicious article in 2011 about sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Philadelphia.

Shortly after its publication, Bill Donohue at the Catholic League published a lengthy blow-by-blow takedown of Erdely's hit piece.

In her 2011 article, Erdely relayed the bizarre claims of "Billy" – whom readers of this site know to be Florida resident Dan Gallagher – who claimed to have been raped, molested, and sodomized by some three different men – two priests and a Catholic school teacher, all of whom barely knew each other – years ago as an altar boy in Philly in the late 1990s.

Enter veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano at BigTrial.net. As we have repeatedly chronicled here at TheMediaReport.com, Cipriano has doggedly uncovered detailed information indicating that Gallagher's unbelievable claims were just that: unbelievable. The lives of these three innocent accused men were shattered by Erdely's reckless reporting. (For background on the Gallagher case, see this and this. Also, check out the latest from Cipriano.)

Now that a jury has affirmed that Erdely's tale of ceremonial gang rape at U-Va. was false, we hope that the mainstream media will finally take a similar close look at her preposterous 2011 story about abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

We await.


  1. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1225AM:

    He opens with an epithet, now – slyly – tittering that I am giving “an in-depth analysis and assessment of God’s gender” (actually, that would be God’s lack of gender) to JR the atheist.

    Actually – and to repeat yet again – I simply use material thrown up by various types here as an opportunity to  set the record straight, since so much of their stuff reflects various whackeries loose in the wider world.

    My focus here is and always has been on readers, not on the various commenters who provide the source material. I never conclude a posting-session thinking ‘There – that should convince him!’. I have sufficient awareness of the depth of their whackness to know that rationality and actual knowledge is never going to resolve their problems and issues.

    That’s why I don’t focus on ‘changing’ them. They have, after all, built their entire respective shticks precisely around the project of evading their problems and issues; if they ‘changed’, they would have nothing but those problems and issues, which is why they developed their shticks in the first place.

  2. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1225AM:

    ‘Dan’ then tries even to incorporate some of my points in his on-going attempt to mimic competence: I do “even quote … irrelevant verses” from the Bible to JR.

    And just how might those pericopes be “irrelevant”?

    The pericope from Isaiah – says ‘Dan’ – doth “prove nothing” as to “God’s gender or motherhood”. I didn’t say it did. It merely demonstrates that JP 1’s reference to the image of God’s figuratively maternal aspects is not without precedent in Judeo-Christian thought.

    ‘Dan’ then demonstrates the depth of his limitations by pointing out that Is. 66:13 does indeed envision God “as one is comforted by his mother”. Precisely my point: Isaiah speaks “figuratively”, as I said. And so did JP 1.

    Readers so inclined can also consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 239, for a clear summary of the Church’s thought and teaching as to the gender-of-God.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1225AM:

    There are further references to God in Deutero-Isaiah: God “cry[ing] out like a woman in labor” (Is. 42:14) and God having carried the house of Jacob “from the womb” (Is. 46:3-4).

    Anyhoo, perhaps ‘Dan’ has received a Fax From The Beyond on the subject, maybe even with a photo. That would be something.

    But ‘Dan’ then works in an advertisement for himself: turns out that Is. 66:14 refers to God being happy with His “servants” (scream-caps omitted) and “indignant” at His enemies. And we are thus back at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, with ‘Dan’ presiding and pouring his Kool-Aid-laced tea.

    Just how in ‘Dan’s mind – speaking somewhat figuratively – I am “a coward … to discuss Scripture with” him is anybody’s guess. The need to plop-toss an epithet at this point must have been rather overwhelming for him, and no surprises there.

    Anyway, as I said in a prior comment, I am not actually discussing “with” him. I am discussing Scripture, but one doesn’t ‘discuss’ with these types. One can correct or counter their stuff, but they aren’t going to change because they can’t allow anything to break the wall of their cartoons.

  4. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1225AM:

    And my choice of Is. 66:13 would only “backfire” if we were to drink ‘Dan’s long-brewed Kool-Aid and presume his (or His) status as the Mouth of the Mind of God.

    And he brings the performance home with a rather violent fantasy about my being ‘neutered’ (mere word-play from a prior grammatical point I made in an earlier comment) and that no doubt makes him feel reely reely good. And no surprises there.

    And he then gives more of his queasily violent whackness away: he doth not merely ‘wish’ that I were neutered. No, it is indeed his “prayer”. It’s probably not a good idea to be near that bathroom mirror when ‘Dan’ is conducting his séances.

    And then, to further demonstrate his whackness, ‘Dan’ concludes with a string of his usual epitheticals. Charming, as always. And revelatory too.

    • Dan says:

      Well I'm soooo glad it's revealed something to you. Makes me feel reely reely good. Happy that your Cartoon Time has revealed new knowledge that Mr. Know It All didn't already know. I'm not sure that's possible, because The All Knowing One has his own agenda, making it impossible for him to learn anything new, unless he can add to his own ignorance. For thinking you're so smart, you sure can act so childish and immature, and my guess is that makes you feel reely reely reel good. Maybe when you grow up, you'll learn that it ain't cool to mock the Lord. Shallow ones just may have to learn that the hard way.  servant

  5. Publion says:

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 103AM:

    Again, he deploys his new self-justifying epithetical mantra about “ignorant knowledge of nothingness”.

    He doesn’t need to know much about much – doncha see? – because he (or He) already knows everything he (or He) needs to know from the Faxes and from the séances in the bathroom mirror.

    Oh, and  – curiously – a gender-bendy epithet as to my being a “catholic she-devil” and a “sow” (isn’t that one of the demon’s favorite epithets in exorcism movies?). That bathroom mirror must have been steaming, although it would appear somewhat sulphurously.

    But – bottom-line – ‘Dan’ slyly tosses in that on the basis of all the foregoing then he doesn’t need to “waste [his, or His] time commenting on each individual post towards [him, or Him]”.

    Rational assessment is to ‘Dan’ like holy-water is to a demon. No doubt wisely, he will avoid going near it.

  6. Publion says:

    We proceed then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 331AM:

    This comment begins as a ‘Dan’-gram to “Jim”, and I don’t see any value in stepping into the middle of that tussle. I will only dip into points that seem more generally useful.

    But that pretty much rules out most of his stuff in the comment.

    Except that ‘Dan’ nicely demonstrates – as does JR – that he would like people who don’t buy his (or His) stuff to “shut up”.

    That’s the way it always is with such cartoon-makers: you buy their stuff or you can shut up. They already ‘know’ all they need to ‘know’ and nobody’s going to get them to step out of the cartoon.

    But – if I may – perhaps where millennials famously require cocoa, teddy-bears, ‘safe spaces’ and therapeutic consolation when confronted with stuff they don’t want to hear, this older variant of cartoon-dwellers (somewhat more robustly…?) double-down on their cartoons and insist that it is their cartoon that is reely reely reel, and everything else is “boring” or “mockery” and so on and so forth.

    Bottom-line: they don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear and people who interfere with the cartoon should just shut up.

    • Dan says:

      Hey Dummy, I was only telling Jim that maybe it was time he shut up, only because that's what he had told me. If you want to include yourself in shutting up, well I guess that would be fine to. Have you ever heard that maybe you should MYOB. Now's as good a time as ever.

    • Dan says:

      And boy, you seem like you're becoming dumber by the minute, Mr. Know It All. You spent a whole page of your stupid analysis on something your totally wrong about. Are you going to continue to make a habit of that?    servant

  7. Dan says:

    No, you're wrong. I not only "don Napoleon hats", I dress up in the whole uniform. At the sound of the trump, I run through the house, thrusting my sword through voodoo dolls of popes, cardinals(especially RATS), bishops, priests, nuns and peewee. Then I pile them all up and blow them to smithereens with my cannons, as hoards of men in little white coats drag me away, kicking and screaming Bible pericopes and prophesies that make no sense to brainiacs that think themselves to be so wise.

    You are one flaming idiot, publyin'. You think if you can convince others that everyone's a whackjob except yourself , then they have to believe that all your "whackery" is some great knowledge, that all readers must acknowledge and come to the only logical conclusion, that you know everything, and all others are all nuts. The men in white coats are looking for you, but can't find the swamp where Satan's legion of snakes hide out.

    As I've said before, You are one dumbass, ignorant fool, to think you're overflowing with valuable knowledge and yet not smart enough to know that only an idiot would consistently mock the Lord God and His Majestic Power (Holy Spirit). You are one fine example of pure stupidity, and a joke to all mankind.

    "I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in Him in all speech and all KNOWLEDGE." 1 COR 1:4-5  And this is for believers and wouldn't apply to mockers.

    Now, once again for ignorant mockers – "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart. Where is the one who is wise [in his own mind]? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom…" 1 COR 1: 19-21   wisdom (def.) – the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgement. Of which you're lacking 2 of 3 of those qualities. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is it only concerning the Words of God, where your problems and issues lie, publyin'? Do you need a German or Nazi translation? Stick around and I may be able to help your ignorance. Oh! Maybe Not.  servant of the Almighty and Napoleon of Bible verse

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    P the only cartoonist, here, is you.You pose as logical when your premises are false. That's a pretty silly standard cartoon character.

    "Really" is how you spell the word, not "reely" really.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    The only stuff not worth "buying" here P is yours and Dan's. Why because your stuff and nonsense are both houses built on sand.

    Dan may just be a decent Protestant "Born Again" trying to save souls. Boring but understandable if you know Bible thumpers. It's the one goal they constantly reach for. Controlling their neighbor because they "love us" so and don't want their God to send us to Fire Lake to burn horribly for eternity. Oh that scampish God O' Love!

    You P are such a corrupt piece of dung that hates everyone, except yourself. You are here to destroy victims by pretending we aren't victims of Catholic clerical sex abuse.

    If you just said you personally don't know if we are telling the truth about ourselves or not. I could understand that but everyone knows that's not what you are about here.

    So we have Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber both involved in fantasy peddling. The Dumber of the twins is P because he thinks he's fooling people with his lies.

  10. Dan says:

    Okay Jim, I'm here to enlighten you. Maybe you like that term better. Line by line. What I give is not for sale, it's free, nothing to buy. True Christians build on the Rock. The unbelieving and habitual liars have built on sinking sand, but glad to see you quoting the Word. Again, not Protestant, or catholic, nor anything else. Hate religion, especially the hypocritical ones. Never been told by anyone before that I'm boring, so just might be that you can't bear what interesting knowledge of the Lord I have to share. I read Bibles, and live it. Never thumped one. Never tried to control, those who are way out of control. Maybe loving and caring for others is true, and I myself am not fond of fire, even that on the earth. And you're right. He is the God O' Love, too bad you can't see it. I'll skip the crap you said about p, but will agree that he's nothing but a liar, but disagree that he's fooled anyone, especially me. If you're right about the Tweedles, then that would possibly make you Tweedle Dumbest, cause you have no faith or belief, and yet that might be better than p's lukewarm, whatever you call it.

    " For I would rather you be hot [faithful] or cold [athiest], and if you [publyins'] are lukewarm, I'll spit you from my mouth."  Don't know if I quoted that exactly but I think you Tweedle's can figure it out. And Jim, from the look's of it, you may have to wait 'til Judgment Day, before you figure out who was the dumbest. Hope your house isn't built on quicksand.   servant

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    Jesus! spare me the lingo Dan, please. I'm so happy you've found the WAY. the fact that it's a fantasy and you have no, zero proof to back you up and that doesn't bother you says it all. You aren't interested in fact. You NEED your fiction.

    Ah! faith, I thank real goodness, I dropped mine long ago. And have been comparatively happy ever since. No more nonsense no more guilt unless I really harm my fellow humans. Which I don't.( i just dropped my daughter and grandchildren because their house voted Trump. People must suffer the consequences of their actions. Why would I want to support, on any level, fascists? You vote fascist I'm no longer your friend or relative. I'm your enemy. Our country, all thanks to the Nazi Bush family's invasion of Iraq and the Dem's destruction of Gadhafi,  is restoring fascism to Europe, the U.S. and the world. P voted for Trump yet he poses as moral. And Dan rails on about Last Judgments. It's all utter madness!)  Now Dan will correct me with religious nonsense again. Hey! Dan how about not talking to me? How about we leave it there?

    • Dan says:

      Just love how you start with Jesus! How about I not talk to you when you stop your ridiculous, nasty words towards God, His Son and His Holy Spirit. Let me repeat, "You not bigger, tougher or smarter than God", and the fact that you think He doesn't exist is proof of your stupidity.

    • Dan says:

      You are not bigger, tougher or smarter than God. Forgot the are, but it beared repeating anyway. Goodbye Jim.

  12. Publion says:

    There is little of any substance in the most recent crop from the two peas in the pod.

    But I believe it’s valuable just to see a) what types are actually ‘out there’ in the wide world of the Web and b) just what happens when – contrary to their preferred script – one keeps pushing forward to assess their material ; they’d prefer their stuff simply be accepted and nothing else.

    Thus on the 3rd at 1209AM ‘Dan’ – for lack of anything else – simply takes my ‘Napoleon hat’ metaphor and runs along with it, spinning it into a form of cartoon with himself (or Himself) as not only some form of super-Messenger but also as Superman.

    (Although there is a smithereen of truth in the bit: being “dragged away by men in little white coats” is an experience which – by his own report – ‘Dan’ has had a number of times.)

    • Dan says:

      I think there is more than a "smithereen of truth", because it's apparent that the "men in white coats… can't find the swamp where Satan's legion of snakes hide out," unless they provide you a computer in your Psycho Ward. See, and you think we can't provide substance. And you think your ignorance and mocking is substance. The substance of Hell's fire.    servant

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1209AM:

    In the second paragraph, ‘Dan’ then quickly deploys his second and third standard stratagems: epithet and mere assertion (to the effect that he doesn’t need to bother himself with knowledge because he has something even better, i.e. the stuff from the Fax Machine From The Beyond; and while he riffs about “the only logical conclusion” he proffers no example from any accurately-quoted material of mine).

    And if I may say: I do not “know everything” but I do try to keep myself informed about matters under discussion (often raised by the peapod pair themselves).

    And while I can certainly agree that ‘Dan’ is “nuts”, there is nothing whatsoever in my material that supports his accusation that I think “all others are all nuts” … that would apply one way or another only to the peapod pair.

    • Dan says:

      My apologies. "All others" that don't agree with your nonsense, you think "are all nuts." Funny that you think you're so smart with your lame assessments, mocking and lies, but one has to treat you like a baby and explain everything simple for your simple mind.  servant

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1209AM:

    And then we are back once again to ‘Dan’s fundamental sleight-of-mind: that his (or His) material is so very identical to the Mind and Will of God that to take issue with ‘Dan’s stuff is to “mock the Lord God”. This brings us close to ‘Dan’ Original Whackery, if you will.

    And ‘Dan’ tries to bring it all home with some Scriptural pericopes that he finds particularly consoling and supportive of that Original Whackery.

    Any readers’ “reading comprehension problem” would actually be a refusal to make that utterly necessary foundational leap by presuming that ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s Mind are so intimately united that you can’t have one without the other.

  15. Publion says:

    On the 3rd at 1229AM ‘Dan’ will try to spin-away his oh-so-revelatory “shut up” bit by trying to justify it: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – was merely trying to tell “Jim” to shut-up “only because that’s what” “Jim” has said to ‘Dan’.

    In other words, it’s all the fault of “Jim” – doncha see? ‘Dan’ was simply doing the same thing to “Jim” that “Jim” had done to ‘Dan’.

    Does ‘Dan’ think that’s not somehow indicative of the actual level of his conceptual and maturational chops?

    Are we supposed to imagine that ‘Dan’ is the very soul of mature expression … except when he is confronted with somebody else’s immaturity, at which point – ‘Dan’ consoles himself – then it’s OK to get right down in the mud puddle with the offending interlocutor?

    And then – marvelously – he tries to bring it all home by adding that if I want to “shut up” then that would be nice too.

    • Dan says:

      And now I'll babysit the simple-minded and explain that you have now put up 2 more posts talking about something you're "totally wrong" about. I don't tell everyone who doesn't accept what I say to "shut up". I felt Jim had no right to tell me that, so I answered with, maybe it was about time he shut up. Would you like your baby bottle now, peewee? And you have no right to talk of anyone going down into the "mud puddle", when your mocking and lies shall drive you deeper than any puddle, Hypocrite!      servant

  16. Publion says:

    On the 3rd at 1234AM ‘Dan’ is back to epithet again: I am “becoming dumber by the minute”, ‘Dan’ doth declare, because I “spent a whole page of [my] stupid analysis on something [I] am totally wrong about”.

    Just what that X is about which I am “totally wrong”, ‘Dan’ – as usual – doesn’t care or bother to explain.

    If – perchance – I am “totally wrong” because I do not make the Leap of Original Whackery by presuming that ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s thought are virtually identical, then that’s “being wrong” only according to ‘Dan’s Original Cartoon.

  17. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1016AM:

    Here he has no move to make, except to try a word-play riff on “revelatory” (from my comment of the 2nd at 538PM).

    And thus his comment goes on riffing about – had you been waitingggg forrr itttt? – I am somehow the “childish and immature” one, steeped in “ignorance” (since I don’t have the Fax Machine From The Beyond, don’t have the Secret Decoder Ring, do not have a security clearance to attend the séances in his mirror, and don’t drink his long-prepared Kool-Aid that would enable ‘Dan’s Original Whackery to appear the very paragon of wisdom and authority).

    • Dan says:

      And now to prove my point, the baby returns with more "ignorance" and "mocking", showing he can be even more "childish and immature" while sipping his "Kool-Aid" and recalling the numerous, idiotic cartoons of his second childhood. You are one class act.  servant

  18. Publion says:

    While it could not accurately be characterized as ‘relief’, we can now turn to JR’s stuff.

    On the 4that 925AM JR will try a quickie drive-by bit: I am “the only cartoonist here”.

    And why might that be?

    Because I “pose as logical when [my] premises are false”.

    And what “premises” might those be that are “false”?

    JR – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – doesn’t say.

    It’s the plop-tossing, not the explanation, that’s JR’s preferred method. Once upon a time, in the heyday of the Stampede, though, one could get away with that.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      But  I do say. Your "God" is one false premise of yours.

      Your belief that I have not told the truth about my abuse, is a false premise.

      Your support of fascism is based on the false premise that what is good for religion, particularly your own Catholic religion, is, therefore, an example of "goodness" itself. simply because it's good for your religion. Particularly when you can't prove that what is good for religion is good for mankind as whole. You presume that to be true. It's not. Why because you can not prove that any of your myths are true. You can prove none of your beliefs including stampedes.


    • Dan says:

      Hey Jim, I know you don't want me to talk to you anymore, but I noticed this today and thought maybe this could be helpful to you.

      I believed you did tell the truth about being molested by a Marian teacher, so I didn't base it on a "false premise."

      I'm surely no believer in fascism, so I guess I followed no "false premise" and am not terribly interested in corrupt politics of any type.

      So just maybe my belief in "GOD" is not based on "false premise[s]." And I add that my "GOD" is surely different than the catholic gods, (mary, popes, saints and money) and also the protestant or presbyterian gods, which I believe to be "money", pastors and the elite hypocrites of their religions. Please don't confuse the real "GOD" with the belief systems that have hurt you and others. He is real, and I don't have to prove it, all of creation is his proof. And I surely didn't learn that from Thomas Aquinas or any other human being. Didn't learn it from just the Book either. Please don't judge me according to the other phony worshippers in this world. You will find yourself to be terribly wrong.

  19. Publion says:

    And to JR’s of the 3rd at 943AM:

    Another example of the only-plop-tossing gambit: JR doth declare and declaim that both ‘Dan’ and I “are both houses built on sand”.

    That JR doesn’t see the fundamental similarity between a “Bible thumper” and a Victim-story-thumper should come as a surprise to few.

    He then indulges in some of his usual epithet (I am “such a corrupt piece of dung that hates everyone” except myself). Notice how slyly he manipulates: since I don’t buy JR’s stuff, then I am somebody who “hates everyone” – and we’ve been over all this before.

    I don’t “hate everyone”; I just don’t buy JR’s stuff, and for reasons I have long and often explicated at length. But for JR to claim that I only “hate” him would bring matters far too uncomfortably close to the actual fact that I don’t buy his material; so he slyly and manipulatively seeks to evade that uncongenial area by claiming I do “hate everyone”.

    I have a great respect for humanity; that’s why I expend much effort on informing myself accurately about its affairs.

    • Dan says:

      I'm surprised you didn't go into an indepth study of another one of your favorite "cartoon assessments" of Bambi, Dumber "Thumper".  servant

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 943AM:

    And then he tries to bolster that sly bit by another one: I am “here to destroy victims by pretending we aren’t victims of Catholic clerical sex abuse”.

    And if had only “just said” that I “personally don’t know if we are telling the truth about ourselves or not” … why then JR “could understand that”.

    Thus the baloney in JR’s sandwich.

    I have said on many occasions that it is impossible to know for sure.

    But I have also said that such stories as we have been able to examine here, when examined, not only a) don’t create any sense of plausibility but also b) create the distinct possibility and perhaps even probability that they are not veracious. And that c) a number of larger cultural elements underlying the Stampede contribute to that sense described in (b).

    That may “destroy” the Stampede Victimist game, but then we don’t actually know – nor does JR, when you get right down to it – just how many genuine “victims” there actually are.

    • Dan says:

      Hey Jim, I find it hilarious that you don't want me talking to you, but you've been going on, back and forth with this lying jackass for years. Maybe you feel a little more guilty than you're willing to admit. You and p are meant for each other, birds of a feather, flocking together.  servant

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 943AM:

    And he tries to bring it all home with more of an epithetical riff.

    And another reference to my “lies”. Given the unhappy fate of his own Original Foundational Victim story, readers may consider that as they may.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan I don't want you talking to me about religion.I've heard it all and will die an atheist. that's how confident I am that there's no lake O' fire for me to be doing the backstroke in when I croak.

    You want to talk about how evil P and this site are? No problem.

    Yes! I've been confronting P's lies and manipulations for years here. Why? Because he, like all right wingers disrespects his fellow human, A; and B, because I'm hoping to break the news about SNAP being a church funded false flag. That's it. That's the only reason I'm here. I believe people, educated or not, when told the truth of a matter, do the right things.

    I may after Trumpf's election need rethink that position. But the majority voted against Hitler Jr. Even though we are stuck with the bastard.

    That's my take Dan. No religion talk we are friends, with religion we are not. Not that I need your friendship nor do you need mine. We will both, still, be treated the same shit like why by P lying. Whether we, you and I, get along or not.

    It is funny, how P, with nothing to back him up,acts like he is so superior in reason and intellect.

    He speaks as if he's coming LIVE from the holy of holies. He feigns to be the very acme of thought and reason and truth. It's sad and evil and funny, but mostly dumb.

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    Shit like way not why.


  24. Publion says:

    The bulk of ‘Dan’s most recent crop merely demonstrates that all he can do at this point is to content himself by coming up with increasingly strained epithetical riffs. No need to feel sorry for him, though; when doing so he’s reached his natural level, as is evidenced by the gusto with which he takes to his task.

    But if you’re up for tracking ‘Dan’s version of logic through the deep bush, then his comment of the 5th at 1019PM offers a nice reward: It isn’t – doncha know? – that ‘Dan’ doth “tell everyone who doesn’t accept what [he says] to ‘shut up’” … nooooo, it’s not that at all.

    It’s just that – doncha see? – it’s only when ‘Dan’ feels that somebody “had no right” to tell him to shut-up that he feels quite justified in telling that person to shut-up. So, then, ‘Dan’ doesn’t tell just anybody to shut-up; he only does so when he ‘feels’ like it.

    Cartoon cream with your cartoon tea? The Mad-Hatter presides over a table replete with such goodies.

    • Dan says:

      OK, now I "feels" like it. "Shut Up!" And you end with more "childish immaturity." Have you yet come to the realization that you're feeding the very way I'm responding to your ignorance?

    • Dan says:

      And secondly, I don't feel there's a need to respond to you in detail, because you're just not worth my time and energy. That's the reason why my responses to you have shortened.  servant

  25. Publion says:

     On then to JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    Here JR will try to pass himself off as being quite competent in tossing around such terms as “false premise” in his abiding mimicry of competent conceptual chops.

    On then to the maestro’s ‘analysis’:

    My “God” – apparently – is “one false premise of” mine.

    Clearly, JR is either a) not quite clear on the concept of premise or b) not quite clear on what I have written or c) the meaning of “false” or d) all of the foregoing.

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    In regard to (a): a premise is a statement designed to operate in support of establishing a conclusion. Where have I ever used the existence of God as a premise? To what logical conclusion have I deployed such a premise?

    Thus in regard to (b): I have never done so because I have never tried to ‘prove’ something such as – say – the existence of God as a logically-derived and irrefutable conclusion.

    And I have never done that because – to repeat yet again – the existence of God cannot be ‘proven’ by pure and unsupported  logic. Even Aquinas’s (sadly mis-nomered) ‘proofs’ are merely logical helps and supports to assist comprehension by a human mind already prompted and enlightened by faith.

    Thus “God” is not a “false premise” of mine since I have never used the assumption or presumption of God’s existence as a logical step in establishing some further conclusion or conclusions.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    Thus too then, in regard to (c): since I have never used God’s existence as such an assumption or presumption or “premise” for the purpose of grounding some logical conclusion, then my “God” (or, more specifically, the existence of my “God”) is not accurately characterizable as a “false premise”.

    JR, on the other hand, does indeed use the non-existence of God as a genuinely “false premise” since he has not proven (and cannot logically prove) the non-existence of God, let alone then try to use his presumed assertion of the non-existence of God as a logical step in establishing some further conclusion or conclusions.

    And so we see yet again how the Cartoon mentality winds up – through the wonders of projection – revealing its own short-comings, even though such short-comings are almost invisible to the Cartoon mentality itself.

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    He then tries to characterize my “belief” about the “truth of [his] abuse” as a false premise.

    But i) a “belief” is not a premise; it is – not to put too fine a point on it – a belief.

    And ii) I have demonstrated often and great length the many elements that support both the improbability of JR’s story (in its assorted variants) and the possibility – even probability – that his story is by design not-veracious.

    I didn’t start out with the non-veracity of his story as an initial presumption or “false premise”; I assessed the story as it was first given by JR and then further modified by him over time. There was never an initial “premise” that it was not-veracious; the non-veracity became the only possible conclusion only after all of the aforesaid elements were examined and considered and assessed here.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You lying sack of shit. You came at me and my veracity the minute I posted here and now you rewrite history by saying you didn't do that.  Saying instead that my story about my abuse was "modified over time" and that led poor gullible you, step by step to "the only possible conclusion" that I wasn't and haven't been telling the truth.  Liar! My telling of my abuse hasn't changed an iota. I accidently, through ignorance, called my abuse a statutory rape., because I thought all sex with children under 18 was statutory rape. That's the only change I've made in my telling of what happened to me.

      I love how your posturings,P, as fair and honest are only mentioned here by you and nobody else. The rest of us know you are a lying sack of epithets .

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    He then proceeds with a further howler, slyly trying to slip in a presumption that certainly is inaccurate in regard to my material: my “support of fascism” (an assertion for which – but of course – he proffers no accurate quotation of mine to support or demonstrate the accuracy of his claim here).

    Ditto his further assertion that I hold the view that “what is good for religion, particularly your own Catholic religion [nicely capitalized, for once], is, therefore, an example of ‘goodness’ itself”. As usual, he proffers no actual quotation of mine to back up his assertion. Which is as it should be; he doesn’t proffer such a quotation because he can’t because no such quotation of mine exists.

    Again here we see a Cartoon gambit: having glommed onto the classy-sounding term “false premise”, he yet then simply uses the term as an empty suitcase and tries to stuff into it all of his usual presumptions, assertions, preferred spins, and other such stuff.

    • Dan says:

      Boy, if it wasn't for your genious, none of us would know anything. Let me repeat that you're so wise, and yet not smart enough to know not to mock the Almighty. Also notice that you don't deny being a facist, or deny supporting facism, nor being a Nazi.

    • Dan says:

      Sorry genious for the misspelling of fascist and fascism. Maybe it was a freudian slip, describing you as a facist (as in fake-ist – def. –  fraud or liar). Should you deny being fascist or in "support of fascism", maybe you might want to look up the definition. Sounds an awful lot like the cult you belong to, lie for and defend, yet don't support?

      fascism – (def.)  a polilitical philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) [surprised the example is Italian] that exalts nation [catholic cult] and often race above the individual [brain-washed dumb sheep] and that stands for a centralized autocratic government [Vatican] headed by a dictatorial leader [pope], severe economic [greed] and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [slander, lie, or falsely accuse anyone standing in our way].  aka – live truth, live catholic – where lies become truth.  servant

    • Jim Robertson says:

      P you walk, talk and behave exactly like a fascist. You see enemies where there are none. You and your fellow Catholics/Christians are always being "victimized" by somebody or something or someone else's thoughts. When in reality you are simply being ignored. You're a Nazi.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    He then tosses up this bit: I “can’t prove that what is good for religion is good for mankind as a whole”.

    First of all, “mankind as a whole” and “religion” are two terms far more broad than any range of topic under consideration here.

    Second of all, I can – and have – pointed out a number of non-religious or anti-religious or secular phenomena that surely have demonstrated their profound and virulent consequences for at least Western society, culture, and civilization.

    Third of all, this matter of ‘proof’ is a red-herring: it is a matter of judgment, based on such facts and factors and elements and dynamics as we can identify in terms of their consequences. I have never claimed to be ‘proving’ anything; I have simply pointed out clear and clearly negative consequences of this and that phenomenon and invited readers to consider the implications thereof.

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    But there’s a method to the madness of all this gobbleydegook and JR reveals it in his concluding sentences: he’s really been going on about ‘proof’ to try to establish the point – as it were – that I can’t “prove” that any of my “myths” are true, which somehow then morphs into the opposite dynamic: I cannot prove that any of my beliefs about – had you been waittttttinggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – “stampedes” are true.

    In other words: a) I cannot prove that Catholicism is true and b) I cannot prove that the Stampede is not true.

    • Dan says:

      No, you can't prove catholicism to be true, because it is one of, if not the most false religious cult on this planet. It has proven that to be true by it's unbiblical writings and catechism, followed up by all it's evil actions, perversions and lies, of which you are genuinely a genious.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    In regard to (a): I have never tried to “prove” that Catholicism is true – whatever that might mean – since religion is at its core a matter of faith, which is a dynamic beyond the operation of scientific this-worldly proof.

    I have pointed out i) the coherence of various elements of Catholic thought and the Catholic viewpoint and ii) the consequences to a society or culture of a non-religious or anti-religious agenda.

    And I have pointed out iii) the specific aspects of the Stampede and assorted Victim-stories that raise very legitimate doubts about the accuracy of veracity of both and iv) the hefty probability that such dubious accuracy and veracity is profound, widespread, and even intentional.

    As always, readers must consider as they will.

    • Dan says:

      No publyin', catholicism is not a religion based on faith, but on lies, just like the ones you lay on what you sarcastically call the "Stampede."

  33. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 6th at 1256AM:

    And in regard to b): I cannot “prove” the Stampede is fraudulent, and that is why I have always said that in a situation where hard evidence is almost impossible to obtain, then one must rely on a careful and rational assessment of the possibilities, the plausibility, and the probability.

    But by the same token JR cannot in any way whatsoever “prove” that the Stampede is totally or largely veracious and accurate. (Indeed, it is the Original False Premise of Victimism that one simply ‘believe the victim’ because everything ‘the victim’ says is true and leave it at that and proceed on to the ‘conclusion’ that the Victim-story is true.)

    And we have already considered his own material in light of possibilities, plausibility and probability, with results now in the record here.

    • Dan says:

      You can't prove the "Stampede is fraudulent", and yet you have done your damnest to try to make it a fraud with your vicious lies. And you shall now claim that I show no proof of you being a liar or no examples, and yet I've already told you many you've spoken against me. Your whole life is one big lie, because you think you can produce fact without any "evidence".

  34. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan, your comparison of the Catholic church to the definition of fascism is brilliant. Just saying.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The element of self-oppression in fascism is exactly the same in Christianity and Catholicism.  The construct is you are inherently flawed and only an outside deity/authority be it a God or Pope or Leader or Faith itself can save you. Save you from what? Why, from imaginary punishments invented by man for man that men might be controlled. You can only be saved by obeying an unseen diety's orders that a man will gladly explain to you from a book. One book.

      A suckers game. A con game like Trump like religion, like god. Fascism and Christianity go hand in glove. Look at how the U.S. religious right threw itself at Trump's feet. Why? cuz they want to get back to controlling people.

  35. Publion says:

    We appear to be getting to the bottom of the barrel in regard to JR’s and ‘Dan’s ability to hold up their own end of such issues as arise even from their own material.

    On the 6th at 124PM JR contents himself with a go at ‘Dan’ and I’m not getting into any of that – except for noting JR’s sly effort to slip in that bit about my “lies and manipulations”, an epithetical bit for which – of course – he proffers no accurate quotation and explication from my material at all.

    His own “lies and manipulations” I have examined often and at length here.

    Ditto the bit about my having “nothing to back [me] up”, an accusation better delivered to his bathroom mirror.

    But for the inveterate plop-tosser, there is no better consolation than tossing some plop.

  36. Publion says:

    A number of ‘Dan’s – again – are self-evidently nothing more than efforts to distract with epithet and surely the same also holds true for ‘Dan’ as for JR: for the inveterate plop-tosser, there is no better consolation than tossing some plop. Although in ‘Dan’s case, larded with Scriptural quotations and demanding of the reader the presumption that ‘Dan’ and God are pretty much the same thing, for all practical purposes.

  37. Publion says:

    However, on the 7th at 909PM ‘Dan’ tries to evade the entire ‘false premise’ analysis (he never learned to ‘think’ since he discovered that he had that Fax Machine From The Beyond) by more epithetical riffs).

    And then adds – in a bit of word-play substituting for intelligent and competent thought – that he doth “notice” that I “don’t deny being a fascist, or deny supporting fascism, nor being a Nazi”. And that howler can stay right up where it was put.

  38. Publion says:

    And on the 7th at 917PM he tries to shoehorn in some of his own usual stuff by claiming that I “can’t prove Catholicism to be true because it is … the most false religious cult on this planet” – an assertion for which he has never demonstrated the accuracy.

    And – really – wouldn’t the ‘Dan’-verse and all its pomps and all its works pretty much be on the short-list for that epithet?

    And he concludes with more of his usual plop-tossy epithets along that line.

  39. Publion says:

    He tries much the same thing on the 7th at 958PM, this time by trying to manipulate his own preferred conclusion from the fact that the Stampede cannot be absolutely proven fraudulent since its cases contain so very little actual evidence to begin with.

    He tries to draw the conclusion that I nonetheless “have done [my] damnedest to try to make it a fraud with [my] vicious lies”. Of course, he proffers no accurate quotations of mine to support his assertion as to the “lies”.

    As I have often said when JR tried to run this very same gambit: it is the material from the Stampede – its claims and stories and all the elements supporting the Stampede – that has cast doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the Stampede and its stories and supported the possibility and even probability that the Stampede is profoundly non-veracious and makes itself and all its minions look bad.

    ‘Dan’s solution to that inconvenient reality is that if the Stampede winds up looking bad when its stuff is examined, then it is not the fault of the Stampede and its stuff but rather is the fault of those who have examined the stuff and discovered its gross flaws.  If only such types would just “shut up”, of course, then the Stampede and the Abuseniks could have just rolled on; as could ‘Dan’ with his cartoonish whackeries from the ‘Dan’-verse.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 958PM:

    And – yet and yet again – the actual lineaments and revelations about ‘Dan’ come from his own material. They are not “lies” and he is their source; that they were invisible to him is simply a function of his basic derangement in the first place and his efforts to impose his derangement on others in the second place.

    And as to my thinking that I “can produce fact without any ‘evidence’” … no example from my material where I have thought that or tried to do it.

  41. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1131PM:

    Here he simply tries to cover his tracks with more mimicry of conceptual chops: this time, he will quote from a dictionary as to the definition of “fascism” … albeit heavily larded with his own additions (just in case you don’t get the point toward which he is trying to manipulate you).

    Readers, as always, may judge as they will.

  42. Jim Robertson says:

    I'm trying to manipulate you, the readership?

    Have i told you there's an afterlife with literally no proof to back that imagining up? No.

    Have I told you there's a Lake of Fire where the unrepentant burn forever? Again without an ounce of proof and again, my answer is: No.

    One either has a "concept" or one doesn't. A concept is a thought, a take on a subject. One may have a false concept but one can not have a concept that isn't a concept.

    Readership do you see how P denies everything any of us, his opposition, writes here, no matter what?

    Why would anyone do that?

    You know why.


  43. Dan says:

    Oh! So you're under the impression that in situations where there is little or no "hard evidence" or even any evidence at all, that you make careful and rational assessment[s] of the possibilities, the plausibility, and the probability." That's just laughable, if it wasn't for the fact that there is a more sinister motive and evil agenda behind your nonsense and ignorance. Then you lie like a rug and accuse anyone on to your childish, silly, immature games, that they're "deranged" and "manipulative" and "fraudulant" or "cartoonish", when no words could describe your crap more accurately.

    I predict that you'll claim, "I show no proof of you being a liar or no examples" and sure enough you answer with, "he proffers no accurate quotation and explication from my material at all." I have numerous times shown proof of your lying assessments and quoted your stupidity, saying I "accosted" or "harangued" children, and claiming you don't mock God, when there is nothing further from the truth. You're a lying and evil idiot who thinks if you drill your lies often enough, then they become truth. And that's why you gained the title of a Lying, Mocking Hypocrite.   servant of the Almighty, and more to come


    • Dan says:

      In regards to your cult being "the most false religious cult on the planet", I have numerous times in detail described the lies of your catechism compared to Biblical Truth, and yet you lie and claim I "never demonstrated" these facts with any "accuracy". I think you better try using your weak research abilities and go back to the March 15 forum titled Second Newsweek Block Buster, to find my April 12 &13 posts showing just a fraction of the lies of your cult in regards to their disgusting worship of mary over Jesus Christ. Just a few – mary's immaculate conception, mary sinless, pray repetitive prayers to your "Queen of Heaven", bowing down to statues, also calling human priests Father and Holy Father, greedy, wicked, sexually immoral perverts and pedophiles, idolators and vicious liars. There you go, publyin', "demonstrated" and "accurate" proof that your cult is the most false, lying, hypocrite cult on this planet, of which you are the perfect card carrying member and excuser. You've been served by His servant.

  44. Publion says:

    I had mentioned in a recent comment that the usual suspects were running out of anything except epithet, with which they were – to their own satisfaction – contenting themselves.

    And as if on cue, JR opens with a typical bit of scatological adolescent epithet on the 9th at 730PM.

    Readers may consult some years back in the record here for my earliest encounters with JR’s material. It was dubious almost from the get-go, and JR’s efforts to deal with the problematic aspects simply dug him deeper into the hole.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 730PM:

    But, of course, he only seeks to somehow assign himself the position of the Victimized (or Re-Victimized, or Re-re-Victimized) Innocent so he goes on painting himself as poor Goody-Two-Shoes as he riffs on here.

    Was his story of “abuse” not “modified over time”? It was one instance – then it was a bunch of times over a two-week period; it was rape – then it was rape only because others had victimized him into thinking it was rape – then it was just rape to him and he can call it anything he wants; it was “sex” – then it was “abuse”; he was a “child” – then  a “minor” (not legally the same) and  … and on and on.

    And the most revelatory indicator of his a) derangement or b) deceitfulness or c) both is that he can try to wrap up the riff with the assertion that his now-abandoned claim of ‘statutory rape’ (for which assertion he has blamed a laundry-list of others) is “the only change” he made.

    And he brings it all home by puffing up his pinfeathers and claiming that it is I who make “posturings”.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 736PM:

    Here he will try to bolster ‘Dan’s bit about my being a “fascist” – claiming, apparently, that “seeing enemies where there are none” (a grossly dubious and undemonstrated bit all on its own) is somehow prima facie evidence of being a “fascist”.

    And to close the deal, an epithet to the effect that I am a “Nazi”.

  47. Publion says:

    Going down the comment list, we come then to JR’s of the 9th at 103AM:

    Here he seeks to mimic a scholarly type of mentation and style as he doth declaim about “the element of self-oppression [nicely hyphenated] in fascism”. His thesis, apparently, is that “exactly the same” dynamic underlies “Christianity and Catholicism”.

    Now that, a reader might imagine, is quite a hefty mouthful of an assertion. How will JR explicate it or demonstrate it and back up his assertion?

    The answer – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttttt? – is that JR doesn’t even try to do so.

    Instead, he quickly reverts to more epithetical assertion: “The construct is you are inherently flawed” … which makes no sense as written, but then JR is a plop-tosser and not actually a thinker (and the Wig of Mimicry can get you only so far, as I’ve often noted before).

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 103AM:

    Readers can try to suss out whatever he is trying to get across here as they may.

    It would appear that he’s trying to run some form of the old ‘authoritarian personality’ bit fashionable in certain circles for a while after WW2. But even in this regard, readers may consider just which commenters here have insisted that others “shut up”; it’s not the Catholics or Christians (‘Dan’ being actually a religion-of-one and the ‘Dan’-verse not being actually Christian, despite its extensive costume collection of Scriptural pericopes).

    And the rest of the comment trails off in a now-familiar riff about Trump and so on and so forth.

    • Dan says:

      And, but of course, " 'Dan'-verse not being actually Christian," because 'Dan' actually quotes "Scriptural pericopes" accurately, while we lying, deceiving, catholic hypocrites prefer to blind our followers with lies and deception. So we'll just slur and damage their reputation, and state that they have to be "whacked" and "deranged," while consistently mocking and slandering the Almighty God and claiming we're only mocking his true believers. Despicable and disgusting.

    • Dan says:

      If another of your falsehoods were true, " 'Dan' being actually a religion-of-one", then I would have to say, I would rather be that, than a catholic religious cult of 1.1 billion led and deceived by hypocrites, perverts, pedophiles, liars and their excusers.  

      "Wide is the road that leads to destruction, and many shall enter through it. But narrow and difficult the way to Eternal Life and FEW will ever find it."   MT 7:13-14

  49. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1004AM:

    Here he will try – as always – to assign himself the Victimized (or Re-Victimized) high-ground.

    But this requires that he (and he hopes we) forget the manipulations of his own ‘story’ and go with his preferred focus on his own take on Christianity (“afterlife” and such) and his always-scheduled fallback on to the bleat that there is “literally no proof” of any of it.

    That there’s “literally no proof” of his own story (in its several variants) is something we aren’t supposed to recall.

    But whereas matters metaphysical and theological deal in a realm that is beyond the “proof” required for material and historical actualities, JR’s own historical claims of call-it-what-you-will that allegedly happened to him fall very much within the material and historical realm where proof is required.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1004AM:

    As to the “Lake of Fire” bit: a) it’s not something I’ve ever said; b) it’s not a fixed element in Catholic doctrine; and c) his “No” cannot be called an “answer”; it is rather his opinion and he’s welcome to it.

    As to his “concept” riff, readers may suss out its meaning as they may.

    I have not ‘denied’ what the “opposition” writes here; I simply point out the problems with the assertions and claims and stories that the “opposition” put up. JR no like.

    • Dan says:

      CCC 1035 – The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

      "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur."  Rev. 21:8

      I guess if the Bible lists who will end up in the "Lake of Fire," and you, publiar, would qualify on that list as an unrepentant, "habitual liar," well I would assume you'd prefer a false teaching of "eternal fire" or "L of F" as "not a fixed element in Catholic doctrine." Like I've said in regards to catholic teaching, Bible passages can mean whatever your hierarchy of hypocrites or it's deceiving, lying, dumb sheep wish to make it mean.

      Readers, You either believe the Bible is the Inspired Word of the Almighty God, or you can dilute it, twist it or lie about what it really says, as pagan, idol worshipping cults have been doing for centuries, as they rape our children and in their greed, amass gold and fortunes stolen even from the poor they claim to love. Hypocrites, liars, deceivers, doing the work of Satan, while claiming to be Godly and the Only True Catholic Church, and calling others "deranged" or "manipulative," for exposing their lies. "Be Not Deceived"      servant