The Meltdown Continues: SNAP Now Sued by Michigan Priest For Defamation [w/ Court Docs]

David Clohessy, SNAP : Matt Jatczak, SNAP Detroit : Jameson Cook, the Macomb Daily : Niraj Warikoo, the Detroit Free Press

See you in court for defamation! (l to r) David Clohessy, SNAP; Matt Jatczak, SNAP Detroit;
Jameson Cook, the Macomb Daily; and Niraj Warikoo, the Detroit Free Press.

[First reported at TheMediaReport.com]

A falsely accused priest in Michigan has sued the group SNAP, SNAP's disgraced former director David Clohessy, the Detroit Free Press newspaper, and the Macomb Daily newspaper, claiming that they wrongly charged that he molested a 16-year-old girl in the 1970s.

Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck filed a lawsuit for defamation and libel in Wayne County Circuit Court in Michigan, on January 30, and now TheMediaReport.com is the first to report the news. This is already the second lawsuit that SNAP has faced so far in 2017.

[**Click to read Fr. Kaucheck's lawsuit against SNAP and the press (pdf)**]

Seeking truth and justice

Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck

Fighting the good fight:
Rev. Kenneth Kaucheck

In 2009, after Fr. Kaucheck had served over three decades in ministry with a completely unblemished record, a lone woman came forward to claim that Kaucheck molested her over thirty years earlier, in 1976. Kaucheck has vehemently denied the charges.

According to the lawsuit, Kaucheck was placed on administrative leave after the allegation, but neither a civil, criminal, or canonical hearing has ever been held for Kaucheck to present his case and fight the false claim.

Yet the mere decades-old accusation – made by a woman who enjoys complete anonymity – did not halt SNAP and the media from hurling false statements about the priest.

According to the lawsuit, among the many false claims that were aired was that the Archdiocese of Detroit "determined that in 1976 he committed sexual misconduct with a 16-year-old girl." In truth, even though Kaucheck has delivered to the Archdiocese of Detroit sworn affidavits and other evidence to support his innocence, no such determination has ever been made about his case, and there has never been any kind of hearing allowing him to prove his innocence.

Fr. Kaucheck was also accused of "working with pregnant teens" at a shelter (Gianna House) "without the knowledge or approval of the Archdiocese." In fact, according to the lawsuit, Rev. Kaucheck has never had any contact with any girls at the facility, his role at Gianna House is strictly one for fundraising, and the archdiocese was very well aware of Kaucheck's work for the shelter since its inception.

In 2015, Kaucheck voluntarily submitted himself to a psychological evaluation by an expert in priest sex abuse. The doctor concluded that Fr. Kaucheck's history, psychological profile, and spiritual life are "not consistent with those who sexually abuse adolescent females" and that "Fr. Kaucheck is and always has been a psychologically healthy priest and he is not a threat to adolescent females or to women."

Not letting the facts get in the way

Yet the inconvenient truths about Fr. Kaucheck's case did not stop SNAP's hysterical former director, David Clohessy, from doing his usual smear job. On April 17, 2016, Clohessy and SNAP published a press release trumpeting that Kaucheck was "ousted because he molested a girl" and that the Archdiocese of Detroit should alert every parish in the archdiocese so it will be "harder for [Fr. Kaucheck] to assault another girl."

Surprisingly, SNAP has removed the offending post from its web site (see a screenshot). We are unaware of any other time in SNAP's history that the group has removed a press release from its site, no matter how incorrect or crazy. This sure appears to be an admission of guilt by Clohessy and SNAP.

As for the Detroit Free Press and the Macomb Daily newspapers, in the summer of 2016, a lawyer for Fr. Kaucheck sent letters to the papers which asked for retractions from the papers and provided evidence to support the requests. (The letters are attached to the lawsuit.)

What were the papers' response to the lawyer's requests? Both papers completely ignored them. And while both papers have gleefully regurgitated the false charges about Fr. Kaucheck over the years, neither paper has ever informed the public that Fr. Kaucheck requested a retraction and has now sued them. So much for transparency.

Kudos to Fr. Kaucheck for standing up to the crazy bullies at SNAP and in the media and for fighting for truth and justice.

Developing …

See also:
"SNAP's Clohessy Resigns In Wake of Lawsuit Scandal That SNAP Took Lawyer Kickbacks and Exploited Victims" (1/25/17)
"SNAP’s Leadership Suddenly Resigns Amid Lawsuits and Scandals" (2/7/17)

Comments

  1. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 255AM:

    As to what his signs say, we are apparently to be shocked, shocked, that ‘Dan’ merely accused them of being “Catholic Church, liars, hypocrites, pedophiles, parasites” (ragey scream-caps omitted) and yet they went and got all upset at him.

    But but but but but: we may rest assured that if the Catholics hadn’t “threatened and cursed” ‘Dan’, then ‘Dan’ would “doubtfully … ever have made one sign”. Leaving aside the doubtfulness of that “doubtfully”, it has to be asked: which came first, the threats and curses or the signs. Why did they – if ‘Dan’s story is to be followed here – threaten and curse him in the first place?

    And if any such treats and curses were the sole cause of ‘Dan’s ranting, then how unbalanced was he to begin with?  Because a few threats and curses certainly don’t seem a rationally sufficient cause for the depth and scope of his vitriolic rants.

    • Dan says:

      I was threatened and cursed at several apostate catholic churches, and I had every right to make the signs, seeing that every word on those signs is absolutely the truth. I'm not the insistent, disingenuous hypocrite that you are, and refuse to lie. After this happened at several churches, I added one saying violent pagan thugs, which would possibly apply to you, if we ever met in person, but for right now your just an internet, lying coward, that thinks you can add to your disgusting lies and play the bully, without suffering consequences. Still patiently waiting for your Judgment Day.    servant of the Almighty

    • Dan says:

      Just noticed I misspelled CASTOLIC CHURCH, but anyway you spell it, it's still the cult of liars, hypocrites, pedophiles, parasites and idol-worshipping creeps. So enjoyable to communicate with the bunch of you.   servant

    • Dan says:

      Five of those several and not few "threats and curses" came from an armed catholic police officer (better known as a pig), in uniform, three times, once in his private vehicle, and once while exiting the church on Sunday. So I'm not sure how much guts you have, seeing your cowardice lies on this forum, but I doubt you'd have the guts to go protest with any sign. Not to sure if you're aware of this, but there is something called freedom of speech in our country, and I had more than a right to protest after the chicken punk thugs of your cult threatened me the way they did. I'll be waiting for your version of the circumstances, because we all know you know better, because you weren't there, but swami knows everything.

    • Dan says:

      The threats and curses came first, as I had stated. Also told you why they threatened and cursed me. You'll have to pay more attention, or are you still suffering from a lack of reading comprehension.

  2. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 255AM:

    But all this incoherent spinning is basically designed merely to further the self-serving ‘preferred narrative’ that ‘Dan’ is not only the heroic and truthy Chosen but also the ‘innocent victim’ in all of this.

    And apparently, not getting what he wanted from the adults, he then went after their children at school.

    And then he now says that he “never protested at any catholic schools” … so what then was the bit at the school-yard? (We are, I suppose, to accept that what ‘Dan’ was doing at the school wasn’t ‘protesting’ but simply ‘delivering’ that “beautiful prophecy” … ).

    ‘Dan’ – it would appear – is the well-known village-idiot in his locale, although one whom “hundreds” consider somehow to be more than irritating and something more along the lines of dangerous.

    And it is clear to see just how a nice tight delusional system doesn’t preclude a notably sly mendacity in describing events.

    • James Robertson says:

      Fuck what Dan was doing at the school yard!

      The question is what are you doing here? Why are you, P, so hostile to people trying to tell you their truth? Who appointed you to hate people and judge people here? Aren't you God's Servant too? aren't I? You need to respect your fellow man. disagree if you must but your total lack of respect for those opposed to your fantasy is truely anti-Christian.

    • Dan says:

      Reading your March 14, 2017 @ 3:01 pm upset me yesterday, so I went back today to see why it had bothered me so. In almost total disbelief of what you wrote, I decided to respond again, yet I'm not sure why I even bother. I have never met such liars, as I have from talking to the hierarchy and parishioners of your church, but I must say that you take the cake. I've never realized how "dangerous" lies can be, but to deal with the consistent barage of lies and insinuations, that others and I have had to field in this forum, this has become beyond ridiculous.

      You claim myself to be dangerous? When have I ever threatened you? I realize, as a lying coward, the Lord's Word seems to be quite the threat to you. Problem is that your conscience is condemning you, yet instead, you seem to think it's cool to add to your despicable sins with not only lies, but mockery. For some reason, though I've yet to understand why, it seems like you think you're tougher than your Creator, or that the evil power behind you is strong enough to back up your cowardice.

      Any catholic, who is possibly reading the posts on this forum, and thinks that this is the type of fellow parishioner you'd like to be sitting next to or have for a neighbor, well I wish you much luck. A blatant liar, as we are witnessing here, will not only lie with a straight face, but turn around and stab you in the back, when he thinks he can get away with it. If this is an example of a good catholic, then the systemic brainwashing you catholics have suffered, is far worse than anyone could ever imagine.

      I would like all to know that I had never used the descriptive words that I've had to resort to on this forum, to describe anyone in the past, but I've never run across such an example of pure wickedness, either.  Even at the catholic churches, who have unjustly cursed and threatened me, I never came back with the words that I've had to use towards this publyin', or even the threats from God, towards this lying creep. These are some of those words – slimy creep, perverter of truth, fork-tongued snake, dweeb twit – not very nice but terribly appropriate. The quotes from the Bible, I claim no responsibility for, for this is God's Word, and they also were befitting towards the evil, demon possessed person that I happened to be responding to. As a servant of the Lord, I refuse to say anything that would be against truth, and will be waiting for a response that will be plastered with more lies, slander and insinuations.   servant of a just, honest and loving God

    • Dan says:

      I explain simply and in detail, and you call it "incoherent spinning". And how is what I speak "self-serving", if opening someone's eyes, may help them seek salvation. Asking others to read the word, and come out into the light of truth, is self-serving to you? Never considered myself heroic, but you're right that I am of the truly "Chosen", and right again to my being an "innocent victim" of every lie charged against me. Thanks for getting half of it right. You were doing so well, and then you throw in a ridiculously, blatant lie, that after fielding a slew of lies from the adults, I "went after their children at school". How sad to think you must insistently lie in order to achieve your goals and deceptive agenda. So I would suppose that if I'm the "village-idiot", then you would definitely qualify for being the nations-liar. Hope that pleases you. I do believe you'd be proud to wear that badge. Nazis usually like medals and decorations. Wouldn't surprise me if you have a swastika on your forehead, or 666.  servant

       

  3. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 341AM:

    And now – oh dear – whatever is ‘Dan’ going to do about his revealing use of ragey scream-caps?

    Easy-peasy: ‘Dan’ only deploys ragey scream-caps so “that the blind might see”. And I can surely say that his usage helps people to “see” alright; to see just what we’re dealing with here.

    And from there and on that basis of sand, ‘Dan’ can launch into a typical riff.

  4. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 319AM:

    Here – oh dear – whatever is ‘Dan’ going to do to evade the point made with the Star Trek illustration?

    Easy-peasy: I am “immature” because I “to [sic] often revert to fantasies, cartoons, and very immature, childish, science fiction”.

    Easy but not very effective. The point of the illustration remains and nothing ‘Dan’ has proffered yields any reason to doubt the accuracy of that point.

    Ditto my illustration from Alice in Wonderland, which is commonly considered to be a very adult work cast in the form of a fairy-tale. Surely the exchange between Alice and Humpty-Dumpty deals with a very significant and substantive point familiar to many adults and relevant to the adult world.

    And somehow I am also a “lying Kraut”. Go figure. But any plop is better than none for ‘Dan’.

    • Dan says:

      Sorry little peewee, I'm not much into fairy-tales, too busy living in reality and actuality. Wish I could say I know about your little cartoons, fairy-tales and fantasies, but I somewhat grew out of them when I was a young child. Much prefer Biblical stories, that teach me true lessons and how to cope with ignorant liars, knowing God will have my back, and set all things straight come Judgment Day.  servant of a true, just and honest God

  5. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1205AM:

    ‘Dan’ – for once – labels some ‘false accusations’ he is going to make. How refreshing.

    But there is a method to the madness here: he’s setting things up to manipulate readers into imagining that they – like ‘Dan’ – would not “respond with kindness and forgiveness” if they were bethump’t with “lies and insinuations”.

    What “lies”? What “insinuations”? ‘Dan’s material itself reveals the probabilities. And probabilities properly explicated are not quite the same as “insinuations” … but as I have said, the actual meaning of words means little to Abuseniks and other manipulative types.

    As to whether he was “falsely incarcerated” or just plain “incarcerated” remains to be seen and nothing he has proffered here supports the “falsely” bit at all. Indeed, just the opposite.

    And there is nothing in any of my material that supports the (self-serving cartoon) characterization to the effect that I am attempting to “whitewash all” the “sins” of such offending priests as there may have been. My point has always been that we need to look at every allegation closely so as to ensure that the Stampede’s grossly deranging effects are not permitted to wreak their purposes.

    • Dan says:

      Let's "look at every allegation closely", so we can dispute the facts, claim there was no witnesses, as if pedophiles do their nasty to be seen, and when cornered send in the bishops and lawyers to deny, manipulate, deceive and lie, even when the perpetrator has admitted guilt. Maybe hopefully, by the time anything is exposed, the Statute of Limitations will be up or possibly the criminal priest will be dead. If these solutions are not possible, then we'll blame the victims, claiming they're insane, deranged, unhinged, manipulating liars. All for the good of Mother church. We'll say 10 Heil Mary's, and all will be forgiven.

  6. Publion says:

    And then JR weighs in on the 14th at 1239AM:

    First he doth declaim that he has “never claimed all priests nor Catholics are perpetrators” (are there a couple-three he exempts?) and then that I “paint all victims as liars”.

    As to the second bit: I have only said – many times here – that in light of the dynamics operative in the Stampede, every allegation has to be looked at with a readers’-version of “strict scrutiny” – which is precisely what the Stampede has always sought to preclude.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1239AM:

    But this bit gives JR a pretext for rehearsing yet again some of his own ‘preferred narrative’ 3x5s:

    He was “questioned by the church, it’s [sic] lawyer, psychiatrists, police and his ‘own’ [oddly in quotation marks] lawyer and her former FBI investigator”.

    We’ve been over all of this before several times:

    Once JR joined the huge 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit a decade or so ago, the Stampede legal mechanics strategized by the torties would have kicked in: given the number of allegants, the Insurers would have insisted that a settlement be reached to avoid the expense of conducting a trial of each allegation / at that point ‘questioning’ by Church and Insurer counsel would have been merely for the purpose of getting basic information and not in any sense a sustained adversarial interrogation of the allegation(s) and claim(s) / the settlement would have been drawn up in counsel-conference, and the only role of the court would have been in approving the final settlement that was agreed-upon.

    Under no circumstances could those allegations be now claimed to have been thoroughly and adversarially examined and found by legal process to have been veracious.

    • James Robertson says:

      Readers if there are any, This asshole, P, invents an argument I have never made, that he might destroy what I've never said or held true."I only discount 2 or 3 priests of all priests"( or is it all priest abusers?) of being abusers? I say, according to numb nuts that 97% of Catholic clerics are abusers?. Now that's fucking amazing! because i didn't know I thought that stupid anti-Catholic way.

      (As an aside. I must be doing something right by posting here because mucho smoke is continually being blown here and they do it to cover, as always, the church.)

      Dan who won't convert anyone calling the church names like cult and his Mary loathing etc. And damning you all in God speak and Biblical quotes i.e. sacred numbers i.e. 666. I mean what a fucking joke! Why is Dan here, to save our souls? Not the subject Dan.(Isn't he just a hair too convenient at this blog right along with P himself? P who invents political analysis on stampedes that are not there and on real victims of real sex abuse that are.)

      I have never been committed for observation and I hand cuff myself to things as a political act of defiance. (Which of us could not be called crazy if some bad authority wanted us seen as such.?) Yet I've never been led to be observed (Not that I don't deserve to be just sayin' to nutty old me that aint happened yet)

      This narrative on the church's version  is so very low burlesque. The church scripted (had to)  Das Bible thumper, (May your God bless you Dan but bible thumper you are) vs. P and the Dignified Church. and you the readership, have the Protestant Reformation and argument re enacted before your very eyes by P and mini Catholic Co vs. Dan.The Bible Man.

      The Church again, beats back the Dragon like "Reformation" to the world of wrong and the church comes out "right" thanks to P's long narratives and the always taught  Catholic church "views" of Protestant truths. Who asked him?

      For what reasons do Dan and P's interchanges exist here. For a saving of the church, by P and his conservatives? By "saving" innocent Catholics from Hell by Dan? Who cares?

      Dan appears here, late in the game,and quickly winds up the whipping boy for P Princess to rail against (in her most dignified Catholic yet at the same time amazingly un Christian manner) when the debate winds up being talking about which faith is more blessed by their founder the "dignified" church rep'ed by P vs.  the "shouting" in the street  and "committed" for "observation" "lesser",Protestant. Dan. I'm left wondering: Who asked these two to debate faith?

      Both these two are bringing you a rehash of " Oldie Arguements from the Reformation" 

      Child abuse is the subject here not the Reformation. Child abuse has nothing to do with what you believe in. Nothing to do with faith. Child abuse is a criminal and civil matter. Believe what you will but don't fuck your kids. again it has nothing to do with what the church has done or does to and or for it's still living very real victims.But that's what's being talked about here for 200 + comments!!

      This is a fakegument by fake enemies to impress the stupid with a narrative that goes nowhere. And again it's an fakegument about faith rather than victims injuries and whether or not priests are perpetrators.. Supposedly that's the subject of this article on TMR.

       (Why SNAP, a "survivors" lawyers" front ,according to you, fucked up so much legally that most of SNAP's leadership resigned. How would a lawyers front be so ill advised by their owners after 29 years? It makes no sense. )

      So instead of men of good will settling our differences as best we can. Enemies are invented where no enemy need be.

      P, like his church, sees and treats victims as enemies of the church and SNAP, purposely re Enforced in the Conservative Catholic mind that, by having us demonstrate in front of churches, rather than at Archdiocesan offices where the faith would never be the subject but the individuals and the system that allowed this abuse to continue over and over again, would.

      Subject changed. outlook changed. Who wins?

      The myth created is victimisation coming from mad men outside the church against "the faith" but somehow never caused by mad men inside the church. Mad men who refuse to be held responsible for what they did and do.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1239AM:

    Further, it is utterly unsupportable to claim that “my perpetrator had every chance to defend himself”: decades later, with an allegation that had no witnesses, in a public and even legal atmosphere where the allegant is presumptively a ‘victim’ whose claim has to be presumed veracious, and with the Church informed by its Insurers that no defense would be acceptable because no money would be expended on trials … no individual accused could have mounted a defense in such circumstances.

    As for the “written letter of apology” – again – we have no way of knowing just what the letter indicated: it could have been a standard form letter required as part of the settlement (the classic apology-to-the-victim requirement) or – less probably – a outright formal and complete and specific admission of the veracity of the allegation(s) … which would have been an impossibility, actually, since the allegations were never tested and proven at trial and not even the Church could have pronounced definitively on that score.

    • James Robertson says:

      But there were witnesses to my case P.

      Me, the Perpetrator and 2 other boys at the time.

      (Now assbreath will say something discounting of those facts. FACTS. That's what he's here to do. That's all he's here to do.)

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1239AM:

    And then, in an effort to bolster his foregoing bits, JR actually goes for this gambit: the 800 sets of remains found at Tuan were caused by the Church.

    The Tuan facility was a large home for unwed pregnant mothers, run in a place and time with little medical capacity available and less government funding. That over the course of years a number of the women and/or infants died cannot be surprising.

    But to suggest – well, what does JR suggest here? That the Church tortured and killed them? This is precisely the type of stuff JR traffics in.

    • James Robertson says:

      That's Tuam not Tuan. You stupid drunk. You can't even respect where children were let die by the church they were sent to for saving. If the Nuns couldn't save these children because the state wasn't giving them enough money why didn't they beg for it publically and ask for help in saving those children? Why no funeral masses for those children?

      When you see the church as never doing wrong even when it does do wrong? You're a lying fascist.

  10. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 14th at 317AM:

    I “chose not to believe [his] answers” because they were not plausible: first it was ‘rape’, then it was a hand stuck down his pants, then it was not just once but several times over a period of weeks … in addition to all the other problems with his material over the years here.

    I would say that his answers insisted that they not be believed because they themselves demonstrated their unreliability.

    I had “decided” nothing “long before” JR posted them here. The answers themselves convinced me.

    And thus he tries to bring the performance home by bleating ‘Dan’s “lie” bit. Readers may judge as they will.

    • James Robertson says:

      LOL! My experiences of what happened to me have never changed ever. You don't even get my story straight. Are you retarded? Only the mentally damaged could insult me with millions of words yet still get my claims wrong every time he writes about them. If you aren't damaged why you must be getting my facts wrong on purpose? Why would you do that? If you are really for truth and justice why only at my details do you stumble and yet at the same time mock? What's all that in aid of?

  11. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 221AM:

    All ‘Dan’ dares to note about the Alice-Humpty exchange is some self-serving word-play on Humpty’s fall. But Carroll’s point is very relevant to the Stampede/Abusenik looseness with meanings of words. And for ‘Dan’s looseness with the meanings of words as well.

  12. Publion says:

    Thus to JR’s of the 14th at 322AM:

    Here JR will try his hand at evading the Alice-Humpty illustration.

    The word-play about “master truth into lies” a) makes no sense as written and b) slyly and manipulatively seeks to presume what has yet to be demonstrated, i.e. that JR doth “tell the truth”. Actually, JR’s material would indicate somewhat the opposite.

  13. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 109AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates one of his presumptive little game-bits: since he quotes Scripture accurately, then the point he is trying to put over with his pericope must also be accurate and veracious.

    And also that since he applies a pericope to such of his rants as he chooses, then his rants are accurately and veraciously applied.

    And lastly, he presumes that since he has said it, then God also says it.

    That’s what a nice tight delusional system will do for you.

    And then ‘Dan’ huffs and puffs and he cawn’t think why what is so clear to him seems otherwise to so many others. And that’s also what a nice tight delusional system will do for you.

    • Dan says:

      I actually enjoyed your assessment for the 1st 3 sentences. Right on the money. This shows you are capable of knowing and stating the truth. Well done.

  14. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 141AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will again try to whomp up a story supporting his claim that he didn’t talk ‘Dan’-trash to the school-children.

    But a) we haven’t at all established that ‘Dan’s “adult liars” characterization is accurate and b) it hardly seems plausible that the ranting rage we see in ‘Dan’ can be turned on and off like a faucet.

    And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if even the “moon was full” actually is relevant: I think ‘Dan’ is always in full-moon mode regardless of the actual phase of that celestial entity.

    And again with the you-weren’t-there bit, and readers may judge as they will.

  15. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 156AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ again tries to wave it all away with his magic ‘Dan’-wand: It’s all “ignorance and nonsense”.

    The school-children, he now rather pathetically declaims, would be too smart to check out a “genuine looney-toon on the hoof”.

    Well, they would be too smart to stay around once they realized it. By his own report, half of them didn’t even bother with him and of the other half, only a dozen or so (the conveniently apostolic dozen) stayed around.

    Perhaps those were the future psychiatrists. Or perhaps they enjoyed the show.

    And it ends – as usual – with epithets and a threat.

    • Dan says:

      Possibly the ones who weren't interested in hearing the beautiful message from the Lord, will turn out to be the future liars of the church, like you and Jimmy, preferring the false teachings of your cult, over God's truth.  servant of the Lord's Truth

  16. James Robertson says:

    Could someone explain to me how Dan became the issue here?  Who cares what he thinks or does? He has nothing to do with sex abuse and your church. He criticises child abuse and he doesn't like Catholicism. And? So? You like Catholicism and pretend that abuse wasn't rampant in your church and that the majority of us victims are lying. All you are is wrong.

    Explain the 800 bodies found in Tuam, Ireland, if love is Christ's and your message to the world. 800 dead children buried sans funeral masses says what about you and yours and your ability to express this "light of Christian Catholic love " ?

  17. Publion says:

    I think it is now clear that what we now get from the Abusenik or ‘Dan’-verse peanut gallery here is a) simply a juvenile myah-myah effort at a ‘comeback’ for this or that specific comment, but therefore not a response that reflects a coherent position. Their minds are satisfied if they can just put up a comeback.

    And b) they are deeply and even inevitably – although unwittingly – involved in the dynamics of clinical projection: what they most surely don’t want readers thinking about them is precisely what they claim to clearly see in others.

    Thus if one were to take the usual epitheticals and – purely as a mental exercise – apply them to those who claim to so clearly see them in others … one can get achieve a rather clear impression of just what it is that we are dealing with here.

    • Dan says:

      So strange that you think you can criticise others of only looking for a 'comeback', when all you seem to 'comeback' with are lies, slander and manipulations of the truth. You call us liars, manipulators, deranged, unhinged and whacked. You claim we're falling back on "clinical projection". Even your false claims as to us "involved in the dynamics of clinical projection", would be defined as clinical projection. When's the last time you visited your shrink. The possibilities and probabilities of your being a whackjob are exponentially high. How's that for 'Dan's assessment? You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free, even from a disturbed, twisted mind. Not sure if habitual liars can change?    servant

  18. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    As per Dan on March 14, 2017 at 1:56 am

    Dan has a problem with, what he considers to be guessing, how his story has been assessed. If we take his word for it and assess his own material it’s easy to come to the conclusion that Dan is someone to be concerned with. Four 5150’s are nothing to just wave away as though they are just lies from the hundreds of witnesses to Dan’s performance. No, Dan was sent for evaluation because hundreds of people deemed him to be a danger to himself or others due to his being mentally disordered. Just from reading his posts can lead one down that path and confronting Dan in person is not something I would be eager to pursue. Dan further revealing that the school in question is a Catholic school adds more credence to a belief that Dan was unhinged during his delivery because we see how Dan feels about Catholics. Judging from his post on March 13, 2017 at 2:55 am one can see what Dan’s agenda entails.

    He seeks out Catholic Church’s on Sundays to insight a reaction form the parishioners. When he gets the reaction he came to seek he then dials it up a notch and continues to poke at the “violent”, “potty mouthed” followers, priests and nuns with signs that are not as creative as he thinks they are. Once again, give Dan time and more of the truth will be revealed although that truth is more justification to the conclusions made based on his own material. Dan reveals a little more when he claims to never protest at schools with a caveat, when children are present. Dan does protest at schools, and Catholic Schools in particular. Dan seems to believe that as long as he is on a public sidewalk then all of his concerning behavior doesn’t exist. Four 5150’s and an overnight stay in jail are the result of his conduct. I didn’t make this up, this is all from Dan himself and since this is the truth as to how things have transpired I have respectively understood Dan clearly.

    • Dan says:

      Jimmy, what slimy hole did you crawl from. Did the church realize the failure of publiar's false accusations and decided upon stereo harassment, or bookend liars? Let's send in a Mini-peewee. Would love to go down, line by line, and expose the individual lies, slander and false accusations in your stuff, but quite frankly I'm terribly tired of responding to both of you lying deceivers. I'll make this very easy for both you and myself, and you can refer to my response to publiar, on March 15, 2017 @ 5:51pm, substitute Jimmy in place of publyin', and just about all of it will apply to you.

      I would like to make perfectly clear, something I have posted previously, that I bear no animosity towards decent catholic people and surely have no desire to harm innocent catholic children in any way, verbally or physically. I do not care for the false teachings of your cult, and can't stand hypocrites, greedy that claim to love the poor, pedophiles and perverts, and their excusers and defenders, who turn out to be the liars that attempt to destroy anything of truth, demeaning, disingenuous, deceptive creeps. Got that?   servant

  19. Publion says:

    On the 14th at 1229AM we get another demonstration of ‘Dan’s devious duplicity: he merely doesn’t like ‘my’ lies and other than that … why, he’s just the very soul of niceness and rationality.

    Sly but hardly credible. Since ‘Dan’ considers anything that doesn’t conform to his cartoons to be “lies”, then he’s going to be ‘not-liking’ a whole lot of stuff from a whole lot of people, as is evidenced then by all of his imprecations on this site against a sizable chunk of the people he has ever encountered.

  20. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 506AM:

    Here he tries to evade the which-came-first question by simply rehearsing his 3x5s about his ‘victimizations’, therefrom deriving and platforming a) his “every right to make the signs” … which again evades the question at hand.

    And b) that “every word on those signs is absolutely the truth” and we are back down the rabbit-hole of the ‘Dan’-verse and that’s where a nice tight delusional system will take you.

  21. Publion says:

    But wait! There’s more!

    ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is “not the insistent, disingenuous hypocrite” that I am and – the pearls here tightly clutched – doth indeed “refuse to lie”. Readers may consider as they will.

    And all this “happened” … “at several churches”. What was he doing at any churches, given that he isn’t into organized religion? But on this basis – as it were – he can now try to justify yet another sign, this time about “violent pagan thugs”.

    And if you don’t buy their stuff, and instead question and examine it, then you are an “internet … bully” too. Ever the victim, never the perp … that’s what these types are styling themselves as.

    And the ‘victim’ ends – as so very often – with a threat, on God’s behalf, of course.

  22. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 905PM:

    Now, in another effort at mimicking actuality and factuality, ‘Dan’ claims that in “five” of the instances, he was also subjected to “threats and curses” by “an armed catholic police officer” (do uniformed police officers come in an un-armed version?) … and – in a helpfully revelatory aside – ‘Dan’ reminds us that he is of the mentality that would call a police officer “a pig”. So many criminals would agree with him.

    And then – trying preemptively to bolster the weakness of his bit with snark – ‘Dan’ alludes to “freedom of speech”. And yet there are laws against harassment and libel and slander and creating a public nuisance and disorderly conduct … so obviously the fact that there exists freedom-of-speech doesn’t quite cover the topic at all.

    And we still find that in the chicken-and-egg question of why was ‘Dan’ ever threatened in the first place, there is no reply.

    I would say: a certifiable, low-grade looney-toon who deliberately created some form of public nuisance on a number of occasions, which merely fed his already-established fixed delusional system.

    This is a self-sustaining feedback loop and will give ‘Dan’ something to do from now until his own recall Fax spits out of the speshull machine next to the bathroom mirror.

    • Dan says:

      My calling him a pig is not because he's a cop, but because he's a corrupt, lying pig, just like yourself, Porky. I refuse to answer to the rest of your repetitive ignorance, nonsense and stupidity, today. servant

      P.S. You must be clairvoyant, Swami, the Lord had a Fax to spit at you, before your post ever came up. Just happened to mention about unjust, corrupt, lying pigs. And fake people and "The Lord knows everything and can see right through you.", fits you, too.

  23. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 15th at 1107AM:

    Here JR tries yet again to change the subject. He opens with a brawny scatological bit, always an indication that he’s trying to make some room for a bit that won’t have the strength to make its own way.

    He cawn’t think why ‘Dan’ is the subject here (and perhaps doesn’t see anything off-key about what ‘Dan’ was doing “at the school-yard”).

    And – rather – JR will try here to change the focus to me, insinuating – as is his way – whatever it is that he would like to insinuate.

    Neatly, while donning the Wig of Innocent And Truthy Victimhood, JR again slyly inserts the ever-fungible and ever-handy Victimist bit (i.e. “their truth”) about there being not only i) an actual and factual and objective “truth” but also ii) a perceived and imagined and personal and subjective “truth”. (JR’s game requires that we operate in the universe of the second type of “truth” and evade and avoid the first.)

    As might now be clear to the readership, the second universe of “truth” is also capacious enough to provide room for the ‘Dan’-verse, which is why ‘Dan’ can carry on as he (or He) does.

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1107AM:

    And all that leads into yet another sly insertion: that in questioning and assessing, I am indulging in “hate”.

    Nope. JR and ‘Dan’ put their stuff up on a public site and I – as a member of the public – just examine it and follow the material where it leads.

    JR doesn’t like what examination reveals about his stuff, ‘Dan’ doesn’t like what examination reveals about his stuff … if they don’t like the heat they can stay out of the kitchen or cook up better vittles.

    But that’s not how they want things to go. The game was supposed to be: they tossed up their stuff and everyone would swoon in empathetic and credulous agreement.

    • James Robertson says:

      "Examination"? You call lying about my very real abuse an "examination"? You are one sick mother fucker. You don't need to swoon or even believe me about my abuse but what's your excuse for disrespecting me with absolute zero proof that I lied about any of it?

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 15th at 1107AM:

    And all of it leads up to JR once again declaiming and instructing about Christian propriety: I am bound to “respect” … but respect what? the material that has been tossed up here?

    But the Victim-y pose has a comeback to that: it tries to conflate the plop-tosser and the plop, such that the plop must be respected because the plop-tosser is “God’s Servant”. Which is pretty much the basis for ‘Dan’s whole delusional system as well.

    Two frogs croaking from the same swampy pond.

  26. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s extended bit of the 15th at 551PM:

    A different Wig this time, now the Wig of Honest And Innocent And Hurt Exasperation: we’ll see how long this Wig can stay perched on his head once he gets going.

    He was so “upset” reading mine of the 14th at 301PM and – as so often – he just couldn’t think why. But now he has ‘thought’ and here’s what he’s got (though in “total disbelief” he’ll give response another try, though – pearls clutched and back of hand to forehead – he simply cawn’t see why he even tries).

    But first – just to make sure he might manipulate readers’ response – he preemptively rehearses just what huge “liars” he has to deal with my “beyond ridiculous” material and so on.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:

    Thus, finally, we get down to cases in the second paragraph:

    First, I do not “claim” he is “dangerous”; I infer that from all the material we have, and that inference (with all its accompanying explication) will stand until ‘Dan’ might demonstrate its insufficiency or inaccuracy.

    And then he simply tries to evade himself by claiming that it is “the Lord’s Word” that “seem to be quite a threat” to me. Not at all. God’s Word doesn’t constitute a threat for me; ‘Dan’s material – which is not at all the same thing – constitutes something of an affront to rationality and credibility and I deal here with that.

    The fact that ‘Dan’s fixed delusional system absolutely requires that we accept his ravings as being “God’s Word” is ‘Dan’s problem, and I am not bound to accept it. Indeed, I am bound to refute it since it is all put up in a public forum.

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:

    Thus the paragraph continues along the lines of ‘Dan’s now-familiar delusions: he will work from the angle that I am actually opposing God, and ‘Dan’ will thus defend God. That’s what a nice tight fixed delusional system will do for you.

    On then to the third paragraph: nothing but epithet for an opening – and for a middle – and for an end.

    Although the “stab in the back” bit is curious: apparently ‘Dan’ was quite taken aback when at some point some congregation that he had been attending decided he was seriously off-balance.

    And apparently on that basis, ‘Dan’ created the ‘Dan’-verse.

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:

    On then to the fourth paragraph:

    Here he will try again to run the gambit that it’s only because of the “pure wickedness” that he’s encountered here (i.e. that his material is questioned and examined) that he’s “had to resort to” such florid vitriol. (Otherwise, of course, he’s just the very soul of sweetness and light.)

    But – he failed to realize – this is precisely the excuse he’s used to try to whitewash his ‘demonstrating’: he was “stabbed in the back” and if it hadn’t been for all the “lies” then he would be the very soul of sweetness and light. He’s never the perp – doncha see? – only the ‘victim’, responding to intolerable thumps. And since those who “lie” about him are so intolerable, then he’s quite justified in indulging in florid vitriolic rants. Because he’s only a victim of “lies”.

    And, but of course, since he’s God’s own mouthpiece then if ‘Dan’ is bethumped, then God is bethumped, and ‘Dan’ must and will defend God with heroic and truthy florid and vitriolic rants against anyone who doubt’s ‘Dan’s sanity because if you doubt ‘Dan’ then you mock God.

    An example of as tight and neat a self-sustaining fixed delusional system as any textbook could provide.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 551PM:

    And as an ancillary but also necessary element of the delusion, ‘Dan’ must and does insist that his use of Scripture is not only accurately quoted but also – the biggie – accurately applied (how could it not be, since God is secretly informing ‘Dan’?).

    Thus the Chosen Servant will mush on, grinding out his rants in his heroic and truthy (and floridly vitriolic) way.

    And the whole bit trails off in ‘Dan’s lovingly sculpted encomium to himself.

  31. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1146PM:

    In yet another demonstration of what a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will get you, ‘Dan’ here again bleats in self-commiseration that although he doth “explain simply and in detail”, yet I call it “incoherent spinning” and he cawn’t think why.

    We have been over all of this before, even on this thread, and matters have now reached the basal point where the fixed delusional system is merely spinning around and around, circling the drain at its very foundation.

    And the whole bit trails off as usual.

  32. Publion says:

    And JR again gives it another try on the 15th at 1100AM:

    He cawn’t see how ‘Dan’ “became the issue here”.

    Since they participate in the same sort of dynamics and are basically in the same trade, then that’s not so surprising.

    Ever-shifting stories, increasingly skewed proffers suddenly tossed-up to cover demonstrated incoherences, vastly un-unsupported global claims and assertions and presumptions … these to JR are not red-flags. Indeed not; they are his and ‘Dan’s basic stock in trade.

    The trouble for them is that their stuff is being assessed here. That was never supposed to happen.

    I have proffered a quite rational explanation for the presence of a cemetery in a long-run facility for poor and unwed mothers and their infants. Has JR proffered any alternative explanation? No, nothing beyond an insinuation.

    It was “the light of Christian Catholic love” that created the hospice in the first place.

    • Dan says:

      Your "Ever-shifting stories" paragraph, sounds an awful lot like your 'clinical projection' problem is back, or should I say never left.

      In San Francisco, Ca., 30 years ago I did a little tour of Mission Dolores. The backyard was full of infants, buried at young ages. Thinking these may be the children of the nuns, disposed of so no one knew they were normal and having sex, possibly with priests or bishops, so I had to ask? Why were all these children buried at such young ages? The nun in charge told me these infants were part of the Irish Potato Famine. Why weren't they buried in Ireland? She had no answer.  servant of Truth

    • Dan says:

      "[c]hristian [c]atholic] love" – what a book-ended oxymoron that is.

      catholic cult = anti-Christian + unloving

  33. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    As per Jim on March 15, 2017 at 11:00 am

    Jim wants to know how Dan became the issue here. Jim can read over his posts and see why Dan is an issue if he so chooses and that should clear up his dilemma. If Jim does not see a problem with Dan’s story and further has an issue with how Dan’s story is dealt with, that’s an issue for Jim to deal with.  He further wants to know who cares what he thinks or does. Dan seem to care otherwise he would not go out of his way to post what he does. As far as caring what Dan thinks, the reports from his four 5150’s should shed light on that question. As far as Dan criticizing child abuse and Catholicism is concerned, Dan has his own agenda and it has nothing to do with child abuse. Dan’s hatred for all things Catholic are what causes Dan to slide of the rails and if he can somehow squeeze himself on the abuse train, all the better for Dan. That’s Dan’s prerogative but there are consequences to his actions and four 5150’s and a night in jail are the result.

    Jim tries to simplify the issue by making it an either-or proposition. Either you hate Catholicism and therefore hate child abuse or you like Catholicism and are not concerned with child abuse. The issue is not weather one is concerned with child abuse but rather if the problem was as rampant as Jim would presume one to believe. Based on Jim’s own account of his alleged abuse, the details changed. We find out that Jim wasn’t raped. Could it be that rape would garner a bigger payday and make it much easier for the Attorneys to get the biggest settlement possible? Jim got his million based on that slippery misdirection and we are to just excuse Jim for that little mistake in definition. That little misdirection makes his entire story non-credible. If Jim’s story is not credible and he received a million for it, how many stories are out there amongst those class action lawsuits that are not up to snuff as well. No one dismisses the scandal but the rampant label may not be so. The few stories presented in the comments here certainly raise cautions towards that distinction.

    • Dan says:

      "Dan's hatred for all things [c]atholic are what causes Dan to slide off the rails", Jimmy mini-pee falsely accuses. Is your claim that I "slide off the rails", based on the fact that I haven't purchased a ticket on the catholic hypocrite express, barreling it's way, non-stop towards the Lake of Fire? I posted a response March 16 @ 4:54pm, before your post ever came up, that answers to this accusation. I have both catholic family and friends, that I get along with very well. My best friend of 47 years, is a judge in Sacramento, Ca., who has offered me free legal help, even the former Distict Attorney of our county, and I've refused. I've had no problem in standing up to the slew of catholic liars on my own. I was just terribly unaware of how many there were out there, kind of simular to the fact that we are totally unaware of how many pedophiles, perverts and hypocrites are out there, stalking our children. I will not allow liars, excusers and deceivers, make false claims that few are accurate or veracious. servant

    • James Robertson says:

      Jimmy your declaration as to what I do and or who I support is nonsense.

      Real Catholics really want to protect their real children from real sex abusers and those who enabled those abusers to do it over and over again, to and around, their Catholic children. I'm  therefore with the majority of Catholics around that issue.

      Matters of faith are your business.

      Literally.

  34. James Robertson says:

    As this false fight continues, check your wallets folks that's what this fight's all about.

    It's to distract you from helping the people, your own Catholic children, who were harmed. And to keep giving money to the criminals who both raped and enabled the victimisation of those children. That's the truth of all this.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, How many years have you been jousting with these lying fools? You've yet to figure out, that they could care less about their own catholic children, who were harmed? Since you've been posting comments has anything changed? Has there been any progress in payoffs? Shame you have no God or His Word to lean on, because you'd be able to figure out that everything is going according to His plan, even the exposing of wickedness in all it's forms, systemic in all the false churches of this world. I believe Babylon Rome will be destroyed, before you'll see any honest change or future financial compensation for victims. They have learned and played their deceiving games for so long, it's the one thing they're good at. Now they can turn around and sue for defamation, flat out deny charges, and claim no witnesses. They refuse to believe, "The Lord knows everything and can see right through you." I think they will stand before Him and think they can lie their way out of Hell. Apostate Cult. I wouldn't even want any of their filthy, dirty money. Best to you, Jim.

    • James Robertson says:

      Glad you wouldn't want their dirty money, Dan. (Were they asking you to take some?)

      Money and religion tsk tsk! Not to be mentioned?

      Well you see Dan it's not the church's money. It's the people who gave them the money's money. The parents, My parents, relatives and friends co faith members who paid our insurers money in case something like child abuse happened.  And it happened, most certainly, to me.And money's  almost the only compensation that's possible to give to victims. Money or services like nursing home care or health care. But all that's happening here is imagining that you're terrible, which you may be, I don't know. And somehow using your prejudices or truths if you will, as an excuse for them and their behaviour to seem rational. Comparative to the mad man they make you out to be, Dan. Only benefits them because the issue of child abuse is off the thread. And the issue of prejudiced insane anti-Papist becomes the thought du jour. And their sins are promptly forgotten only to be mentioned by the leper at the gate. That's you Dan. They gave you spots, pejoratives. they invented you as enemy because you are their enemy and so what? You have real issues with Catholic beliefs and P would much rather argue religion with you. How do I know this? Because that's all he does when he's not busy insulting both of us.

       

  35. Dan says:

    Todays prophecy for the Lord's Chosen, or Fax From Beyond, for sarcastic, mocking liars:

    Do we really mean it when we say the word love? Or is it to impress the world, so we can always look good, at all times. Do we care about the homeless, or do we just want to show the world that we care? Do the doctors in this world really want to heal us or kill us, or just make their money on drugs and get rich? Do the police take a righteous person's side, or will they standup for the ones who are doing the false convicting? Don't you think the Lord is fair and wants to do the right thing, with these fake people? You haven't realized yet? The Lord knows everything and can see right through you.      Thanks be to God

  36. Dan says:

    Catholics – from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops – USCCB> Bible

    "Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not associate with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth. Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light." Ephesians chapter 5

    Catholics – Are you willing to allow deceivers to fool you with empty arguments and lies. Notice the sins of those who will not inherit God's kingdom. We are here to expose the works of darkness, "for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret". Their pedophilia and perversions were done in secret, and in darkness. When the light was shone in on their crimes against innocent children, they settled cases and everyone had to promise secrecy, both victim and perpetrator, so these horrible sexual crimes, could remain in the darkness, kept secret. The light has come into the world, and is exposing the things of darkness. Your choice is to come out into the light, or remain deceived, lied to and in darkness. Don't let hypocrites fool you. Liars only care about deceiving, as they are deceived.

  37. Dan says:

    I suggest all catholics should closely read 2 Peter chapter 2, False Teachers and Their Destruction, describing in detail your catholic hierarchy and it's destructive heresies. Our loving God, speaks very often in the Bible, of the characteristics of false cults, deceptive teachings and the deceivers and liars, interested in brainwashing their followers in order to keep them in the darkness. Don't let them convince you that I'm only here to trash catholicism. My work is to stand against any false teachings, the enemies of God, of Jesus Christ and basically anything of truth. Be ye not fooled by deception and deceivers. 

    • Dan says:

      Before publiar tries to twist and change what I'm saying, I'm against the false teachings and enemies of Christ and the enemies of basically anything truthful, which would include all the liars of your cult. Not against catholics, but against lying creeps, that happen to be catholic or of any other false religions.

  38. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list of comments as they appear on the site.

    Thus to JR’s of the 16th at 510PM:

    JR had a problem: once again readers had to be distracted as his ‘preferred narrative’ about the veracity of his allegation and the elements that worked against it were once again put forward.

    So what do we get?

    First a pearl-clutching J’accuse that I have put into his mouth an argument or claim he never made … but then he neglects to say exactly what his real position would be. I’ll stick with my characterization until he can put up material that will convincingly require a change.

    Then, “As an aside” – doncha see? – a commercial for his veracity: he must be “doing something right” because of all the “smoke that is continually being blown here”.  Actually, it’s because he’s doing or saying so much incredible stuff that so much assessment is aimed in his direction. His claim about “smoke” is the only “smoke” here, designed to distract from the gross incoherences in his material and claims.

  39. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Per Dan on March 17, 2017 at 12:20 am

    Dan has a problem with his own material. He seems to believe that I have falsely accused him of sliding off the rails with no proof of such a slide. He seems to think that I have based this slide on something I have never accused Dan of and that is that Dan is not a Catholic. Catholic or not, Dan has shown that he has issues and he has admitted that he has had issues and has strongly verified this on March 13, 2017 at 2:26 am. For those uninclined to click the link to find his own words here they are:

    “I have clearly stated four 5150 holds, went to six different hospitals, because twice I was transferred to a second hospital. That's FOUR 5150 HOLDS, four 5150 holds, 4 of 5150 holds.

    He can wave that away if he so chooses but it’s there for all to read.

    • Dan says:

      I made that statement to help publyin' with his reading comprehension. You two are excellent liars and slanderers, but seem to have problems with small numbers under 10. Born and baptised catholic, and now definitely not catholic. Tried many other christian religions, and found them to be spin-offs of the catholic church, with the same cowardice, hypocrisies, greed, perversions and at times, similar cloned liars like you two creeps.

  40. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Regarding all of the Catholic family and friends is concerned, he directs me to his post on March 16, 2017 at 4:54 pm. Dan claims he has no animosity towards Catholics. Well, as long as they are decent Catholics, nor does he have a desire to harm innocent Catholic children. What he deems to be “decent” Catholic people he does not define and the insinuation is that, if you are not decent, all the animosity Dan can muster up will be headed your way. As far as verbally or physically harming “innocent” Catholic children is concerned, I am sure Dan’s intention was not to harm anyone but four 5150’s and a stay in jail would lead one to believe that there was a cause for concern that Dan was going to harm somebody. Either himself or someone else. His performance had people concerned enough to call the authorities who then deemed it wise to apprehend Dan. He can claim it was all based on lies but for it to happen on four separate occasions, it sounds more like Dan just can’t help himself.

    Dan tells us he has a friend who is a judge and knows a former district attorney who has offered Dan free legal help and Dan has refused it. This begs the question, how serious are Dan’s issues for a judge and a former district attorney to offer free council to Dan? Why would Dan refuse their help? This does not sound like a rational mind at play here.

    Dan informs us that he has no problem standing up to the slew of Catholic liars on his own. We know how that story ends. Four times. Again, there was cause for concern on those four occasions to have Dan removed from the situation. He can spin it any way he so chooses. His inability to recognize his own issues that lead to these four situations further presents a picture that would lead one to believe that Dan’s accusations of lying Catholic creeps doesn’t hold water.

    • Dan says:

      1) Decent catholics wouldn't be deceitful, blatantly, lying ones. 2) All lies against me were misdemeanors, and not holding water. This is why I was able to fight them with no problem, and didn't want justice based on who I knew. Unlike "lying catholic creeps", which does "hold water", you and publyin' being perfect examples and evidence. And you two think you are examples of "rational minds", surely not by any biblical definition.   servant

  41. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Dan asks Jim on March 17, 2017 at 1:41 am  how many years has Jim been jousting with these lying fools and would further like to know if anything has changed and has there been in payoffs. The tort Attorneys would be glad to know that Jim’s story is right here on this website and not sitting on a witness stand. I don’t know how well Jim’s message would be received by a jury after Jim being cross examined. We have seen how he responds to a challenge here even when he has plenty of time to think, type and hit the post button before responding. I wonder how well he would do under pressure. Dan then continues with his usual anti Catholic script followed by a revelatory bit towards his mental state. Dan has an issue with Priests who would have the Gaul to defend themselves from a claim of abuse. Dan just knows their guilty despite any lack of evidence but Dan flat out denies any of his own issues when there is plenty of evidence pointing otherwise.

    • Dan says:

      You lying catholic creeps would fit well in our corrupt justice system. Judge, jury and hangman, catholic liars (some pigs), believed by catholic cops (one lying pig) and corrupt, one-sided judges, not seeking truth or justice, but only trusting in the lies of hypocrite priests, nuns, catholic deceivers and slanderers. Talk about a cartoon of ignorance.  servant

    • James Robertson says:

      Lol! Jimmy you're a laugh riot. You should be writing comedy or maybe you are.

      You invent trial scenarios where I wouldn't do so well. Lol! Bravo!

      But there's one funny little thing, when you are telling the truth. It's the truth.

      How other people take that truth or judge that truth or play with that truth is next to nothing to me. Why? Because I know it's the truth because it happened to me.

  42. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Dan has a prophecy for us on March 16, 2017 at 6:30 pm. After reading through this prophecy it easy to conclude that this prophecy has not come from above but has come from Dan’s self-serving mind. There is a nice progression in the message. He starts by asking about love and caring and then goes into Dan’s personnel testimony in the form of questions. Should Dan take the medication the Doctors prescribed to him or are they out to make a quick buck on him? Take the medication. Are the Police capable of discerning the righteous or the unrighteous? That’s not their job. Their job is to bring order to an unorderly situation and apprehend those who appear to be a concern to others. Finally, Dan blames God for not stepping in and correcting Dan’s unfortunate situation but Dan finds solace in knowing the God is going to do right by Dan and come down on those who have read Dan correctly. Dan’s hope is that he will one day stand in hell to see all those suffer who have read him correctly. That’ll fix em!

    • Dan says:

      Allow me to educate your disturbed, imaginary fantasy world of lies and insinuations, Jimmy, Mini-peewee. Absolutely, almost every accusation made against me was by catholic liars, just like yourself and publyin'. Is it necessary that insistent liars, must find some way to assume or accuse anyone who does not agree with their ignorant lies, think that others must be liars, similar to them. You'll be happy to know you've been wrong about my jail times and even more happy to know that I was sent to jail 6 times and not once. That should give you plenty more to falsely accuse me of. Why do you catholic liars not think the Bible has your lying asses pegged. Do you ever read it yourself, or just like the publiar, think you can twist it's meaning to fit your deceptive agendas. Why were the apostles and Jesus beaten and thrown in prison several times. You're not aware that the accusations were based totally on lies, insinuations and innuendo, just like yours. Jesus speaking in the beatitudes, before any trouble against His teachings occur, tells His true followers, after some deep and wonderful statements, the following. I'll give you the lines that pertain to you lying creeps, against any of the Lord's chosen, but maybe you ought to try to read the book for yourself.     Matthew 5: 3-12 Beatitudes  USCCB – (NAB) your catholic Bible

      10 "Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."    note: I did not add [falsely], before you liars accuse me of that.

      "Dan flat out denies any of his own issues when there is plenty of evidence pointing otherwise." Yours, publiar's, and your fellow catholic, lying, creeps lies, show NO evidence of anything except despicable, disingenuous hypocrisy, on all your behalfs.

      Sorry that I won't be able to join you blatant liars in "hell", and though you may deserve it, I don't believe I can find enjoyment in seeing anyone suffer Hell's eternal fire. Only thing I can say is, I tried my best to warn all of you. Maybe you'll be able to find some solace in the fact that your persecutions and lies helped to catapult me towards my God and Savior, and gave further proof that I was one of "His Chosen". You can watch from hell, while pointing towards me in heaven, saying, "That'll fix em!"      servant of the Just True God

       

    • Dan says:

      You can wish and hope that the prophecy came from "Dan's self-serving mind", just like your mentor, publiar. If you're going to play, Pete and Repete, why don't you put my name in quotes, like your hero (actually zero), and put quotes around my name, i.e. 'Dan' (He, Himself, God and Jesus), all packed in one. When are you going to start mocking and blaspheming God, His Son and the Holy Spirit? Don't miss God's description of you two and the hierarchy of your cult;  "Don't you think the Lord is fair and wants to do the right thing, with these fake people [liars]. You haven't realized yet? The Lord knows everything and can see right through you [creeps]." Now that's more like I would write it. You're fortunate that God is more forgiving of you "lying catholic creeps". Next time he sends a prophecy, I'll pray that He adds a little more fire and brimstone to His message, for you fools.

    • Dan says:

      And by the way, Jimmy, Know-It-All, the 2nd, police officers are supposed to discern between the righteous and unrighteous. That's why they brought me in and not the "threatening and cursing" liars of your Klan. You should do a little research on the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, how they're "to protect the innocent against deception. the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence and disorder, and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice." (Ca. Code of Ethics 3-2) If I was a coward and a tattle-tale, like your violent catholic cult members, I could have called the police on them, for their first threatening me and getting in my face. Instead I turned the other cheek, and the lying creeps falsely accused me of things I didn't do. I questioned the D.A.'s office as to why they don't follow their own Code of Ethics, and was told by several detectives and investigators, after they laughed and shrugged it off, "Yeah, we don't really abide by that." That's some justice. They feel they don't need to follow their own Code of Ethics. Similar to how your cult thinks they don't really need to follow God's Word, when they've forged their own idol-worshipping, catholic catechism, book for liars. Nothing could say it better than the book, Catholicism for Dummies. Bet you guys read and abide by it. Lyin' creeps.  servant

  43. Dan says:

    I'm going to clue you in on some of what happened to me, so you guys can move on to other ignorance and nonsense. The church that accused me of saying I want to kill them, sent me to one of my 5150 holds. Two weeks later, the police did a follow up visit to my accuser, and he admitted that, "Dan never said he wanted to kill me." I had already spent three days in the psyche ward, had to eat pig slop, the damage from the lie, already done. The DA's office didn't give me that information until 8 months later, and I have the statement of my accusers reversal, in writing from the follow-up visit. I have statements from court, where those who accused me of trespassing or screaming obscenities at children, had conflicting stories that differed from their original lies. Liars seem to somehow, sooner or later trip over their own tongues. If these lies hadn't insistently and repetitively happened to me, I would never had become so disappointed in the church. Add to that my original disgust with the pedophilia and child abuse and it's cover-ups, and you should understand my situation. Instead the two of you have added to the lies, slander, insinuations and innuendo, which I had already suffered from the church, the police who believed the false accusations of priests, nuns and liars, and a court system forced to believe all of the above. Injustice and hypocrisy at it's finest.  servant

    • Dan says:

      To this day, I have never threatened or physically harmed anyone. Have sought no revenge or damaged any properties, of those who falsely accused me. Am not a danger to myself or others. Take care of not only myself, but also my disabled friend. There was no legal basis to put me on any 5150 hold, aside from the fact that I defended myself, frustratedly explaining to the police officers that my accusers were lying. I even pointed out to the officers, that what they wrote as to my being a danger to myself and others was not true, and they told me it was just a formality. They believed lying priests and nuns and on a few occasions, a corrupt catholic cop and refused to listen to my side of the story. On one occasion they even told me, on a 5150 hold, I had no rights to give a statement and no phone calls whatsoever. Does this surprise any of you? My only wish is that you may someday walk in the shoes of the victims of your church, ones you refuse to believe, and have to suffer similar injustices. My heart goes out to the sexually abused children, who have had to suffer the undeserved humiliation and disgust, unjustly brought upon them by the church and it's hierarchy. No monetary amount would be sufficient to compensate for the damages done to them. Can't you at least show some true compassion and understanding?

  44. James Robertson says:

    Dan, would they have a site like this if they could do those things?

    Why do they behave so callously?.Because they with no proof believe victims are lying .

    Could they behave differently? Just aim a bit towards respect and impartiality in all this. It seems the either can not or will not. 

    Real people would be wavering back and forth between respect ,kindness,and doubt; and questions. And when asked, questions were answered and resolution should have been finally reached.  (Even if resolution meant agreeing to disagree, some respect would have been shown to us ). But no. I've seen no evidence here of them being able to show any respect to anyone but themselves. Pretty weird and very very unnatural and excruciatingly un-Christian.

     

    • Dan says:

      Well said, Jim. The only thing I can add, is your expecting common decency from a cult and it's followers that are not Christian. Thinking they're Christian in Word, but not in deed. Talking like they worship God and Jesus, when in reality worshipping the Queen of Heaven, their ever-virgin, ever-pure, full of mercy and grace, false goddess. Do not be fooled.

  45. malcolm harris says:

    We know that a boxer's training involves working out on punchballs. Figuratively speaking, I reckon that some journalists work out on Catholic priests. It's not hard to imagine the surprise of a boxer…. if the puchball hit back? So these journalists are bewildered that they now have to go on the defensive. Which brings me to Fr. Kenneth Kaucheck. Now normally the journos fight in the 'Court of Public Opinon'. In this particular court they are masters of the message, and the narrative. Even the meaning of some words. They always use the words 'child' and 'victim', even when the accuser is actually a middle-aged criminal, doing time for robbing banks. But the journos have to front up to a real court this time. In which there is an impartial judge and jury. Again figuratively speaking… a referee to penalize those foul punches. My prediction is that Fr. Kaucheck will win on points. But from the opposing corner will be heard curses.. and mutterings of "we wuz robbed". The journos will be sore losers. Knowing that   the resulting financial cost will anger their bosses.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, where you been? The church is all for the media, when they're advertising for donations, when they can brag on themselves for feeding the poor (unbiblical by the way), or when Papa hypocrite comes to town, but cross them and tell the truth about their hypocrisies, and they'll work on destroying you. Simlilar to how the hypocrites on this forum attempt to do. I'd love to see the church abide by the same standards, send pedophiles and creeps "to a real court this time", where "there is an impartial judge and jury." Quit handling cases within house, but I'm not sure that they haven't already corrupted our justice system. Seems like cops and judges refuse to listen to both sides and judge with fairness. Heard of several cases where the DA's didn't want to pursue charges against the holy, pure, catholic cult.  servant of Truth

  46. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Per Dan on March 18, 2017 at 9:45 am :

    “Absolutely, almost every accusation against him was by catholic liars”. I’m not buying the liar label but there should be no surprise that the people lodging a complaint against Dan would be Catholic being that Dan brought his show to a Catholic church. Not one time, but several times. How many times at this Catholic church remains to be seen but Dan provides information that would lead me to believe that it may be as many as six times. Like I have said, give Dan time and more of the truth will come out, he can’t help himself. To point it out that Dan has now been arrested six times will further label one a liar. Dan has proclaimed four 5150 holds and six incarcerations and we are to believe that Dan is the truth teller as to why he was apprehended?   

    On March 18, 2017 at 1:02 pm  Dan claims that he could have called the police on them, for their first threatening him and getting in his face. Instead he turned the other cheek, and the lying creeps falsely accused him of things he didn't do. Dan’s own material has got him in a pickle. He claims that he turned the other cheek but on March 13, 2017 at 2:55 am  Dan shows that he is not one to turn the other cheek. No, Dan dials it up and goes right back at you if you don’t like what he has to say and how he says it. He will make signs and protest outside of your church to garner a reaction.  When Dan gets the reaction he came to seek he will default to scripture and quote the beatitudes and in particular: 10 "Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

    The problem with Dan and his emphasis on [falsely] being accused is that we have only Dan’s story to go on. Based on that story and Dan’s own legal record, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that Dan’s version of the events and their corresponding results of incarceration don’t add up to Dan being a poor victim.

  47. Publion says:

    On the 18th at 1055AM (as with the rest of them as well) we are treated to yet further examples of what a nice tight fixed delusional system will do for you.

    Anyone who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff is “deceitful, blatantly, lying” (sic).

     The charges were all “misdemeanors” – soooo, it’s good – doncha see? – that there were no felonies and what’s the big deal?

    Also they were “not holding water”. But if they didn’t ‘hold water’ then on what basis did was he sent to court-ordered psychiatric observation those many times?

    That was “why [he] was able to fight them with no problem”. He has a court record rather longer than “the common man”, and the psychiatric record to boot. So the only way “easily” enters into it here is that – thanks to his fixed delusional system (and its accompanying and necessary deceit) – he can wave it all away with his magic ‘Dan’-wand.

    As to who is a “perfect example[s]” of what here, readers may consider and judge as they will.

  48. Publion says:

    Ditto the 18th at 1114AM, where once again ‘Dan’ simply waves it all away by blaming it on the usual suspects, i.e. everyone but ‘Dan’.

    Talking about a cartoon of truth and “servant”.

    • Dan says:

      Ditto to Matthew 5: 10-12  They will "falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me", for they are deceitful, blatant, lying, catholic forked-tongued snakes. Let's not forget mockers.

  49. Publion says:

    On then to the 18th at 945AM and here once again we simply get a rehashed compendium of all of ‘Dan’s excuses and self-serving, self-exculpating bits.

    Thus too the 18th at 1142AM. Which ends, nicely, with epithets, a ‘prayer’ and a threat. Even in ‘prayer’, ‘Dan’ is trashy, violent and aggressive.

    On the 18th at 102PM ‘Dan’ will slyly try to assert that police officers are “supposed to discern between the righteous and the unrighteous”. Not in the Western world they aren’t, no. Perhaps the Islamic Police of Virtue and Vice, which are sworn to uphold the theocratic law system of that culture and exercise the authority of the State as regards an individual’s soul as it is expressed in words and acts. But not here.

    Here, the police are supposed to distinguish between the law-breakers and the non-lawbreakers. And the police – and the courts – seem to have been of one mind as to where ‘Dan’ fits on that spectrum.

    Thus the police would only have violated the California Code of Ethics if we presume that ‘Dan’ was “innocent” and so on. And that would be a presumption that runs contrary to everything we have seen of ‘Dan’ here and – more importantly – against what the police and the courts and all those “hundreds” of people saw for themselves with ‘Dan’ right there on the hoof.

    As to ‘Dan’s story about what detectives and investigators told him, it’s just another ‘Dan’ story and readers may consider and judge as they will.

    • Dan says:

      Lies, liars and more lies. Even the catholic cop was a deceitful, blatant, lying, corrupt hypocrite. I was never, in any incident, accused of anything that was truth, so I wouldn't care if there were a million cases, if they all stemmed from lies from you catholic, disingenuous, nasty, evil creeps. It matters not how I answer to you phony liars, after being frustrated from all the obviously blatant lies and liars of your cult, priests, nuns, cops, layman and all you lying, insinuating douchebags in this forum. Believe whatever you want, because we will all have justice on Judgment Day, and you will rightfully pay for every lie and wicked slander ever spewed from your disgusting, deceitful mouth. Justice at last. Thanks be to God

  50. Publion says:

    And on the 19th at 1207AM ‘Dan’ continues with his rehash of his hash.

    The Church doesn’t have the legal authority to send anyone to a 5150 hold. Only courts do.

    As to ‘Dan’ story now about what his accuser later said, it’s just another ‘Dan’ story and readers may consider and judge as they will.

    But there’s the method in the madness again: if it weren’t for what was done to him (i.e. “the lies”) why … then ‘Dan’ would just have remained the very soul of sweetness and light. He’s a victim, doncha see? (But a heroic and truthy one, authorized by God to do what he does – that’s what a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will get you.)

    Oh, but and also as well … there’s ‘Dan’s original and abiding “disgust with pedophilia and child abuse” – so even without “the lies” ‘Dan’ was going to be in need of some object upon which to project … whatever it is inside that he needs to project outwards.

    • Dan says:

      " 'Dan'…He's a victim, doncha see? But a heroic and truthy one, authorized by God."

      Well said, maybe you're not the ignorant, disingenuous, lying jackass that I think you are.

  51. Publion says:

    And the same for the 19th at 1251AM where readers are welcome to consider ‘Dan’s pearly-clutching self-exculpations as they may.

    He was so ‘frustrated’ – doncha see? – because nobody could see through the “lies”. Alternative possibility: they all saw through the lies that ‘Dan’ has constructed about himself to evade the realities of his own issues. That – alas – is also what a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will get you.

  52. Publion says:

    And as to 17th at 1253PM: ‘Dan’ will try once again with the now-familiar I’m Not/You Are myah-myah bit, this time in regard to my point about clinical projection.

    But since he apparently doesn’t actually understand the dynamics of clinical projection, he hastily moves on.

    And on to what?

    To Mission Dolores, which ‘Dan’ claims to have visited some 30 years ago.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1253PM:

    He is apparently trying to cash in on the Irish cemetery matter, by claiming that he saw “the backyard” that was “full of infants buried at young ages” (can infants be buried at old ages?). The cemetery (or cemeteries, if you factor in all of the many phases of its existence) resulting from the several centuries of the Mission’s varied life (it was founded near the end of the 18th century) have been several times  moved by municipal development during the periods of both Mexican and American government control.

    It is not credible that ‘Dan’ came across a cemetery that was full of infant remains; the Mission at various times actually comprised entire farming and cattle-raising communities with all their residents and thus those cemeteries were the repository of deceased of all ages.

    Why would ‘Dan’ even try a gambit like this? First, to cash in – as I said – on the current Irish cemetery matter; and second – stunningly – as a way to work in the old anti-Catholic saw about secret cemeteries behind convents wherein the bodies of the nuns’ illegitimate children were buried.

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1253PM:

    But wait – it gets better, or rather more repellent:

    ‘Dan’ was informed – he claims – by “the nun in charge” that – get this – “these infants were part of the Irish Potato Famine”. But – in a question that reveals the abyssal depths of ‘Dan’s stupidity as well as mendacity – neither the nun nor ‘Dan’ – according to his story here – has an answer as to why “these infants” “weren’t buried in Ireland”.

    The Mission began its existence more than three-quarters of a century (five days before the American Declaration of Independence was signed, actually) before the Irish Potato Famine. The Irish driven to American shores by that Famine wound up mostly in city enclaves along the Eastern seaboard or a relatively short distance inland from the coast. Few if any would have made the then-laborious and dangerous trek or voyage to the West coast.

    The remains interred in any part of a Mission Dolores cemetery would not have been Famine Irish, let alone there being a cemetery “full” of unknown Irish babies and infants. They weren’t “buried in Ireland” because they were in California in the mid-19th century and they weren’t Irish to begin-with and would have been mostly Hispanic or Native American, with perhaps whatever smattering of folks who came out for the Gold Rush of 1849 might have wound up buried there.

    So much for this self-declared “servant of Truth”.  Abyssally stupid or whacko – readers may judge as they will; but unreliable and mendacious either way.

    • Dan says:

      Now you're going to blame me for the lies of a catholic nun. Guess that's no different than how you blame me for all the rest of your cult's lies, including yours and Jimmy Mini-pee. Looking forward to Judgment Day, and watching a stupid whacko try to lie his way past God. Maybe the way you're going, you'll just take the direct route to the Lake of Fire.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 120PM where – in an irony rendered sublime by his lack of awareness and self-awareness  – presumes to lecture the readership about “False Teachers”.

    Which – as usual – he presumes with no explication to be “describing in detail your catholic hierarchy and its destructive heresies”.  It could far more easily and credibly be taken to describe ‘Dan’ and his stuff.

    ‘Dan’s “work” – to repeat – is to a) evade his own abyssal infelicities by b) projecting them onto Catholics and religion generally and thus c) creating a cottage-industry for himself (or Himself) on the basis of the fixed delusional system he has built to further that purpose.

  56. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 219PM where he tries to preemptively neutralize any objections. But clearly – as we have just seen above – it’s much too late for that.

    One would have to presume that a) anyone who disagrees with ‘Dan’s stuff is fomenting “false teachings” and that b) such persons are “enemies of Christ” and that c) such persons are also – marvelously, in light of all of the above – “enemies of basically anything truthful”.

    That’s where a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will take you.

    • Dan says:

      Same answer as March 21 @ 12:37am

    • Dan says:

      Did not pay too much attention to this post the other day, but noticed your second paragraph, was one of your better assessments. Seeing that my teachings are in line with His Biblical truths and prophetic messages, one would have to rationally realize, and not presume, that your ABC's analysis is right on the money. Kudos to you, publyin'. Maybe you should try taking off your veil, and maybe, just maybe, you shall not perish. 2 Cor 4:3 servant

  57. Publion says:

    On the 19th at 401PM JR will once again try to move us to his ‘preferred narrative’ by presuming what we have seen a) not only to have been not-demonstrated on this site, but also what seems b) to be not the case.

    Not the case if we are to presume that the Church is and has always been rife with predatory pedophile priests.

    And if JR here is now trying to walk-back the Stampede scare-vision to something along the lines of “real Catholics” (nicely capitalized for a change, the alert reader will notice) simply want to “protect their real children” (do people have imaginary children?) and so forth … well, that’s nothing but a truism.

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 401PM:

    Nobody could deny that any parent would want to protect his/her children from such abuse.

    The question remains: just how much actual abuse was actually perpetrated? And that, but of course, is precisely the point and question that the Abuseniks and the ‘Dan’-voices want to evade, instead moving everybody quickly beyond that question into the deep, dark downlands of their own preferred scare/fever-visions.

    Thus while JR may position himself as being one with concerned parents, there remains the vast further scope of his allegations, assertions, claims, accusations, and pronouncements … where I wouldn’t say he is one with most Catholics at all.

    • James Robertson says:

      So what? I had 12 years of Catholic schools.

      I just returned from Ireland where the only people you see at church are mostly over 60. You've lost the young and you'll never get them back. You drove them away with your nonsense. It's so wonderful to see young people without the burden of Catholicism. Educated and free. Wonderful!  Religion is a trick. They start you with Santa and leave you with the Lord. Useless. And only viable for the tricked when fear of hell is used as the whip. What a horrific joke.

  59. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 19th at 422PM:

    Here he biddy-biddy-booms with ‘Dan’ about “dirty money” … and who would know more – and firsthand – about such a topic than JR?

    That then pretexts a riff on Catholics being the ones responsible by donating money to the Church.

    Responsible for what? Why – of course – for the preferred narrative of scare/fever-visions that is JR’s (and ‘Dan’s) stock in trade.

    And if you question those scare/fever-visions that are their stock in trade, why then you ‘excusing’ it all (i.e. all the scare/fever-vision stuff that we still aren’t sure happened to such depth and extent as those visions would claim and insist and presume).

    And – but of course, of course – the whole bit concludes with JR clutching the pearls and seeking the golden status of ‘victim’: both he and (with a generous tactical nod) ‘Dan’ are being ‘insulted’ because their stuff is questioned and the stuff doesn’t do well under questioning at all.

  60. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 19th at 449PM:

    Once again the chatty just-entre-nous bit. This time – as so often – to once again weasel in the idea that nobody has any proof that the Abuseniks here are “lying”. Readers familiar with this site can consult the record as to – surely – JR’s own challenged veracity in so many things, not excluding his own story.

    And once again the crocodile tears under the Wig of Exasperated Integrity: couldn’t all these people here “behave differently” by aiming “a bit towards respect and impartiality in all this”.

    Had JR and ‘Dan’ been indulged on that score, would we have seen the revelations that have over time been achieved here? Because “respect and impartiality” are precisely what neither JR nor ‘Dan’ demonstrate.

     The Game plan was: they’ll hold readers to convenient strictures of ‘charity’ and “respect and impartiality” while they themselves tossed up their scare/fever-visions with reckless vitriol and abandon, insisting that if we didn’t believe it all then we were merely ‘re-victimizing’ (JR) or ‘mocking God’ (‘Dan’).

    And, but of course, on the basis of being thus ‘re-victimized’ or ‘mocked’, they could then hold themselves blameless for demonstrating the levels of vitriol, mendacity, manipulation and outright whackness that we have seen and continue to see from them.

  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 449PM:

    He then lectures us on “real people” – and readers may go and get as much popcorn as they think they will need for the performance.

    In the face of the stuff that has been thrown in our faces here for so long “real people” may well decide that it’s all a plop-tossing game; and that readers’ decency is being presumed-upon in order to make piñatas out of them.

    But readers also have intelligence and that’s how all this stuff is revealed for what it really is.

    To imagine that even if she had hit a berg, Titanic is surely too advanced to be in real trouble was a legitimate stance in the first few minutes. But to insist on that possibility after she had begun to settle and list, and the engines stopped and the lights went out, would be the height of un-wisdom.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 449PM:

    But JR is bleating about maybe we could all “agree to disagree” … a cheap fallback position. And a pose.

    As is demonstrated in his effort to bring it all home: JR dons the Wig of Conceptual Integrity to declare that he hath “seen no evidence” … neither have we, and the burden is on the accuser making the allegations.

    And on top of that he then perches the Wig of Exasperated Truthiness to declaim and declare and pronounce that it is all so very very “unnatural” and – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – “excruciatingly un-Christian”.  Both JR and ‘Dan’ seem really put out that they are not Pope. But carry on as such regardless.

    What would happen – d’ye think – if they both were put at an equal distance from the Papal throne. Who would win? JR might win because he would handcuff himself to it; ‘Dan’ however might provide a more Scripturally-laden justification for his own candidacy. More popcorn, please. Much more.

    • Dan says:

      Why would Jim or myself want to rule over a cult of cowardly, lying, idol-worshipping, pedophile and perverted creeps. I'd definitely be running in a totally opposite direction.

  63. Dan says:

    And last, but definitely least, little Jimmy Mini-pee says, "I'm not buying the liar label". First off the liar label is not up for sale. It is a free gift from God, who sees through all liars, and I'm freely extending that gift, on my behalf, to the bunch of you hypocrites. I brought my "show", as you creeps like to rudely put it, to several denominations. Just seems lying catholics enjoy falsely accusing me, in order to cause me trouble.

    Sad thing that you will never understand, is that you can lie, slander and insinuate all you want, proves absolutely nothing, because I know the truth, and am able to dwell in an indescribable peace within, knowing my Father who knows all things, is laughing at all you lying fools and can't wait for your day of destruction. D-Day for liars.

    You claim I'm "not one to turn the other cheek". Someone gets in your face and threatens you with curses, and another man would have punched him in the face. I went back weeks later, with a sign truthfully describing several creepy liars, who were priests, corrupt cops and thugs from your cult, and I'm "not one to turn the other cheek?" CATHOLIC CHURCH, LIAR$, HYPOCRITE$, PEDOPHILE$, PARASITE$. Explain to me one word that doesn't fittingly describe your cult and hierarchy, you and publyin' included, and I'll change my sign. Maybe I should change my READ THE BIBLE, TRUST GOD, NOT CHURCHES and add PHONY or FALSE after NOT, to that sign.

    And you are right. I am not a poor victim. I am blessed, and the lies, persecutions and evil accusations of you lying creeps and your fellow lying cult members, have added to my rich blessings. All of you should be very proud of that. Maybe God can turn up the heat in hell for all of you, and I'll be glad to put in a good word for you.  servant of a Just God

  64. James Robertson says:

    Girl, you are obsessed with clutched pearls. Why, you mention them so often I'm beginning to think you're projecting.

  65. Dan says:

    Jim, If I wanted any of their dirty money, I'd have several opportunities to go after the cult and it's lying creeps for cases of both slander and libel, They can keep it all, as far as I'm concerned, and take it with all their material possessions, down to burning hell with them. As far as you or other victims of child abuse are concerned, I say there isn't enough money in the world, to rightfully compensate for all the horrible physical and mental trauma, victims had to suffer.

    Whether you're in agreement or not, I too am a true victim of this cult's lies and travesties. Have you ever spent an overnight stay in prison for 6-8 hours, standing because of my arthritis, among 2-4 drunks, pissing and getting sick on themselves. Did that 5 times, because of false accusations. Spent seven days for contempt of court, because a judge wanted me to admit to screaming obscenities at children, and I refused to admit to what was untrue. Did six psyche ward, hospital stays for 1-5 days. Have you ever lost your freedom, and had to stay in a hospital among the mentally ill, drugged out of their minds, with staff that is under the impression that everyone there is truly whacked and would prefer to treat you as such. Eat the pig slop for the amount of days I stayed in these places, when I'm used to eating some of the best home-cooked fresh meals. In jail with my arthritis, sleeping 7 days on a steel bunk with no more than a 1/4 inch of padding, before bottoming out on metal when I laid on it. All of these stays based on lies, knowing I was innocent of their accusations.

    You still don't think I have any right to defend myself, when I sometimes for days protested and defended the very crimes that you and other sexually abused victims suffered, and at times was incarcerated, through false accusations for doing that work. Really Jim? I know the cult enjoys lying against the innocent, in order to take the focus off of their own disgusting sins. They've painted you with the same brush, making you the poster child of a lying victim, only interested in taking from the cult's honestly deserved treasure. They are lying creeps, extraodinaire, and justice for their victims, as far as I'm concerned, would be to see their cult destroyed and implode upon itself, no longer able to lay a finger on another innocent child, all in the name of the One True catholic church. Hypocrites, liars, anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Satan worshippers. Those so-called "scare/fever visions", as publiar likes to accuse me of, quotes from the Word, some thousands of years ago, will definitely come to pass, whether they think so or not. They are perfect descriptions of a false apostate church, describing the whore sitting on the beast, down to the smallest detail, the colors, material greed and sexual perversions and pedophilia, along with it's ultimate destruction. Rev chapter 17-18  The church hierarchy are the ultimate "Wolves in Sheeps Clothing". Real, and no myth. Believe it!!

     

  66. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 740PM:

    Here – and once again, marvelously, no doubt unwittingly – ‘Dan’ reveals his scam: the “liar label”, which ‘Dan’ ladles onto the world with such reckless and vitriolic abandon, is i) “a free gift from God” and ii) ‘Dan’ is “extending that gift, on my behalf”. Thus ‘Dan’ is tarring so many as “liars” because it is God’s gift which ‘Dan’ is deploying on Dan’s own behalf.

    ‘Dan’, God, Dan’s behalf, God’s behalf … whatevvvverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.  The concepts and words get a tad mixed up here, but as I have said, concepts and words mean nothing to these types. If it seems to work for their plop-tossy agendas, then they’ll toss it up. And yet the scream on about how it’s everybody else who’s (fill in the blank) lying, mendacious, insulting, evil, un-Christian, manipulative, deceitful … and on and on.

    Thus  – again, marvelously – having just exposed his scam and his “show” without realizing it, ‘Dan’ then heads for the Victim-y high-ground by claiming that ‘Jimmy Mitchell’ is ‘rude’ for noticing it.

    • Dan says:

      I'm screaming on because you deceivers have closed your ears and refuse to listen to the words describing you lying creeps perfectly; Your hierarchy, publyin', Jimmy Mini-peewee and any of your cult's many liars – cowards, lying, insulting, insinuating, evil, un-Christian, manipulative, deceitful and let's not forget, unbelievers, mockers, idolators, anti-Christ, Satan worshippers, pagan thugs, hypocrites, parasites and your 'speshull' favorites, pedophiles and perverts. May I say guilty of just about every disgusting, disingenuous, horrible sin possible against the Lord Almighty. These are not lies or slander, but absolute truth, otherwise I would be as guilty as you compulsive liars. Repent and change, or suffer the consequences. Don't whimper and cry, while adding more reason for the Almighty God to rightfully destroy you. You've been warned, my conscience is clear. I will not respond to the rest of your garbage and ignorance, but will include you with Jimmy, your Mini-pee. servant

  67. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 740PM:

    And that first paragraph then concludes with yet another finely put demonstration of ‘Dan’s nice, tight, fixed delusional system: “lying catholics enjoy falsely accusing me, in order to cause [him] trouble”.

    I doubt very much that the muck ‘Dan’ peddles here got any better reception in any other “several denominations”, unless ‘Dan’ went to some of the whackier little bunches that pock the landscape out in California. No, he’s got it in for Catholics; probably because they were the first to notice just how off-the-rails he was to begin with.

    But we see once again the ridiculous presumption that such types as ‘Dan’ have to make (and  have to try to make everyone else make) in order to keep their own self-serving and self-preserving delusionary cartoons going: “hundreds” of people, and police, and judges are really just spending a lot of time and effort merely to … “cause [‘Dan’] trouble”.

    Once you’ve committed to that whackery, then the rest follows with increasing whackness as merely ‘the next logical step’: thus those Catholics are liars, and those Catholics represent all Catholics, and thus the Church is made up of liars, and on and on. The Stampede has been like catnip to these types.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 740PM:

    Thus then the pearly-clutchy snark as ‘Dan’ sheds crocodile tears that poor us “will never understand that you can lie”. Actually, what has ‘Dan’ riled up now is that it is becoming clear not only how much he can, but how much he does, lie.

    And then – with yet more marvelous self-ignorance – ‘Dan’ doth declaim and pronounce that he doth “know the truth” … “because I know the truth”, as he puts it with witless insouciance.

    And once you’ve gone over that bridge, then it collapses behind you and you are stuck on an ever-deeper journey into fixed-delusional-system-land.

    Demonstrated immediately by ‘Dan’s next bit of whackery: he doth dwell – doncha see? – “in an indescribable peace within” (because he doth “know the truth” and he and God are pretty much either on the same page or consist of the same paper).

    And can anyone read ‘Dan’s material in the record here and seriously imagine that they are seeing the fruit of the interior life of one who doth “dwell in an indescribable peace within”? The material is ranting vitriolic violent and threatening – and not particularly intelligent either. That’s what a nice, tight, fixed delusional system will get you.

    And – pitch-perfectly – this self-proclaimed paragon of peacefulness ends the paragraph with a cocktail of epithet and threat.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 740PM:

    Then the next paragraph just tries to again make the case that ‘Dan’ only does what he does because he was ‘threatened’ “with curses” … leaving unstated just why somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) out of a clear blue sky would suddenly start threatening and cursing … presuming, of course, that the threat-and-curse story is veracious to begin-with. And on and on.

    There is little use trying to ‘explain’ anything to ‘Dan’, even when he has purposely donned the Wig Of Honest Inquiry, because that Wig is perched on a head that is long and far gone into a fixed delusional system that requires a fundamental and almost total commitment to self-serving and self-preserving deceit and untruth in order to keep itself going.

    That’s what I would say the clinicians saw during the 5150 holds, and ‘Dan’ remains at liberty (presuming he is truthful in that claim) merely because he hasn’t done enough (yet, anyway) to justify the requirements of state law and the expenditure of that state’s increasingly scarce resources in committing him.

  70. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    On March 19, 2017 at 12:51 am Dan claims he never threatened or physically harmed anyone and that there was no legal basis to put him on a 5150 hold. I’m sure Dan’s intention was not to threaten or physically harm anyone but the delivery of his performance at the Church concerned enough people to believe that Dan just might harm someone hence his 5150. Dan tried in vain to point out to the arresting police officers that he was not a danger to himself or others. I wonder how many stories an arresting police officer has heard in his lifetime that the person they have apprehended “didn’t do it”. It was also unfortunate for Dan that one of the “lying” Catholics just so happened to be an off-duty police officer. Oops, on a few occasions. How many occasions would that be? This officer who witnessed Dan’s charade didn’t see things the way Dan did either. Once again, not to put too fine a point on it, on a few occasions. It should come as no surprise that the officers on duty took the word of the “Catholic” cop instead of Dan’s and, more than once. For Dan not to see an issue here is quite telling. A rational individual would have learned their lesson the first time they ran into legal issues. I can see the individual making the same mistake twice but when you get to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth time, then it’s obvious that we are not dealing with a rational individual.  

    Dan, ever the victim, wishes that I can someday walk in the shoes of the victims of my church, the ones I refuse to believe. And who might that be? Dan? What’s not to believe about Dan’s story other than his glossed over recollection of why he was arrested six times. He ends by trying to manipulate himself into the sexual abuse scandal and ends with a question and plea that I show, at least, some compassion and understanding. I guess if you don’t buy Dan’s story then you are not compassionate and understanding. If it’s compassion and understanding that he desires, then I might suggest he tell a believable story.

    • Dan says:

      I wasn't asking, nor do I expect compassion or understanding from you or publiar. I was asking that you might show that respect to the sexually abused victims of your cult. You two think nothing your opponents say is "believable", obviously witnessed by how you feel you must dispute almost every sentence or idea, whether you're right or wrong. "Deceiving others, while being themselves deceived".   servant of an Honest God

  71. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    On March 20, 2017 at 7:40 pm reveals more of the truth. Give Dan time. Dan has brought his show to several denominations and it was only the Catholic’s who falsely accused him. Dan’s own witness and testimony on this website displays a Dan who is not so nice to Catholics. If Dan received some push back from his performance, he surely is to blame for that. If a Jehovah Witness comes to your door and you ask them to leave and not come back, they do so and will leave you alone. Ask Dan to leave and not come back? You just brought the reign of God upon you and Dan will deliver His fury. But, Dan will need time to think and consult God before retruning weeks later. Could this have been after one of his many stays behind bars or possibly after one of his 5150’s? Time will tell. Dan can’t help himself and will go after you if you don’t like what he has to say and how he says it. No worries though, Dan will whisper in God’s ear to let Him know who should go to hell. Who is Dan serving?

    • Dan says:

      You ask, "Who is Dan serving?" A just, loving, kind and forgiving God, who is also a vengeful, wrathful, punishing and powerful God. Your own actions, be as they may, will determine which one you'll stand before, come Judgment Day. The only one who may "whisper in God's ear", will be Jesus Christ, hopefully he can become your only mediator by then.

  72. Publion says:

    There’s not much to deal with in the current crop, or much that isn’t – in a way no doubt unintended – self-revelatory.

    But ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1235AM is of some interest: caught in his Mission Dolores baloney, ‘Dan’ now claims that he is being victimized and ‘blamed’ “for the lies of a Catholic nun”.
    So here’s Dan’s bit (neither the bit nor its sub-bits should be presumed veracious, but let’s assume he is telling the truth): he went to the Mission / he saw a graveyard full of remains / a “nun in charge” told him that they were Potato Famine babies / but neither she nor ‘Dan’ can explain why they weren’t (taken back to be) “buried in Ireland”.

    Readers so inclined may accept that there would be a “nun in charge” so uninformed as to say that they were Potato Famine babies.

    But then ‘Dan’ says that she perpetrated “lies” upon him … and … that sounds familiar: ‘Dan’ seems to continually run into strangers who for no reason whatsoever “lie” to him or about him and then that explains why he always gets stuck with the ‘blame’(and it’s a lengthy record of such ‘blame’).

    He cawn’t think why anyone could imagine there could be any other explanations except “lies”.

    At this point I don’t consider ‘Dan’s whackness to be in question; but I think it worthwhile to point out the habitual and pervasive mendacity that must of necessity accompany such a fixed delusional system.

    • Dan says:

      This accusation is absolutely ridiculous, publyin'. The nun told me something that was false. I don't know if she personally knew different and lied, or she just didn't know the truth of how the children got there.  Either way, I didn't get upset with her at all and just walked away. I never used the word, "perpetrated" lies. For you to write a page of nonsense and once more connect it to my imaginary problem of FDS, is ignorance and stupidity. How 'bout getting yourself a life and find something constructive to do with your wasted time. Maybe you can start a cartoon liars show and hit it rich, before your Judgment Day.   servant

  73. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    As per Dan March 21, 2017 at 2:29 am as if on cue, give Dan time and he will reveal more of the truth, Dan claims he could have sued the Church for libel and slander but didn’t want their dirty money. Really? This coming from someone who has friends in high places like a former district attorney and a Judge. No, if Dan had a case he would have taken the doe. But scanning further down we see why Dan doesn’t have a case. Amongst Dan’s six incarcerations and four detentions for mental issues, he has now spent seven days in jail for contempt of court. I’m guessing the Judge is a Catholic creep? Dan reveals that the judge insisted that Dan admits he was screaming obscenities at the children in the school yard. When Dan refuses to admit to something he claims “he didn’t do” we are to believe the judge threw him in jail for that. Could there be an alternative reason as to why a judge, on top of the hundreds of witnesses including priests, nuns, police officers and teachers, saw something about Dan that deserved a stay behind bars. I’m guessing there was something that happened in the court room that was on par with Dan’s performance at the Catholic school and the Catholic church. Cue Jeopardy music.   

  74. James Robertson says:

    Dan, I'm just guessing here but I think P's trying to cast aspersions on our masculinity.

  75. Dan says:

    Not a scam, show, performance, cartoon or fantasy, Stampede, Abuseniks, or any other cute names, you two can dream up to support your deceiving agenda. I will let the Lord's Word do the speaking, I'm so tired of responding to either of you deceptive creeps.

    "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."  Rev 22:11

    Now I lay no claim to righteousness or holiness, and responding to you two has admittedly brought out some of my worst, yet I do believe that I have every God given right to defend myself against lies and liars. However the first half of this verse defines you and your wicked cult to a tee.

    unjust def. – characterized by injustice, dishonest, unfair or not morally right http://www.yourdictionary.com/unjust - just happened to use the word in a sentence: If an innocent man is found guilty because the police lied, this is an example of an unjust verdict. Just happened to describe some of what transpired against me, based on your cult of liars.

    filthy def. – foul, disgustingly or completely dirty, vile; obscene, contemptibly offensive. Couldn't better describe the pedophiles and perverts of your cult, and I'll leave it to God to decide how he feels about the bishops, popes, RAT-zingers, publiars and his Mini-liars, who think it's their responsibility to make excuses, defend and enable the creeps to carry on with their disgusting nastiness.    servant of the Lord of Justice and Truth

    P.S. publiar – Where did you acquire such a knowledge of a fixed delusional system. Was that as a slimy-troll, under the porch, peeking up the dresses of your committed, pedophile priests?

  76. Dan says:

    "Instead, we have renounced secret and shameful ways. We do not practice deceit, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by open proclamation of the truth, we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake."  2 Corinthians 4:2-5

    No secret or shameful ways, deceit, dishonesty or lies, nor do we distort, manipulate or change the word of God.  servants of the Lord our God

  77. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list of the most recent as they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 229AM:

    With all this brouhaha about how ‘Dan’ has been lied about and slandered and so on, yet he won’t resort to legal action (as ‘Jimmy Mitchell’ points out). And why not? Why rant on about it when you can sue?

    As for the  very unpleasant jail stays, I point out again that the primary point is whether he was ‘unjustly jailed’ or simply ‘jailed’ – readers can consider the answer to that point as they may.

    Did he find it distinctly unpleasant? Perhaps he shouldn’t do things that land him in jail (especially since he also has “arthritis”). But that would require living alone with his issues (and perhaps dealing with them) and he’s developed a different plan: project outward, blame others, and construct the fixed delusional system that will ‘justify’ it all.

    And then he lets another goodie out of the bag: he was jailed for contempt and it had something to do with the accusation by witnesses that he was “screaming obscenities at children”. Which accusations seemed probable to the court, which also would have had access to ‘Dan’s record and also to ‘Dan’ on the hoof as an actual physical presence, which – as I have said – is probably even more scary than ‘Dan’ on the internet.

    • Dan says:

      Believe I stated before, that I was not interested in your cult's filthy, dirty money. I'm not a coward, tattle-tale or out to seek my own revenge. I'm leaving that up to my Creator, so He can take full vengeance and wrath, for the lies, slander and false accusations, cast upon me from the whole bunch of you compulsive liars. In this way you'll all have something to look forward to. I wouldn't want you to be disappointed, come Judgment Day.  servant

    • Dan says:

      Isn't it just ironic, how the lying accusations against myself are probable, and yet you think you can convince everyone, that the true accusations against the pedophiles, perverts and creep excusers like yourself, must be analyzed and questioned, before you come to the wrong conclusion that they must be false. And this is why my labeling you all lying, disingenuous, disgusting creeps, is nothing short of deserving and truth. Deal with it!    servant

  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 229AM:

    ‘Dan’ – naturally, in light of the demands of his fixed delusional system – just ‘knows’ he “was innocent of their accusations”. He may believe that or he may not, but there’s no way that any third-party (such as the readership here) has any way of “knowing” he was “innocent”.

    Thus to there’s no way any third-party (such as the readership here) can legitimately accept ‘Dan’s assurance that it’s only all about his “right to defend [himself]”.

    And we see again how the inherent mendacity required by his system confuses him: he here now claims that he “defended the very crimes” that he usually clams to be against.

    And then more Scripture, again trying to hornswoggle Scripture into supporting the necessary mendacities of his fixed delusional system.

    And it all ends in a threat and epithet, claiming – as usual = that it is all “real, and no myth” and you’d all better “Believe it!”. In other words, believe not Scripture necessarily at all, but rather ‘Dan’s use of it for his own system’s purposes.

  79. Publion says:

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1058PM:

    Once again, we merely get a riff that requires that one presumes ‘Dan’s presumptions as to what are “words describing you lying creeps perfectly”.

    As to what describes ‘Dan’ perfectly – or at least pretty substantially – well, it’s either the rabbit-hole of his preferred narrative and his fixed delusional system or else it’s the fact that he’s pretty much gone around the bend because he hasn’t got the courage to face up to himself and his issues.

    He’s “screaming” because he has to make us believe in his fixed delusional system too, in order to a) get back at the people that have already realized what he is and to b) keep making noise so as to drown out what’s inside.

    All this would be his personal soap-opera or struggle, except that the solution he has devised requires projecting his issues outward and impugning the targets (Catholics, largely) that he has selected for that projection.

    And at this point his prayers will include that “God destroy” those who don’t buy his stuff. A real soul of sweetness and light dwelling in an indescribable inner peace … indeed.

  80. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 115AM:

    Once again – as we have also seen with JR – ‘Dan’ will try here to reduce his many allegations and stories and claims from the conceptual to the personal, referring to “compassion and understanding”. Those two traits are – according to the Playbook of both Victimism and of ‘Dan’s fixed delusional system (from here on: FDS) – designed to sidestep the abyssal problems with their material and instead designed to manipulatively play upon readers’ or listeners’ sense of charity and decency.

    There’s something of the sociopathic in all of this (to use a term JR likes to toss at doubters and questioners): the strategized distracting appeal to emotion designed to overcome the many conceptual problems with the material and the questions those problems quite naturally prompt.

    And it’s not a matter of whether one does or does not choose to “think” that the material is “believable”. It is a matter of whether the material, when rationally considered, does or does not demand doubt and further questions simply because of that material’s inherent non-credible elements.

    And – as so often – ‘Dan’ huffs and puffs against others in regard to a warning that he might best apply to himself: “Deceiving others, while being themselves deceived”.

  81. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 1237AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates that he has stitched together two strands of Scripture in just the way necessary to further the purposes of his FDS: God is “just, loving, kind and forgiving” (that’s the front’ that ‘Dan’ likes to present to the world) and God is also “vengeful, wrathful, punishing and powerful” (that’s the real ‘Dan’, except for the “powerful” part, but no doubt he likes to think of himself that way). ‘Dan’ surely reveals himself here as being indeed a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

    And it all ends with a threat.

  82. Publion says:

    Then on the 21st at 816PM JR will try to change the subject to something less conceptual and more in the plop-tossy line that is his natural level of operation: I am “trying to cast aspersions on our masculinity”. JR’s “masculinity” is what it is, existing on a spectrum somewhere between pearl-clutching and a shotgun.

    JR might want to be concerned less about his “masculinity” and more about his maturity.

  83. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1151PM:

    ‘Dan’ still hasn’t realized – nor can allow himself to, if the requirements of his FDS are to be met – that the problem here isn’t with either God or Scripture but rather with ‘Dan’s manipulative use of God and Scripture.

    His pericope in the second paragraph slyly requires that one accept ‘Dan’s presumption and preferred narrative as to just who is “filthy” and who is “righteous”. And it’s that presumption (and not the pericope itself) that is the problem here.

  84. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1151PM:

    Then a pose in the third paragraph: he doth “lay no claim to righteousness” … and yet he recently bethumped the police in a comment here precisely because they were supposed to recognize and distinguish between the “righteous” and the “unrighteous” and clearly ‘Dan’ cast himself in the role of the righteous in that scenario. The ball of ‘truth’ keeps bouncing like a football in ‘Dan’s stuff.

    Nor do I think – this old bit again – that it is only because of the irritation of “responding to you two” that ‘Dan’ has revealed “some of [his] worst” here. ‘Dan’s “worst” is the actual ‘Dan’ – for which all the pious, sweetness-and-light Christian and Scriptural posing is simply the sheep’s-clothing.

    The dictionary definitions here are thus irrelevant to the main point at issue.

  85. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1151PM:

    ‘Dan’ here will try again with his myah-myah I’m Not/You Are bit: this time, in regard to how I come to know so much about FDS’s. The idea of getting an education and learning about such things apparently hasn’t occurred to him.

    Instead, he dreams up the concluding epithetical bit that makes no sense whatsoever, but is nicely revealing about ‘Dan’s mentation nonetheless.

  86. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 850AM:

    But it’s just another pericope, once again shoehorned into the service of ‘Dan’s FDS, i.e. that ‘Dan’ doesn’t i) practice “deceit, dishonesty or lies” nor does he ii) “distort, manipulate or change the word of God”.

    I’d say that it’s pretty clear that ‘Dan’ does all of (a) and that in regard to (b) he mis-applies the word of God for his own purposes and the requirements of his FDS.

    • Dan says:

      It's apparent that you forgot your Bible study, I suggested, perfectly describing your cult, so I'll gladly assist you by pointing out the highlights to get you started, and we'll see who mis-applies the word of God. – 2 Peter 2

      "False teachers will also sneak in and speak harmful LIES to you. But these teachers don't really belong to the Master who paid a great price for them, and they will quickly destroy themselves. Many people [1.1 billion?] will follow their evil ways and cause others to tell  LIES about the TRUE WAY. They will be GREEDY and cheat you with smooth talk. But long ago God decided to punish them, and God doesn't sleep. God punished the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and this is a warning to anyone who wants to sin. The Lord is especially hard on people who disobey Him and don't think of anything except their own FILTHY desires. [Couldn't better describe your cult of compulsive pedophiles and perverts, their excusers and enablers.] They are reckless and proud and are not afraid of cursing the glorious beings in heaven. They speak evil of things they don't know anything about. [These 2 previous sentences couldn't better describe publiar, Know-Nothing, proud mocker of truth.] But their own corrupt deeds will destroy them. They have done evil, and they will be rewarded with evil. There is no end to their wicked deeds. They trick people who are easily fooled, and their minds are filled with greedy thoughts. They brag out loud about their stupid nonsense. When they learned about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they escaped from the FILTHY things of this world. But they are caught up and controlled by these FILTHY things, and now they are in worse shape than they were at first. They would have been better off if they had never known about the right way. Even after they knew what was right, they turned their backs on the holy commandments that they were given."

      "A dog will come back to lick up it's own vomit. A pig that has been washed will return to roll in the mud."

      Don't allow deceivers, who couldn't care about breaking any commandment of God, LIE in order to achieve their wicked goals and agenda. Worshipping idols instead of God, compulsive liars, thieves of men's souls, more fithy than adulterers, pedophiles and perverts, having no problem disobeying the Almighty God, in order to protect their Immoral Cult of Hypocrites. Truly "Wolves in sheeps clothing". Don't be foolish enough to believe the lyin' fools.

  87. Dan says:

    You may as well be talking to yourself, with your repetitive lies against me. And I don't think your cute little abreviation, FDS, will work, because they've already been applied to you and jimmy Mini-peewee. False Deceptive Sinners or Fake Deceitful Snakes. You pick one and your clone, Jimmy Mini-peewee will want that one and you can take the other label. I also notice you've been leaning on your "I'm Not/You Are" bit an awful lot, lately. Is your material becoming weak, or are your lies and cowardice, just becoming stronger?   servant

  88. Dan says:

    You creeps may want to save your slew of compulsive lies, because I think it's time we do one of your indepth studies and lying assessments in regards to Fr. Inzoli (AKA "Don Mercedes"), just one of the numerous guilty creeps of your cult. I'll laugh while you think you can lie your way out of that rabbit hole, Alice. Quit playing stupid and ignorant. It's not a good look for you. I'll be waiting for your nonsense and garbage. And don't forget, when you're cornered, you can always fall back on the insistent, repetitive lies you've put on me.

  89. Dan says:

    Actually, the Scripture and verse is a perfect fit for you, slips right on with no "shoehorn" needed, so if the shoe fits you should just wear it. No exchanges, returns, or trying to put the shoe on the other foot, with your consistent "I'm Not/You Are" bits. I call it imitation Lyin', Mock-in suede, fake and fraudulent in every aspect, and fits you perfectly. servant

  90. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Per Dan on March 22, 2017 at 1:15 am he would like to deflect the issues I have seen with his material and try to play on emotions. He prefers that I move along, there’s nothing to see here, despite the huge pile of wreckage from his story.  It would be so much better for Dan that I just believe that the huge wreck in front of me is not his own fault despite his holding the bent steering with hundreds of witnesses pointing at Dan as the cause. He has a problem with the way his material has been analyzed. He prefers that his story be accepted despite all the obvious questions his material has generated as to the veracity of his claims. There is truth to Dan’s story, his being arrested, sent away on four 5150’s, one contempt of court and that huge pile is not so easily explained away by Dan as it all being “based on lies”.

    Then on March 21, 2017 at 11:51 pm he claims he is tired of responding to either of us deceptive creeps. There is deception but it does not come from the outside of Dan’s story, it comes from Dan himself. His deception is not in the details but in the cause. To further illustrate my reasoning, Dan claims that having to respond to Publion and myself has caused us to bring out the worst in Dan. Dan will justify this behavior by claiming that he has a God given right to defend himself against lies and liars. Dan is unable to take responsibility for his own actions by laying the blame for his conduct on Publion and myself. Anyone who has children has dealt with an angry child who blames their poor behavior on the person who has made them mad. We have seen how Dan reacts when he gets mad. All the material needed to see this comes from Dan’s himself and it is available on this website for anyone to read and assess. Dan has all the time in the world to respond to comments made about his material. There is plenty of time to read what has been posted and plenty of time to think about how to respond before hitting the post button. Despite this, we have not seen the best of Dan or we have seen Dan as he truly is.

    • Dan says:

      The apostate cult and publiar must be really proud of you, Jimmy, they have groomed a Mini-pee liar, that's just as bad or possibly worse than the rest of the fakes and frauds of your cult. You can try to deceive and blame all this on myself, when you should see by your own example, that your cult is possibly plagued with as many liars, as pedophiles and perverts. After all, you realize it took millions of lies to cover up and make excuses for the disgusting issues of the creeps in your cult. After a while you even have to start making up lies to cover for your lies. The train left the station centuries ago and headed for it's destination, and it's not going to be a pretty one.

      I would have no problem with my story being analyzed or assessed, but when blatant liars think they can imagine, guess or expound, think plausible or most probable, to previous lies and stupid untrue theories, then we have a problem, and it surely isn't mine. The snowball of lies has reached close to maximum, and the Almighty is waiting to see how it will hold up in His fire and brimstone. The "lies" are the "huge pile", and you creeps are going to be the ones who will be doing all the explaining. You better hope it's not in front of God, because he has the truth, as sure as you liars show your ignorance, nonsense and stupidity.

      If I had done anything close to what I was falsely accused of, I would have no problem taking blame. I know what is the truth, and I have total faith in my Creator that I will receive justice from you lyin' creeps fairly soon. He's never let me down yet, and when you see that justice fall upon you, remember just why it happened. You deceivers will never be able to get me out of your head, and you'll forever remember the warnings from the Lord's Word, against all the liars and perverts of your cult.   servant of a just and vengeful God

  91. James Robertson says:

    And the sham continues: SNAP and their issues are no longer the topic but Dan and his faith are the topic. How surprising not.

    • Dan says:

      Can't agree with you more, Jim. How about checking out some of my faith. God has an open door and is willing to listen. He won't turn His back on you or stab you in the back, like we witness with the frauds of this so-called, one true church. There's a place of forgiveness and peace, that these sickos can only imagine, and yet can't come close to knowing how God can give a peace, in the midst of your enemies, even wicked, deceiving ones. Your choice. God's peace and understanding, or a catholic, living hell. Of course, I know you prefer atheism, but I fail to see any benefit to that, other than not belonging to any false religions.

  92. Dan says:

    Have you catholics ever given thought to the fact that your church boasts mostly of visions of mary. Did it ever cross your mind that the Creator, God of Miracles, just may be sending followers false visions of the goddess you happen to worship. I almost never hear any news or boasting of a vision of Christ. EWTN, the catholic TV and radio station is always talking and bringing glory to the ever-virgin mary, claimed "Queen of Heaven*", constantly. Lying creeps in this forum want to make you believe that I hate all catholics, and there is nothing further from the truth. I'm not interested in seeing anyone go to hell, and I wouldn't be investing all this time if that was so. I have absolutely nothing to gain, in telling others to read the Bible and find the truth. It will lead you on an amazing journey with the God who loves you like no other, and gets no thrill from seeing His people lost and deceived by hypocrisy and liars. Don't let the wicked followers of Satan fool you, for that is his and their ultimate goal. They failed and their only interest is bringing the lost down with them. 

    *Jeremiah 44, Explains God's disgust with those who worshipped the "Queen of Heaven". They burned incense and made cakes in the form of the moon (Communion host). Their monstrance houses the sun, held in place by a crescent moon. Pagan worship of sun and moon and everything that is in opposition to God, Our Creator. Read it before saying I'm wrong.

    • Dan says:

      "Do not allow yourselves to be condemned by anyone who claims to be superior because of special visions and who insist on false humility and the worship of angels. For no reason at all, such people are all puffed up by their human way of thinking."   Col 2:18  (GNB)

      "Don't be cheated by people who make a show of acting humble and who worship angels. They brag about seeing visions. But it is all nonsense, because their minds are filled with selfish desires."   Col 2:18  (CEV)

  93. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    On March 25, 2017 at 1:08 pm  Dan claims he would have no problem with his story being analyzed or assessed. His material has been analyzed and assessed but the conclusion based off his material do not lead to where Dan prefers they lead. When Dan doesn’t like the conclusions made based off of the information he has provided he will add you to the list of the hundreds of lying creeps who he believes are out to get him. He further claims he would have no problem taking blame for what he has been accused of but this certainly is not accurate. Dan refuses to take responsibility for his actions and his testimony all over this website attests to that.  

    • Dan says:

      This is all I have to say, to all the lying hypocrites of your apostate cult -

      "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar, and the father of all lies."  John 8:44     catechism of the catholic church in a nutshell

      Father of all cowards, greedy, unbelieving, hypocrites, sexually immoral, idolators and above all liars, and those who love the lie. There's shall be the Lake of Fire.  servant of Justice

  94. Dan says:

    "Theirs[sic] shall be the Lake of Fire.", for Mr. Know-It-All.

  95. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list in the order that the comments appear on the site, although not all of them need be discussed.

    On the 24th at 1204AM ‘Dan’ tries to have a go at the problem of – as he nicely puts it – his “lying accusations”: all of the conclusions drawn about him are “probable” , while all of his accusations against the Church and priests and so on are not taken for “true” but rather are “analyzed and questioned”.

    Once again he tries to personalize the conceptual – the better to distract from the conceptual problems with his material.

    I have pointed out consistently and constantly why the problems with his material make his assertions and claims improbable (if not also impossible) while the revelations about his own position are – by the material he himself has submitted – quite probable.

    • Dan says:

      Your sly usage of terms, "probable" and "plausible" and "possible" in no way mean the truth. Anymore than my accosting, haranguing and harrassing, and your repeating these accusations make them come true. Yours and all your Minis, dreamed up scenarios and fantasies in this forum, does not in anyway change the beautiful message the Lord had for the children. And being they were catholic kids, that's further proof that I have no hate for any decent catholics. Would like to see adult catholics leave the apostate cult, but that would have to be their decision. On the other hand, I can't say that I have some great love, for those who have insistently accused myself and others, with lies, slander and nasty insinuations, especially when they also are the biggest, lying defenders and excusers for the pedophiles and perverts of the cult. Anything I've quoted from the Word or any harsh things I've said, are meant to bring change or repentance from those heading down the wrong path. Obviously, from what we've seen from the repetitive, lying creeps of your cult, those probabilities, plausibilities or possibilities of change, range from slim to none.   servant of a God, offering forgiveness for the truly repentant

  96. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1204AM:

    ‘Dan’s first presumption – of course – is that all of his accusations are “true”. He cawnt’ see how anyone can doubt or question that. And his even more fundamental presumption is that he is as sane and normal and truthful as anybody and is also acting under the authority and speshull guidance of God.

    That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

    And he manipulatively creates a straw-man position that is not mine, i.e. that analysis and questioning of his myriad accusations must inevitably “come to the wrong conclusion that [his accusations] must be false”. As I have said, each case or claim must be examined on its own, in light of the deranging effect of the Stampede.

  97. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 144AM:

    Here we must presume that ‘Dan’ was “perfectly describing” Catholicism, and that’s a presumption that I don’t gratuitously make.

    He will then – of course – try to bolster his bit here with a pericope, this time the second chapter of the Second Letter of Peter. But, once again, the presumption here remains: that what the Letter is talking about and what ‘Dan’ is talking about are the same thing.

    But it is surely equally possible (if not also probable) that the “false teachers” reference could apply – not to put too fine a point on it – to ‘Dan’.

    As always, in order to read the text and come to ‘Dan’s conclusions (and his ‘truth’) one would first have to accept ‘Dan’s presumptions.

  98. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1105PM:

    Again, nothing but the same old claim that the points indicating the high probability of his inaccuracy (and mendacity) are merely “repetitive lies against [him”.

    Then some childish word-play: he has taken my abbreviation of Fixed Delusional System, FDS, and come up with his own epithetical, I’m Not/You Are game.

    And he has noticed that I have been referring to the “I’m Not/You Are” bit quite a lot lately. That would be because ‘Dan’ has been retreating to that juvenile ‘comeback’ gambit quite a lot lately. Which is hardly surprising, given the weakness of his material and the hugely damaging revelations he unwittingly provides every time he tries to further spin his web.

  99. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 108AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ doth piously bleat that he “would have no problem with [his] story being analyzed or assessed, but …” – doncha see? – when the analysis and assessment yield information and material that doesn’t support the cartoons constituting ‘Dan’s FDS, then it’s all just “blatant” lies and so on and so forth.

    And the epithetical riff chugs on from there.

    Has “the snowball” gone and “reached close to maximum”? I would say that we have gotten pretty close to the core of the ‘Dan’ issue here, but we’re dealing with an FDS so it won’t be stopping any time soon.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 108AM:

    And then another pious bleat: he would “have no problem taking blame” if he indeed “had done anything close to what [he] was falsely accused of” but – doncha see? – he didn’t do any such things so he needn’t be taking any blame whatsoever at all. Bottom line: ‘Dan’s doesn’t lie, everybody else involved does.

    And then – from the ridiculous to the sublime – ‘Dan’ doth allow as how “You deceivers will never be able to get me out of your head”. I don’t speak for the readership, but I can assure him that I will be able to do so; he’s just another – if somewhat florid – example of a textbook case.

  101. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 24th at 458PM:

    The ‘Dan’ exchanges are a “sham” – doncha see? – while the readership is thereby distracted from the real “topic” which would be … JR’s cartoon about the Church running SNAP (and all the rest).

    “How surprising not.”

  102. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    The first problem – as usual – is that ‘Dan’ has already insinuated his own cartoon presumptions into his initial question, i.e. that it is a “fact” that “your church boasts mostly of visions of Mary”. There is a hefty corpus of visions extending back over the millennia and to say that they are “mostly visions of Mary” is an assertion in dire need of credible demonstration.

    But there is a fingerprint in this bit: the signature ‘Dan’-verse irritation over Mary’s role in Catholic theology and prayer resembles nothing so much as the familiar fundie objections to Catholicism, up to and including ‘Dan’s insistence that Mary is ‘worshipped’ and ‘as a goddess’ as that (the better, of course, to build the cartoon that Catholicism is simply another version of female-idol-worshipping paganism).

    Which also can be taken as leading to the possibility that ‘Dan’s successful presentations to other ‘churches’ means that he doesn’t encounter many objections to his stuff when addressing assorted fundie collectivities. And no surprises there.

    • Dan says:

      "Catholicism simply is another version of female-idol-worshipping paganism". There you have it folks. Right from the horses mouth, unless you prefer jackass. Readers may chose the appropriate name as they wish.

    • Dan says:

      Whoops. Sorry. "Catholicism is simply another version of female-idol-worshipping paganism". That's how the jackass said it, unless you prefer horses mouth.

  103. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    But wait – it gets better (so to speak): the reason for all these visions might be – doncha see? – that “the Creator, God of Miracles, just may be sending [Catholic] followers false visions” of Mary. So – doncha see? – this is just God playing nasty little ‘Dan’-like tricks just to tweak the “idolaters” and trick them even further.

    The healing events at Lourdes for which even non-Catholic doctors can proffer no alternative explanations known to medical science; the astrophysical phenomenon involving the sun at Fatima witnessed by these massed crowds … readers may consider to what extent the ‘Dan’/fundie explanation works in explaining-away those.

  104. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    And are we really to accept that since ‘Dan’ hasn’t come across any “vision of Christ” then that proves … what? That the Church is not Christian? That there have been no visions of Christ connected to this or that saint or believer over the past two millennia?

    But wait – it gets better (so to speak): ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is being slandered by “lying creeps in this forum” who “want to make [readers] believe that [‘Dan’ doth] hate all catholics” (small ‘c’).

    Why – quotha – there’s “nothing further from the truth” (and alert readers will realize that as soon as ‘Dan’ starts going on about “the truth” then one must prepare oneself to confront cartoons). ‘Dan’ – perhaps – is only going on about those Catholics who a) believe in Mary’s role as defined by the Church and/or b) don’t buy his cartoon rants. But only those Catholics and not – if you can imagine the null set – any other Catholics.

  105. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    But wait – it gets better (so to speak): ‘Dan’ – font of innumerable consistently repeated epithets and threats and prayers involving God’s judgment and lakes-of-fire and Judgment Day – isn’t at all “interested in seeing anyone go to hell”. Again, one sees not only i) the fundamental mendacity and untruthfulness that must be necessarily foisted upon others, but also ii) the fundamental mendacity and untruthfulness ‘Dan’ must foist upon himself … in order to keep his FDS going.

    But – ‘Dan’ doth proclaim while clutching his pearls under the ungainly Wig of Exasperated Innocence – he doth “have absolutely nothing to gain, in telling others to read the Bible and find the truth”.

    Presuming, of course, that the “truth” they find in the Bible is actually only the point of view ‘Dan’ considers to be “truth”.

    And ‘Dan’ has much to gain with such a bit: a) he gets to play his favorite role as assigned to him by his FDS and b) he gets to publicly foist that whole ‘preferred narrative’ of his on anyone whom he can inveigle or verbally accost. That’s a whole lot of “gain” for someone like ‘Dan’. It’s his stock in trade.

  106. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    And that paragraph finishes up with a further bleat about God’s love and how God yet “gets no thrill from seeing His people lost and deceived by hypocrisy and liars”. But under that rubric – and as I have said – then ‘Dan’s only hope is that God accepts an insanity plea on ‘Dan’s behalf.

    The core method in the madness here being that those who don’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff (or who think he is seriously off the rails) are – conveniently – “the wicked followers of Satan”. So – doncha see? – when fighting “the wicked followers of Satan” then no holds are barred. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  107. Publion says:

    Continuing with comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1054PM:

    And – yet again – ‘Dan’ tries to bring it all home by equating the Catholic role of Mary with the pagan worship of the goddess Astarte decried by Jeremiah.  And thus more bits from his voluminous 3×5 pile of Mary-worship stuff. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

    ‘Dan’ is indeed “wrong” here: first because Jeremiah is referring to ancient Astarte-worship and not the Church and second because the Church does not “worship” Mary as a divinity. Mary, the human being truly Chosen by God to be the Mother of God’s incarnate Son, is revered as a human intercessor at the Throne of God – nothing more and nothing less.

    Mary is an intercessor and is not held to be divine (indeed, precisely the opposite). Were ‘Dan’ to perhaps pray to the patron saint of the unhinged (I imagine there must be one) then ‘Dan’ might grasp the difference.

    • Dan says:

      No, you are indeed "wrong". If Jeremiah was alive to witness the idol-worshiping that goes on among the hierarchy and blind sheep of your cult, then God's prophet and God's Word and wrath, would most likely have been much worse. Jeremiah's prophecy goes out to condemn any cult worshipping a goddess under the name of "Queen of Heaven", burning incense and making cakes in the form of the moon (hosts). You can make all the claims you want, denying catholic worship of Mary, but your cult's actions prove otherwise. Against Bible teachings, the cult claims Mary spotless, ever-virgin, immaculately conceived, sinless and assumed into heaven. All absolute lies and further proof of idolatry, giving Mary the attributes of Christ, proving worship of a false christ. Mary as intercessor, another lie, when the Bible clearly states Jesus Christ as the only mediator.

      "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5

      "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"  Romans 3:23

      "All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them." John 10:8

      So adore, honor and venerate Mary, and let manipulators and deceivers tell you how the church doesn't worship her. Hail her, pray tons of prayers and rosaries to her, and name many of your churches after her, and still believe that is not worship. Jesuits take on her name, wear hooded, dark brown capes like the Grim Reaper or Vlad the Impaler, and you still think this isn't creepy? Priests and bishops wearing silk, lacy dresses, and you believe this is normal? Greed, plagued with pedophilia and sexual immorality, cowardly blatant liars, and idolators, and you still think it is God's One True Church? Wow, you people are scary.

       

  108. Publion says:

    On then to the 26th at 218PM:

    Here – and with a sublime obliviousness – ‘Dan’ doth exhort one and all not to pay heed to anyone “who claims to be superior because of special visions”. Is not his entire claim here based on his special and “secret” ‘knowledge’ that he is indeed the Chosen  who doth ‘know the truth’ and so on and so forth?

    Indeed, so much so that anyone who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff doth “mock God”?

    I would also note that the “CEV” (Contemporary English Version) of the Bible is actually one of those editions of the Bible that – if readers recall my classification of type of Bible versions – qualifies as a ‘paraphrase’ version, i.e. the editor/compiler of the version uses his/her own ideas to render what s/he thinks to be the gist of the actual Bible text into more ‘relevant’ terms. It seems to be aimed at readers even less Biblically-informed than, say, the Good News Bible – which itself is a typical if not also classic example of a ‘paraphrase’ version of the Bible.

    This type of Bible version is catnip to those with axes to grind and their own ‘visions’ to impose.

    • Dan says:

      Good try, twister, manipulator, misinterpreter of the Lord's Word. You specifically quoted, "who claims to be superior because of special visions", and then you think you can squeeze me into that definition. "SUPERIOR BECAUSE OF SPECIAL VISIONS!!" Never have I claimed seeing special visions. NEVER! Can you understand the quote now or still do you refuse to see? Then you want to claim that I'm referring to versions that don't qualify, because they paraphrase. You're ridiculous. Here's the catholic NAB, from the USCCB -

      "Let no one disqualify you, delighting in self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on VISIONS, inflated without reason by his fleshly mind"  Col 2:18

      So the fleshly minded, spiritually lacking, publiar, thinks he can twist what obviously states as those who claim themselves "superior because of special visions", tries to make others think that pertains to me, is absolutely wrong once more. This pertains to catholic claims of VISIONS of Mary, "Queen of Heaven", believing they're "speshull" because their Goddess comes to give them advice. God hates idolatry, and if you want to believe that Mary is where you find your grace and mercy, then he just may let you see the stupidity you want to believe and depend on. The alternative may be that the cult made up these visions in order to bring financial wealth into their apostate kingdom. Ever see pictures of those 3 children of Fatima. Never seen such unhappy looking children in all my life. Maybe they didn't want to go along with the liars of the church. Now that just may be plausible, probable and possible. Lying, deceiving snake.

  109. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 1124PM ‘Dan’ doth assure one and all that I am “indeed ‘wrong’”. Let’s see how he backs that one up.

    Why, with a presumption of a course: “If Jeremiah was alive” … Well, that’s a problem right off since we are already off the road and into the swamp of conjecture (which is where ‘Dan’ doth dwell): Jeremiah isn’t alive and thus we don’t have Jeremiah’s actual thoughts on the Church. Perhaps Jeremiah has put in an appearance in the bathroom mirror, however. But that will still leave us in the Swamp of Presumption and Conjecture.

    However, having set the scene in just that way, ‘Dan’ is of course free to fill the vacant space that Jeremiah himself would occupy … with ‘Dan’-stuff, masquerading as Jeremiah’s opinions about the Church. This is what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    Thus whatever ‘Dan’ claims about what Jeremiah “would most likely have” thought … is just so much more ‘Dan’-stuff.

    Neither Catholicism’s actions nor its words (we covered actual Church teaching quite a while ago here, as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 963-975) indicate any “worship” of Mary as if she were a divinity. She may be metaphorically “queen” in the sense that she’s the highest ranking female up there, but she is still human and not a divinity.

    And then ‘Dan’ drops more of his favorite fundie 3x5s, this time including a bit to the effect that the host is “moon-shaped” (and Astarte – doncha see? – was connected with the moon). But the Host has to do with God the Father and Jesus and not with Mary, who is not included in the consecratory core of the Mass.

    Thus ‘Dan’s victory-lap declaration that “your cult’s actions prove otherwise” only indicates that ‘Dan’ is not really clear on the concept of ‘proof’. And how can he be? Were he to rely on objective proof, derived logically from evidence and careful conclusions stemming from the evidence, then his entire FDS would collapse.

  111. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    “Bible-teachings” never really addressed the further issues of Mary’s nature and role. The corpus of that theology was developed much later, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that ‘Dan’ claims to get his Faxes from. So you can’t very well claim that the Bible – and especially the Old Testament – has a teaching on a topic that it never really considered in the first place.

    What “attributes” does the Church claim Mary to have that equate to the attributes of Christ that flow from His divinity? What attributes that somehow justify the claim that Mary is a “false Christ”? ‘Dan’ is very much off the mark here and his immediately following reference to “all absolute lies” recoils upon him here with a rather resounding thump and whack.

    Jesus is the ultimate Mediator between humanity and God. Mary – and to a lesser extent the saints and all the blessed – are intercessors on a much smaller and a more human scale: like having ‘friends at court’ (using the idea of a royal court, whose members have access to the Throne). Among those Mary is the primary or most significant, but remains a human nonetheless.

    She was taken up into Heaven to demonstrate – the Church teaches – that the bond between God and humanity is that fundamental and vital and strong, and that in the fullness of Time humanity will be gathered back to the Source, Who is God.

  112. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    The pericopes ‘Dan’ tosses up are thus not quite to the point at all.

    And the pericope from John 10:8 is vividly so: nobody here “came before” Jesus, and surely not the Church, so on its face the pericope makes no sense here. But there is the manipulative method in the madness in ‘Dan’s deployment of it here: he’s going for the emotional pizzazz of that “thieves and robbers” phrase, which the unthinking might be expected to transfer to ‘Dan’s preferred target, the Church, despite the conceptual incoherence involved in such a transfer.

  113. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1124PM:

    And then – marvelously demonstrating the ignorance embodied in his pile of fundie-like 3x5s – ‘Dan’ eagerly lards on a bunch more stuff: Jesuits do not “take on her name” (that Order is – it apparently has to be pointed out to ‘Dan’ – named after Jesus); nor does that Order “wear hooded, dark brown capes” at all.

    The liturgical vestments worn by clergy and hierarchs go back to the days of medieval academic gowns and even further back to the special clothing worn by various officials as well as clergy in the era of the Roman and Byzantine empires. But notice the sly “silk, lacy” bit, since mainstream Protestant clergy also wore – until quite recently – the same type of gowns, though mostly black in color, often set off by the classic white ‘preaching tabs’ often seen in paintings of the day.

    And the whole bit pitch-perfectly topped off by ‘Dan’s query as to what may or may not be “normal”.

    And – transporting the entire performance to the empyrean sublime – ‘Dan’s final epithet as to who is “scary”.

    More popcorn, please.

  114. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1255AM:

    ‘Dan’ now has to somehow separate himself (or Himself) from any claimed superiority due to special visions. He cawn’t allow himself to be ‘squeezed into’ “that definition”, doncha see? Alas, it’s already been done, and by he (or He) himself (or Himself).

    So the “special” and the “secret” stuff from the Beyond … don’t qualify as visions. What are they then? ‘Dan’ claims that they are merely “knowledge” and “truth”, but that’s just his FDS talking and not any demonstrated fact.

    And, as I have said, these visions of his (or His) also endow him (or Him) with that “special” and “secret” and “Chosen” authority, even to the extent that to question ‘Dan’ is to “mock God”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  115. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1255AM:

    And then – again marvelously – ‘Dan’ quotes St. Paul, who in the pericope is precisely warning against those who claim authority from “visions” (i.e. bases of a claimed knowledge and authority known only to the one with the vision that nobody else can see). ‘Dan’ is not only a psychological textbook case, but a Scriptural one as well: Paul had already encountered ‘Dan’s type way back then.

    And yet ‘Dan’ winds up having to conclude by once again putting to readers that age-old type of question: ‘Who ya gonna believe – ‘Dan’ or your own lying eyes’? (Hint: you’re supposed to believe ‘Dan’ and bethump yourself for being so ignorant as to have questioned him (or Him)).

    And like any good fundie preacher, he writhes and gesticulates, stunned by the mulishness in the pews.

  116. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1255AM:

    And then a final bit, trying to evade the problem that Fatima poses to the ‘Dan’-stuff by simply noting how the three Fatima children are “the most unhappy looking children”, such as ‘Dan’ hath “never seen … in all my life”. Oh, my. Even more unhappy than the children he accosted in the schoolyard and wherever else he brought his act to impose on others?

    Now – ‘Dan’ then manipulatively declaims – his bits here “just may be plausible, probable, and possible”. Sure, about as “plausible, probable and possible” as ‘Dan’s being the speshully authorized and directly-informed Mouth and Mind of God.

    Readers may judge as they will.