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]

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 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)


  1. Dan says:

    Thank you once again, mini-pee. I was falsely accused of saying I wanted to kill them. Other instances, I was falsely accused of screaming obscenities at the their school children. Are you idiots brain dead? You have trouble hearing? I was not guilty of any of their accusations. Your fellow catholic creeps knew exactly what to accuse me of in order cause me trouble. You and they are the biggest low-life creeps I've ever come across. LIES, idiots. Nothing but wicked LIES. Does catholicism breed ignorance and stupidity, or have you fools disobeyed the Almighty for so long, that it's now impossible for you to know the truth or believe it!?! The gathering of the world's liars, all under one roof. "TahDah!!  servant

  2. Publion says:

    On the 8th at 450AM we are back to JR’s efforts to somehow retrieve his “credible = believable” bit from a bit further back on this thread.

    Here he will try to draw some lines in a word-game: the Apostle’s Creed has the base element of the Latin word for ‘believe’, i.e. ‘credo’ / and those listed beliefs are ones which Catholics must believe / and since “the words credible and credence and creed all stem from the same Latin word” … then … what?

    Well, slyly he doesn’t actually say just what the conclusion of all that is supposed to lead-to.

    The best he can do is to try to put the cartoon together in such a way that an inattentive reader will simply take-away ‘must be believed’ as somehow ‘equating’ to “credible”.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with JR’s of the 6th at 450AM:

    But “credible” is only an adjective that means ‘believable’, meaning that it is capable of being believed; but there is no ‘must be’ in it (the Latin for must-be-believed would be ‘credendum est’, a verb form).

    And then we would have to also factor in any context-specific dynamics: in this case that, as I have said above, “believable” is used in the relevant documents here as meaning ‘possible to be believed’ and perhaps ‘warranting further investigation’.

    Words actually don’t mean squat to Abuseniks; they certainly don’t want the analysis of a topographical map; they just want the cartoon road-map that they have created to mislead and misdirect the inattentive toward the Abusenik/Stampede goal and that’s all.

    • Dan says:

      Your analogy of a topographical map was poor and insufficient at best. A topographical map may give you minute detail of the geography of a land, but if you want to really know the direction in which your going, you'd want a road map. Of course, if you're living in fear of the punishment that's waiting for you, when you get to the place you're going, you may not want to find where that place is. It may turn out to be extremely hot and lacking any water, and a place of no return. Don't forget to bring your swim trunks. I've heard there's one beautiful lake, but I'm just not sure how easy it is to swim in a Lake of Fire.   servant of a Mighty God

    • James Robertson says:

      "Words don't mean squat to abusenicks"?

      Gosh, how colloquial!

      And what a crap sentence.




    • James Robertson says:

      And Dan I'll be doing the back stroke in your imaginary Lake of Fire. One stupid book and you all believe it. Would you believe it, if no Hellfire was in it to threaten you? I doubt it. Fear must control all you do because of what you imagine to be true with no Empirical, i.e. physical evidence.


  4. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s recent stuff. As you may have noticed, a bunch of his comments are mere myah-myah epithets, merely trying to pick up what I have said and trying to toss it back as if it were a mudpie.

    I won’t be dealing with the merely epithetical come-backs; and I will go down the list as it appears on the screen.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1059PM:

    In regard to my ‘Flossie’ analogy, the best he can do is epithetically try to wave it away.

    As for his effort to apply the material apparently from the book entitled “Idiot America”, those points rather nicely describe the Stampede method.

    He might want to read Eric Hoffer’s 1950 or 1951 book “True Believers”, which examines the psychology of those ‘fanatics’ who embrace a belief or set of beliefs and then try to insist upon foisting those beliefs on everybody else. There’s a lot of ‘Dan’ in Hoffer’s assessment.

    • Dan says:

      Hilariass, how you can fall back on the I'm Not/You Are bit, but see no problem in criticizing anyone else who uses the method. Similar to how you think anyone is wrong or fanatic to find fault in your false apostate cult. God asks us to love Him with all our heart, mind and soul. There's a certain amount of good fanaticism to that statement. He also says, I'd rather see you hot or even cold, and if you're lukewarm, I'll spew you from my mouth. Sounds like more good fanaticism to me, but I'm sure you'll think different. On the contrary, I've never heard Him say you should be cowards, greedy, idol-worshippers, pedophiles, perverts or insistent, blatant liars. So go ahead and call me every name you think fits into your evil little schemes of brainwashing your followers into believing that you're the One True Church and anyone exposing your wickedness has got to be fanatic or unhinged. Seems more like those definitions would apply to you and your fellow excusers of perverts and pedophiles. And little peewee oinks and hisses, there he goes with that I'm Not/You Are bit. Grow up to reality and quit living the lie.                 servant of The Only True God and His gathering of true believers

    • Dan says:

      Nothing better than a catholic lying hypocrite, accepting the definition of a 'fanatic' from an admitted atheist, Eric Hoffer. Not suprised, his poor assessments can't be any worse than your ignorant ones.   servant

  5. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 243AM:

    Here he will try to change the subject by going on about ‘church’ not meaning “a building”. Who here said it was? It is, as I said, a “community of believers” – which is what ‘Dan’ says here too.

    But then again: it is a “community of believers” or “gathering of believers” and not just one guy claiming to have been speshully deputized by God.

    But this is all ‘Dan’s got here and from there he can riff on in the usual rant-y way.

    ‘Dan’ is not ‘building up’ any “community of believers” whatsoever, unless one imagines that he is here trawling for disciples.

    And the thing trails off into more epitheticals.

  6. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1123PM:

    In regard to my “last 4 posts” – which raised some substantive points – ‘Dan’ will simply try to wave it all away with his declamation that he doth “have absolutely no problem with God deciding who His true prophets are”.

    Which is a nice sentiment. But then since ‘Dan’ gets his speshull material in “secret” from God, then ‘Dan’ – although we don’t know about God’s opinion in the matter – is going to be calling down hellfire on anybody who doesn’t buy the ‘Dan’-stuff.

    So ‘Dan’s behavior undermines his pious declamation and reduces his position to fundamental incoherence. No surprises there. His theology – as it were – and his psychology – as it is – are working against each other here.

  7. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1256AM:

    He opens with an epithet – so very indicative that he hasn’t got much but he’s got to make a splash and a bang to distract readers from the thinness of his material.

    What’s he got here then?

    Why, he puts up his handy 3×5 – so often embraced by the unhinged – that “if the world hates you” and so forth. If the world “hated” Jesus – doncha see? – and if the unhinged individual is “hated” then … the unhinged must be Jesus. Or pretty much very like Jesus.

    Such logic. Maybe the unhinged individual is simply – not to put too fine a point on it – unhinged and poor Jesus doesn’t enter into it.

    And anyway, ‘Dan’ isn’t “hated”; his ideas and material are assessed for what they are worth. But that’s not the same as being “hated”. But words mean so little to certain types, as I have said in a prior comment above; they have their cartoons and if the word looks like it will fit then they will use it. But they will call hellfire down if analysis demonstrates that the word doesn’t work the way they cartoonishly want it to work.

    • Dan says:

      More lies. Never have I claimed to be Jesus, or pretty much very like Jesus. Humanly speaking, no man is even close to being like the Christ, though your deceiving popes and their brainwashed priests can think they're Jesus and co-Jesus's on earth, and you apparently have no problem with those stretches of the imagination. Hypocrisy at it's finest.          servant of Jesus Christ

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1256AM:

    And then we get more pericopes from the 3×5 pile along those same lines.

    And then ‘Dan’ will try to bring it all home with his final paragraph, mimicking logical thought with that opening “So”.

    His game here is to imagine that so many “consistently find [him] deeply disturbing” because – had you been waitingggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ merely doth “speak the truth”.

    I would say that it is far more plausible that the world finds him “deeply disturbing” because he does things that make people very concerned and those things he does indicate or strongly suggest that he is unhinged. I doubt many of the complaints to the police had to do with the theological dubiousness of his “beautiful prophecy” that he delivers to school-children and whomever else.

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1256AM:

    Thus ‘Dan’ is not in the position he is in because of his theological content. Rather he is in the position he is in because of his actions, and in that regard he is in no way “innocent”: he did those things such as the episode at the schoolyard and whatever else prompted those numerous complaints to the police and the court(s) sending him for psychiatric observation.

    And the comment trails off with ‘Dan’ being consumed by his rage at those who find him disturbing. God’ll getcha, ‘Dan’ doth declaim and declare. But since we don’t know that ‘Dan’ really is the speshull deputy-dawg of God, and even ‘Dan’ has admitted on this thread that he doesn’t know either, then this whole bit remains merely a revelatory rant about ‘Dan’ and nothing more.

    • Dan says:

      And more mocking, which will be followed by lying claims that he would never mock God. And the 'episodes', as you rudely define the lies of your cult, went down exactly as you claim, because we all know you were there, as an honest witness to each event. Maybe there's some truth to that, seeing that you're one of Satan's lyin' demons.   servant

    • Dan says:

      I wouldn't claim innocence, if I wasn't 'innocent' of the false charges brought against me. Why can I say this, because there's a price to pay for being a liar, though somehow you catholics don't think that's so. I suffered for offenses I did not commit. I don't need you liars to add to the troubles that I unjustly had to endure. If this somehow brings you some evil joy, then so be it. Don't forget my warning that there shall be a price you will have to pay, sooner or later, whether you think so or not.

      "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.  Jer 23:23-24  "Let the person who hears my message speak it truthfully! Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which smashes a rock?"  Jer 23:28-29

      So if you're under the impression that you can mock God and lie against His servants, believing you will pay no price, then you are sorely mistaken. You show no respect for the truth of Almighty God, and for some reason think you're clever, with your blasphemy and misinterpretations of His word and Holy Spirit. You parade your intellegence and think using words uncommon to the english language, makes you look smarter than common man. Your false pride in yourself, shall be your downfall, and you're due for a mighty crash and rude awakening. Don't think you're going to stand before God, claiming you were never warned.  servant

  10. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, You claim to deny a heaven or hell, and yet you fail to see the examples of Satan and his lying demons, materialize right before your very eyes, disguised as god's true church.

    • James Robertson says:

      Bad human behavior, Dan, is bad human behavior. no demons needed. We made kind gods out of our fear. Think of the odds that your version of"God" is correct and everyone else's God is wrong.

  11. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1038AM:

    The revelations keep coming, though not – certainly – in the way ‘Dan’ intends.

    Now there are threats he made to that he “wanted to kill them”, and at other times about “screaming obscenities at the children in the schoolyard”.

    But those were all false accusations and lies – doncha see? I mean: you can read ‘Dan’s now voluminous material here and then ask yourself: is this the type of mind that would threaten to kill people and is this the type of mind that would scream obscenities … and at school-children to boot?

    Is there anything in ‘Dan’s material in the record here that would render any of that plausible?

    • Dan says:

      Tell me, jackass, have I ever threatened to kill you. That would be NEVER. Others have, and I don't know if I can really blame them, but I have never threatened to kill you. So it just could be the truth, that I had never screamed obscenities at children. You and your fellow lyin' creeps, have slandered my good name, with your false accusations and poor assessments, claiming to 'concur' or think it's 'plausible', that I could do any such things to innocent children. I'm far from being a catholic, so I firmly believe that children are untouchable, either physically or emotionally, harming their innocence. For you creeps to make your assumptions, is terribly cruel, unfair and unjust, and you shall reap what you sow, for your insistent lies that bear nothing close to the truth. You creeps are the most evil, disgusting excuses for anything human that I have ever come across. Blatant hypocrites and liars, willing to slander anyone's reputation, in order to achieve your wicked agenda, while keeping others from recognizing the sicknesses of your evil cult. All for the good of your false appostate cult. PHONY, RELIGIOUS, LYING CREEPS    servant of truth

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1038AM:

    It only gets better: ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t think why anyone would think so after they have received the definitive and irrefutable proof that it was all false accusations and lies.

    And what proof was that? Why, that ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself) has on many many occasions here said so. Are we “idiots brain-dead”?

    And for someone who accuses others of being rather unimpressive liars, ‘Dan’ then goes and digs himself even deeper into the rabbit hole: because how would all those false accusers have known “exactly what to accuse [‘Dan’] of in order to cause [‘Dan’] trouble” … ?

    Surely it would have been obvious to the police or in the court-room that this fellow didn’t at all seem to be the type to threaten death and to hurl obscenities at school-children. And yet it wasn’t obvious. Perhaps because ‘Dan’ really is even scarier in person and on the hoof than he is in internet comments. So scary that it is obvious to “hundreds” and to police and judges.

    • Dan says:

      You being Satan's baphomet goat, would surely know much about how someone could be "scarier in person and on the hoof". I'd would like to see how calm and easy you creeps would act, being falsely accused of the evil lies, you and your fellow creeps have laid on me? EVIL, WICKED, LIARS, UP FROM THE DEPTHS OF HELL.     servant

    • Dan says:

      It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that if you want to get someone removed from the front of your property, you'll have to come up with a violation of the law in order to achieve that. Even police officers said I hadn't broken the law, so they couldn't have me removed. So the lying creeps of your cult claimed violations that were not true. They were actually the ones threatening and cursing me. Turned those accusations against me. So put aside stupid and realize that it's not too difficult to figure out what you need to lie about. Do you have some big problem adding your lies to theres? Doesn't seem so. So your stupid rabbit hole comments, I'll just add to all your other ignorance and garbage.  servant

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1038AM:

    Not to psychiatrists? Well, given the florid and acute psychiatric cases that wind up being sent for observation, just being scary isn’t going to make so much of an impression; compared to a paranoid-schizophrenic in melt-down ‘Dan’s issues are small potatoes, and since they are chronic then the thrifty psych staff is going to turn him loose until something ‘big’ happens and then they’ll take him in.

    But – and who can be surprised? – ‘Dan’ hasn’t got much else so the rest of the comment trails off with epithets and so on.

    The psych staffs were right: it is most likely impossible that ‘Dan’ is ever going to be able to recognize the truth about himself.

    • Dan says:

      Pretty strange, that Dan has absolutely no problem in recognizing the truth coming from a plethura of catholic, lying, hypocrite, mocking creeps. Not too shabby, for someone so fanatic and unhinged as you claim. I'm onto you ignorant bastards and you're not going to get away with all the garbage, lies and excuses, you've been craming down your dumb sheeps throats. God and His Holy Spirit is assisting me in exposing the wickedness of your evil cult, and we will not let up until Babylon Rome is completely destroyed and annihilated, unable to rear it's wicked seven heads and ten horns. You may as well get used to it.             prophetic servant of God Almighty

  14. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Per Dan on March 9, 2017 at 10:38 am

    Dan claims he was  “falsely accused of saying he wanted to kill them” and  he “was falsely accused of screaming obscenities at the their school children”.  And further would like to know if “you idiots are brain dead”?  No, quite coherent and this little revelation brings forth new questions. If Dan didn’t say he wanted to kill them, I’m guessing the children, then what did he say that concerned the children and the adults? If Dan wasn’t “screaming” obscenities, then can I concur that they were delivered none the less? It’s plausible to believe that Dan was in fact screaming something? A quick scan through his posts would certainly lead one to that conclusion. Dan screams so loud that he believes that Ican hear him through my computer screen. He did ask if I have trouble hearing.

    Dan further claims that he was not guilty of any of their accusations. Was he found guilty of those accusations? He doesn’t say. Not yet at least. I am sure my fellow Catholic creeps, whoever they are, knew well enough what to accuse Dan of when they called the authorities. Dan’s performance at the school yard left them with the material needed to file a complaint. Not the first time, second time, third time or fourth time that led to his four 5150’s at six different hospitals. Dan sure does get around.  

    • Dan says:

      Oh! Did we "concur " and find it "plausible", mini-creep. And I thought you catholics were against cloning, and yet you're not smart enough to realize that you wouldn't want to clone a publyin'. Or could it be that the catholic cult is the very place where they've cloned all these liars. I also noticed that you described yourself as an "Ican". Is that anything like your, I-con our dumb brainwashed sheep, into worshipping false gods, goddesses and statues that are dead. Is it possible that when you clone liars, God makes sure they turn out to be zombies, worshipping the dead and inhabiting the earth as popes, bishops and pedophile priests? "Ican" "concur" and believe that to be very "plausible".

      I must appreciate your truthfulness in recognizing your "fellow [c]atholic creeps", but would prefer if you could be 100% correct, by adding lyin' to the equation (i.e. fellow catholic lyin' creeps). "Dan sure gets around". Not quite as well and as fast as your fellow lyin' catholic creeps multiply or have been cloned.    servant of the One True God, stop thinking U-can clone Him, IDOLATORS.

  15. Publion says:

    The chronology of ‘Dan’s most recent crop jumps back and forth so I will simply take them (or at least the ones that provide anything useful) in the order they appear on the site.

    On the 10th at 756AM ‘Dan’ doth huffily declaim – in his best mimicry of competence – that my analogy of the topographical map “was poor and insufficient at best”. Was it really? And why would that be?

    Because you need the road-map to “know the direction in which your [sic] going”. Nice try but topographical maps do provide compass-point orientation.  While also helping one avoid the pitfalls of rabbit-holes and swamps.

    And then the whole thing trails off into the usual God’ll-getcha ranting.

  16. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1014PM:

    Once again, ‘Dan’ reveals more than he would like to: to him, the I’m Not/You Are gambit is merely a “method” that anybody can use (or mimic).

    That my use of it actually denotes a substantive criticism of his approach doesn’t occur to him at all. Because to the cartoon-mentality it’s all about mimicry in the service of the cartoon and nothing else; substance and substantive assessment doesn’t enter into it.

    And that mimicry is also a prime indicator of the deceitfulness of the cartoonish agenda: deceive and manipulate into appearing to be something or someone (or some One) that you are not. Thus the Abuseniks and thus ‘Dan’-the-“Chosen”.

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1014PM:

    And he will then try to rescue himself from the ‘fanaticism’ point by now claiming that there is such a thing as “good fanaticism”. What fundamentalist of any stripe would not make that self-serving claim?

    I would say that to the extent that the fanatic ignores actuality and reality and objectivity in order to impose an approach or ideology that is otherwise – and that is a very great extent indeed – then there is no such thing as a “good fanaticism”, if we presume that “good” includes truthful and coherent and objective.

    Fanaticism is by its very nature opposed to the limits imposed by reality and by clear and critical thought; indeed, such thought is precisely what the fanatic attempts to sidestep and ultimately to erase, to be replaced with merely a hyped-up and hopped-up emotionalism.

    And on the basis of that bit, ‘Dan’ then launches yet again into his favorite rant-y riffs.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1014PM:

    But then we note the sly and manipulative move toward the victim-y high-ground: I can “go ahead and call [‘Dan’] every name that” fits into my “evil little schemes”.

    Readers may judge for themselves who doth call people names here. But, of course, to ‘Dan’ any characterization that doesn’t conform to his self-cartoon and delusive self-image is name-calling.

    And then – in yet another marvelously sublime demonstration of the dynamics of projection – ‘Dan’ doth proffer advice that he would best deliver in the mirror to himself (or Himself): “Grow up to reality and quit living the lie”.

    It is a cogent formulation. Perhaps ‘Dan’ has heard it before, from thrifty psych-staffers who hoped against hope that it might make even a small dent.

  19. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1121PM:

    ‘Dan’ will try to evade the possibilities inherent in Eric Hoffer’s book with a myah-myah waving-away of Hoffer as “an admitted atheist”.

    That’s as may be; but Hoffer examines the cultural and psychological dynamics of fanatics and their fanaticism – and for that one doesn’t need a particular theological basis. Readers interested in the subject will find Hoffer thought-provoking and, I would say, very enlightening. And in terms of what’s on the table here at present, very relevant.

  20. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1052PM:

    If ‘Dan’ can provide any examples of where I “mock God” (rather than ‘Dan’) he can put them up here (accurately quoted, of course).

    He then tries to evade any of the possibilities (or probabilities) evident in his recounting of his misadventures by again trying to run the old you-weren’t-there bit.

    We have ‘Dan’s own material – and was he not there? (Which isn’t to say ‘all there’.)

  21. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 206AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ hopes to evade the uncongenial elements of his “innocent” claim by merely asserting that he “wouldn’t claim innocence” if it weren’t true.

    We have ‘Dan’s word for that. And that’s all we’ve got. ‘Dan’ considers such assertions utterly dispositive. Readers may judge as they will.

    ‘Dan’ committed an “offense” the minute he started in on the school-children. And who knows what he did to provoke the other six episodes?

    The closest thing to “evil joy” is all of this is ‘Dan’s excitement at trying to keep his cartoon going.

    But having delivered that bit, he concludes the first paragraph with another God’ll-getcha bit. One has to wonder: at this point is ‘Dan’ actually trying to mimic himself (or Himself) or does he (or He) still actually cling to the purported veracity of that threat?

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 206AM:

    The second paragraph is merely another pericope – sort of – with no relevance that is apparent.

    Except for the violent “hammer” bit at the end. Seriously, would anyone think ‘Dan’ was capable of threatening anybody with “murder”?

  23. Publion says:

    And thus to the third paragraph which once again throws out ‘Dan’s favorite – yet ever undemonstrated – assertions, about mocking-God and lying-against-His-servants.

    And another implied God’ll-getcha threat.

    And then the bit that I am “using words uncommon to the english [sic] language”. Words that are unfamiliar to ‘Dan’ do not ipso facto qualify as being “uncommon” to the English language. They may be somewhat beyond a cartoon vocabulary, but that’s something else entirely.

    Nor – good grief – can ‘Dan’ seriously present himself (or Himself) as an example of “the common man”. If he (or He) believes that bit, then the rabbit-hole has gone deep enough to reach China.

    And it ends with more threat. No surprises there.

  24. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1056PM:

    Here, running out of ways to try to distract the discussion, ‘Dan’ will try a shout-out at JR, which ‘Dan’ may – and not unreasonably s- surmise will aid in the distraction project.

    As for just who here is “disguised as God’s true church” – albeit only a ‘church of one’ – readers may consider as they may.

  25. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    From Dan on March 10, 2017 at 2:06 am

    To get an idea on how Dan delivered his beautiful sermon to the children minding their own business while playing during recess, Dan quotes from scripture are revealing:

    Jer 23:23-24  "Let the person who hears my message speak it truthfully! Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which smashes a rock?"  Jer 23:28-29

    Give Dan time and he will reveal more and more of the truth. Unfortunately the truth does not put Dan in the best of lights.

    • Dan says:

      What is seriously wrong with the way your's and publyin's evil mind thinks? The Bible quote is: "Is not My WORD like fire? declares the LORD", and likewise speaking of His WORD, "and like a hammer which smashes a rock?" You rather conveniently left the rest of the quote out, pretaining to the fact that God hears every lie that comes from your's and publiar's mouth and thoughts. Back to what you did acknowledge, "Let the person who hears my message SPEAK it truly." I firmly believe that God has no intention of His chosen to be physically violent. We are to SPEAK and use his WORD as a weapon, that takes down strongholds, destroying hypocrisy.

      "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord." Romans 12:19 (NAS)

      So as to what you claim reveals or gives you some "idea on how Dan delivered his beautiful sermon to the children minding their own business while playing during recess" – a) First off, these quotes were given to you and not to the innocent children, so really reveal nothing in regards to what transpired at the school. b) You weren't even there and both of you have no clue of what was said, except what the two of you have dreamed up in your wicked minds. c) It happened before school, not at recess. Wrong again. d) I was on the public sidewalk and when the kids heard the prophecy from the Lord, half of the 300 ran towards the fence, where I stood in order to hear the beautiful, loving message Christ had for them. If it was violent or obscene, do you think the children would have run towards me or away from me. Approximately 12 kids wouldn't even listen to the staff call them back, and stayed right up to the fence until the message was finished.

      In finishing, you evil weirdos can believe whatever you want, and I can count on that coming to fruition. I could really care less. Just remember, there will come a day of Judgment, where all truth will be known, and God and His Son will stand to judge all, and revenge and justice will be served. You can bet your nasty, wicked minds on that.  servant of the True God

    • KenW says:

      Well…I guess kudos for using your real name, but is this -the- (piano) Jimmy Mitchell? I listen to your stuff often. 

    • Jimmy Mitchell says:

      No, I am not the same Jimmy Mitchell.

  26. Dan says:

    Don't really care to get to deep into ignorance and nonsense today. I must say that one so childish and immature, living in some fantasy of cartoons, lies and stretches into your silly imagination of rabbit holes, ones you've seemingly been down for quite some time, would have the nerve to accuse another of ignoring actuality, reality, objectivity or clear and critical thought. Terribly ironic, when I've been attempting to open your slammed shut eyes to the reality of corruption evidenced by your apostate cult of greedy, wicked, idol-worshipping, pedophile perverts, cowards and their insistent, blatant liars, and all you liars can do daily is add to your false accusations and slander of myself. "Eyes that absolutely refuse to see, ears not capable of hearing the truth, otherwise they would turn to Him and He would heal them." Loving the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind, is not fanaticism, it's real love and truth, and undesirable to an ignorant, lying, mocking fool. This is actual, clear and concise thought, something you may want to try. Lying and slandering others, is far from any reality or actuality, and only logical to a lying whackjob that's been spending too much time down rabbit holes.      servant

  27. James Robertson says:

    When did Dan become the problem? Dan yells at Catholic kids if true he wasn't fucking Catholic kids. How do you dare let yourselves and your priests off the hook even if Dan did yell at Catholic kids?  Nuns and Priests yell at them about religion and truth all the time but Dan's the problem?

    • Dan says:

      The worst thing, Jim, was that I would never yell or get angry with innocent children, including catholic children. This is what is so disgusting, they want to blame the innocent, while trying to excuse the terrible sins of their filthy, nasty priests and bishops. This is why describing all of you as creeps is so befitting.

  28. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s most recent bunch in the order they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1014PM:

    He opens – as usual – with an epithet. It doesn’t seem to register with him that his sustained use of epithets is itself a demonstration of a violent predisposition. Especially when he has demonstrated so sustained and deep a predilection for the God’ll-getcha bits. Neato: ‘Dan’ can indulge his violent predilections while – like some Bible-thumping Goody Two-Shoes – ascribing that violence to God.

    Then we see just how deceptively sly ‘Dan’ can be: he doesn’t actually say that he had never done those things that got him into trouble – instead he merely slithers in with “it just could be the truth”.

    Yes, that’s possible. But is it probable? From what we have seen of ‘Dan’ on this site, the possibility that he was “falsely accused” by “lies” fades to almost nothing, while the probability that he could have done those things is increased substantially.

    • Dan says:

      No. 2 liar, mini-pee, claims we can "concur" and it's very "plausible". No.1 liar follows up oinking, "From what we have seen of 'Dan' on this site, the possibility that he was 'falsely accused' by 'lies' fades to almost nothing, while the probability that he could have done those things is increased substantially." So here we are. We're going to hear from the very liars that started all the lies, that without doubt all our lies against Dan have now become god's honest truth, so help us virgin mary, Queen of our Heaven. You chumps are the saddest excuses of anything truthful and righteous to walk this earth. LYING HYPOCRITES.

      Oh! And with more substantial oinks, peewee claims he would never mock God or His servants. Capitalized, to indicate he's mocking some authority, " 'Dan' can indulge his violent predilections while – like some Bible-thumping Goody Two-Shoes – ascribing that violence to God." "Noooo, I never mock God", he oinks. And as far as "ascribing that violence to God", I quoted God's Word, so that remark is God's. I understand that you hypocrite catholics claim the Bible to be God's inspired word, you just don't believe it, because you prefer the words of your corrupt cult and it's catechism. UNBELIEVERS.   servant of an Awesome God

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1014PM:

    And if ‘Dan’ did nothing, then why have “hundreds” of people, and the police and the courts, bothered with him at all in the first place? Did they just pick his name out of a phone book?

    Then a quick reach for the Victim-y high-ground: it’s “terribly cruel, unfair and unjust” to imagine these things about poor, truthy, harmless, innocent,  didn’t-do-nuffin’ ‘Dan’.

    Then – immediately thereafter – a threat: God’ll getcha for all that.

    And the riff goes on, larded with epithets (and – not to put too fine a point on it – name-calling).

  30. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 204AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ gives more of the game away – unintentionally, of course.

    “if you want to get someone removed from the front of your property” … let’s look at that: why would someone want to “get rid of someone” who was – we might presume – simply walking peaceably down the sidewalk in front of your property and minding his own business … ? And if that property-owner took it into his/her head to call the police on that basis, would the police not lecture the property-owner rather than bring in the walker?

    Clearly we have only two options here: a) the property-owner simply chose for no good reason and out of the blue to call the police about a passerby who was doing nothing except minding his own business or b) ‘Dan’ was doing something that gave sufficient cause for concern that the property-owner called the police. Readers may choose as they see fit.

    And even if – were we to believe ‘Dan’ in this little story here – the police on this particular occasion did not see sufficient cause for an arrest, yet there are those six times that ‘Dan’ was either arrested or summonsed into court and those six court-ordered psychiatric observation stays.

    • Dan says:

      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.

  31. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 204AM:

    Nor is it actually quite the case that since the police didn’t arrest him on that occasion then that proves that “the claimed violations were not true”. It simply indicates that by the time the police arrived (and ‘Dan’ was still there …) ‘Dan’ wasn’t doing anything that they could see that would warrant an arrest.

    And again: are we to presume that while ‘Dan’ was just walking by some property-owner’s property that owner (and perhaps other residents) started for no reason “threatening and cursing” him?

    • Dan says:

      Now see if you can follow this. I'll go slow so you might understand. I enjoy taking long walks or skates in the nicer areas in my neighborhood. At times I come across people attending church and talk to them on public property, about reading the Bible for themselves, to find the truth, and sometimes informing them that they won't find that truth in these manmade temples. I've talked to some churches with absolutely no problems. For some reason the catholic followers, priests or nuns become annoyed with me and feel they have to 'threaten or curse' at me to make me stop walking near their apostate, cult temples. When this has happened, then I've legally protested with signs in front of their violent churches. One sign says READ THE BIBLE, TRUST GOD, NOT CHURCHES. The other says CATHOLIC CHURCH, LIAR$, HYPOCRITE$, PEDOPHILE$, PARASITE$. Had they never 'threatened or cursed' me, then I doubtfully would have ever made one sign. When I began protesting, then is when they came forth with the 'lies' that led to my overnight jail stays or 5150 holds. I never protested at any catholic schools, where kids were present. Since I've given you the truth of how things transpired, I would think you would show some respect or understanding, but will not be surprised to hear you lying creeps add more of your evil lies.   servant of God

      P.S. I believe the cult is worried about losing parishioners and funding, so they 'lie', just like you.

    • Dan says:

      By the way, I've heard the few of you criticize my using scream caps, that it scares you. When I capitalize words, it's that the blind might see or pay special attention to those words. Didn't mean to scare little peewee, Jimmy or any other cowards, that may have thought I was screaming at them. There was a prophecy stating, "Lord you give me a mouth, that overpowers their ears." Oh! That's right, unbelievers don't accept God's Word or His Holy Spirit or His prophetic messages. They only think it's something to mock, but have their "Queen of Heaven" appear in visions in a slimy cave, and they'll travel for miles on end to buy her trinkets. What a gig the greedy creeps have dreamed up. Waiting for them to invent virgin mary toilet paper, always stays pure and white, ever-virgin. servant of a never creepy God

  32. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1038PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will introduce as evidence something that has not been proven and is precisely the point in question: since he has “absolutely no problem in recognizing the truth” (i.e. about the Church and religion and Catholics and so on and so forth) then how can he be “fanatic and unhinged”?

    That ‘Dan’ can’t see how that could be possible – and that he thus might well be “fanatic and unhinged” – indicates that we have reached the point now that was reached from time to time in the old original Star Trek TV series: the dangerous robot, presented now with logic and facts that are incompatible with its original programmed presumptions – starts to emit smoke and simply babble repetitively the only material its (damaged or wrongly-programmed) software will allow.

    And – pitch-perfectly – ‘Dan’ then takes his ‘success’ as a (self) compliment. That must console him, but fantasies and self-serving cartoons do console their creators … that’s why those types create them in the first place.

    • Dan says:

      You are surely showing quite the pattern. You criticize others about ignoring actuality or reality, and yet you seem to often revert to fantasies, cartoons and very immature, childish science fiction. Watched alot of Star Trek, little Trekkie, and been down quite a few rabbit holes, Alice of Wonderland? Maybe time you grow up, and instead of trying to speak above others, you may want step into reality, and escape from your former childish fantasies. And please, I'm not saying you should return to your Nazi analogies, lying Kraut.

  33. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1038PM:

    And on that impossibly wobbly basis, ‘Dan’ will then grant himself a victory lap: he’s “onto” us “ignorant bastards” and so on.

    But wait! There’s more: ‘Dan’ has “God and His Holy Spirit assisting” him (or Him), doncha know?

    Thus – marvelously – ‘Dan’ announces that “we” (i.e. ‘Dan’ and God and the Holy Spirit) “will not let up”.

    No wonder the psych staffers didn’t spend too much time with ‘Dan’.

    ‘Dan’ “might as well get used to it”: he (or He) has blown it here. The cat’s out of the bag and the game is over.

    • Dan says:

      You may think playing with people's souls, is some kind of game. I think different. You're the  immature, baby, lying joker, who thinks this is some game or cartoon. Oh! Geez! "The cat's out of the bag and the game is over". Yes, just maybe for you, if you ever grow up.  servant

  34. James Robertson says:
    • malcolm harris says:

      JR on the 12th, provides a link to a Irish newspaper article, about Gabriel Byrne, an actor. But it goes back to 2013, and is not really 'news'? This guy was harshly critical of the Church in Ireland. Guess he had to be… to grab attention. Because he was clearly attempting to publicize himself, and claim the high ground of vicim status. He urgently needed the publicity, because he had just made a new movie, and it was shortly due to be released.    Gee….just a co-incidence… or what?.      Incidentally the official findings of the Mothers and Babies Commission, in Ireland, said nothing about finding any "mass grave". or any "800 bodies".    Just more fake news?

  35. Dan says:

    KenW asks are you the "(piano) Jimmy Mitchell?". If it is, maybe he can figure out how to play a different tune. We're already tired of the plagiarized, publyin' tunes.  servant

  36. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Per Dan on March 11, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    Dan, who equates himself with God, once again tries to pass off any blame for his conduct on God. Dan is just quoting what God says and even though Dan uses God’s words like fire and delivers them like a hammer no blame should be placed upon Dan for delivering these messages in such a way. Dan then rewrites scripture and places myself into God’s very words.

    Dan further reveals more truth except this truth sheds more light on Dan’s way of proclaiming Gods’ word and further places any blame on God for Dan’s transgressions.  You see, never take your own revenge but leave room for the wrath of God because "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,". And we are to believe that Dan delivers flowery prophecy filled with marshmallows and balloons. Not at all because Dan further reveals a little more truth. Dan has been informed to Speak and use His word as a weapon, that takes down strongholds, destroying hypocrisy. Dan does not speak in whisper and no doubt was not speaking softly to the 300 children in the playground. No, he was shouting so loud that half of the children came over to see the train wreck and the other half felt it was safer to keep their distance. .

    Dan is correct on one thing, I wasn’t there when it happened. What he can’t come to grips with is that his own material reveals much more than he wishes it to reveal. His added quotes from scripture reveal all one needs to know on how Dan conducts himself when delivering his, not His, message. If he has an issue with the conclusion I have come to, well, that’s Dan’s problem and it comes from his own material.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! Mini-pee. Where do I start. First off, what are your clues that lead to your saying, "Dan, who equates himself with God". When you just start tossing lies all around, doesn't really matter if there's any truth involved? Do you find most people that call themselves "servant of God", think they're equal to God, or has publyin' taught you so well, to just flood them with lies, so all the lies become believable.

      Secondly, You use the word truth twice, beginning the second paragraph, to claim the double 'lie' that I "further place any blame on God for Dan's transgressions". By my "transgressions", you must mean the false accusations and lies perpetrated by your hypocrite priests, nuns, catholic pigs, publyin' pig and yourself. And now, these have become my honest to goodness "transgressions'. Seriously? Why am I not allowed to call you phonies, disgusting, lying creeps, when that is what you truly are? I do not talk to innocent children in the same manner that I would deal with disgusting, lying pigs. Besides those were the Lord's words to the children and not mine.

      All I can say about the quotes I'm giving to you and publyin', and any other lying, pedophile, perverted, idolizing creeps of your cult, is simply if the shoe fits, you're gonna wear it. If you were willing at all to stop the horrible lies and insinuations, then you might hear some of the wonderful quotes and prophecies that the Lord has for you. In fact I've already shared some of those with you, and apparently you have ears, but just don't care to hear. So in 'conclusion', you're probably going to hear things from God that you don't like or want to hear, and this is definitely your 'problem'.   servant and friend of the One True God

  37. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    As for Jim on March 11, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Jim doesn’t seem to realize how much of a problem Dan is. Dan’s own story doesn’t paint Dan to be a victim whatsoever and his claiming to be a victim adds more credence to Publion’s stampeded theory. Jim’s deflection game adds even more legitimacy to that theory. Don’t look at Dan’s or Jim’s material and if they are credible, look away from their story and in the direction, they are pointing. It’s all those bad Priests and Nuns who are the problem and for that matter, every Catholic. This is how the game is played. Paint every Priest as a predator and then any story that is told should be believed no matter how incredible they are. Once the story tellers story is questioned the deflection game begins and If that doesn’t work, place all the blame on the listener for looking over the cool aid before drinking it all in.

    • Dan says:

      I would like to falsely accuse you and publyin' of the lies that have put me in jail and 5150 holds, along with the added lies and insinuations that the two of you have labeled me with, and see how you would respond with kindness and forgiveness. You ought to spend some time falsely incarcerated, treated like the scum of the earth, served the most rotten food you ever ate in your life, and thrown out of your bed at 2 in the morning by someone truly crazy, slamming twice the door to your room. You say I'm not a victim and I say I will gladly add that to more of your stupid and ignorant lies, Jimmy Mini-peewee. Glad to see you hypocrite catholics not only think you can judge others, but also think you can slander them in order to make your judgments stick. You are both deceiving, lying, slimy, fork-tongued snakes and worthy of every word I say. Best get used to it.

      You claim we "Paint every priest as a predator" and you excusing creeps think you can return and whitewash all their sins clean as if they never happened. You claim I equate myself with God, when it's your perverted popes, bishops and priests, that are the ones thinking their God's equal, able to forgive, in confession, even their own disgusting sins. God and Jesus are coming to judge all you lying, nasty scumbags, and boy are they pissed!!               servant of a Vengeful God, and can't wait until your Judgment Day

    • Dan says:

      There you go, Mr. Know-It-All. You can correct their [sic] to they're, and everyone can know that you're the smartest, lying, mocking, dweeb twit in this forum.

    • James Robertson says:

      LOL!  Jim realizes that all religionists paint with very broad brushes. I've never claimed all priests nor Catholics as perpetrators. You paint all victims as liars.You invent scenarios for all victims. You act as if no "serious" questions have ever been asked of our claims. Says who? I was questioned by the church. It's lawyer, psychiatrists, police and my "own" lawyer and her former FBI investigator.

      My perpetrator had every opportunity to defend himself to those same people. I received a written apology from the head of the Marianist order in California and from the then Cardinal of Los Angeles, Mahony, for my all too real sexual abuse. (Perhaps the 800 dead children in Tuam Ireland were succored by the church with Jimmy's "cool aid". Those children's bones paint quite the picture of the kind and loving church they lived with.)

      Listeners who don't listen but who only see Kool Aid and then drink it in, are idiots.

    • James Robertson says:

      And I was questioned by the church's insurers' lawyers. I was questioned here by Tweedle Dim and others and answered in detail. The fact you chose not to believe my answers, no matter how truthful they were, was decided by you long before I posted them here.

      Who but Dan or I have questioned any of you here about why you would lie so about my abuse?

  38. Publion says:

    I will go down the most recent crop in the order they appear on the screen:

    Thus to JR’s of the 12th at 556PM:

    With nothing else but concerned that he isn’t in the mix here, JR will – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – play a word-gamey riff on “squat” and “crap”. Charmingly adolescent.

    Especially coming from the one who didn’t really see much difference between “rape” and (allegedly) having a hand stuck down his pants (once or several times over two weeks or … whatevvvverrrrr!).

    The exchange between Humpty-Dumpty and Alice comes to mind:

    Humpty: “When I choose a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”.

    Alice: “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things”.

    Humpty: “The question is which is to be master – that’s all”.

    • Dan says:

      So Alice from Wonderland, you've climbed out of your rabbit hole, thinking an improvement, only to become a fat tub of lard that sat up on the wall. All that's left is having a GREAT FALL. Could be the Fall of Babylon Rome. Hope I'm there to witness it.  servant of a Mighty God

    • James Robertson says:

      You use the word squat and I'm responsible for your doing that?  You are pathetic.


  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 556PM:

    And there is the Victimist/ Stampede gambit in as prettily concise a form as one could wish for.

    It’s not about the integrity of language; it’s precisely not about and precisely against the integrity and precision of language.

    It’s just about who’s going to “be master” and get to ‘control the narrative’ and see that the ‘preferred narrative’ comes out on top come hell or high-water.

    • James Robertson says:

      Why would you wish to master truth into lies? I tell the truth and you call it a lie. Talk about controlling a narrative. I prefer the truth. No false narrative needed on my part. Why do you need one?

  40. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1027PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ indulges himself in a riff that is based on nothing more than his ever-undemonstrated presumption that what he doesn’t like is and must be a “lie” (and that “God hears every lie” and – but of course – that God’ll-getcha for it).

    As I have said, ‘Dan’s only hope at this point is that God accepts the insanity-defense plea on ‘Dan’s behalf.

    God may very well have “no intention of His chosen to be physically violent”. A sly distinction – the alert reader might note – with that “physically”. But readers may judge a) whether ‘Dan’s vivid and sustained verbal violence does or does not indicate a predisposition to violence and b) whether under any sort of in-person (rather than internet) confrontation ‘Dan’ will quickly escalate to actual physical violence or threats of it.

    Imagine, for example, that all of these exchanges now in the record took place in-person and not on the internet: what is the probability that ‘Dan’ would be able to restrain himself and limit himself to merely verbal violence?

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s on the 11th at 1027PM:

    And for that matter – thinking especially of the scream-caps so often seen in his material – would not even that display not give cause for concern.

    Let alone that – as best can be determined – it is ‘Dan’ who initiates the confrontations with various people (perhaps “hundreds” of them – in the first place.

    And the alert reader may also note that ‘Dan’ has neatly and slyly chosen a ‘preferred narrative’ that has ‘Dan’ wielding “a weapon” in order to ‘destroy’.

    This is a neat recipe for a delusional system that promises violence and thus gives ‘Dan’ a ‘warrant’ for venting his ragey ranting spew.

    But as always: just whose “hypocrisy” is really driving things in all this? As ever, ‘Dan’ has projected all of his whackness outwards onto somebody else, thus providing the psychological path to i) exonerating and actually burnishing himself while ii) evading his painfully obvious personal issues and problems.

    • Dan says:

      My "weapon" is the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.

      "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

      You really think you'll escape His judgment, when He knows the thoughts and intentions of the heart, you think He doesn't hear the lies spewing from your forked-tongue.   servant

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s on the 11th at 1027PM:

    And this is all neatly demonstrated as ‘Dan’ then immediately (in the second paragraph) launches into a pericope about God’s “vengeance” which God will “repay” (in all this, ragey scream-caps omitted). And since ‘Dan’ has appointed himself (or Himself) as God’s “chosen”, then ‘Dan’ can do all that vengeance-and-repay stuff to his heart’s content.

    Neato. But whacko.

    • Dan says:

      "VENGEANCE IS MINE. I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.  Romans 12:19 (NAS) 

      I wrote this quote exactly as written in the Bible version I used, (NAS). So they weren't my "ragey scream-caps", as you like to accuse me of. Followed by more mocking of God. I am God's "chosen" by His gracious choice. If I had appointed myself then that would be worthless, kind of like you. I seek no vengeance-[or]-repay, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. I wrote that twice for you. Apparently you weren't able to see it the first time, or understand it, or realize that this is the Word of the Lord (scream-caps and all). Told you that I only capitalize words to show their importance, or that the blind might see.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s on the 11th at 1027PM:

    In the third paragraph ‘Dan’ now tries to paper-over and wave-away the content of his “beautiful prophecy” to those “innocent children” by trying this bit: what he said to them was not at all in any way whatsoever similar to what he has been spewing here for so long. And what – d’ye suppose – are really the chances of that being true?

    And he then tries to bolster that bit by merely claiming that it was “your wicked minds” that have “dreamed up”  the scenario of ‘Dan’ going after the school-children with vitriol gussied up in Scriptural pericopes. But it’s the hefty weight of ‘Dan’s own revelations and material that drive the probability of what went on when he chose to harangue those school-children.

    And then – trying to muster whatever factuality he might, ‘Dan’ doth no declaim that it wasn’t at recess but rather was “before school”. Oh, that’s very relevant. Perhaps the weather that day might also be considered a relevant factor. Or the moon being full.

    • Dan says:

      Your stupidity and ignorance flows from your mouth, like torrents of waves cascading down Niagara Falls. God would not respond to innocent children, the same way he would respond to adult liars, who should know better. I do not respond to adults, who insistently lie and slander, in the same way that I would respond to an innocent child. I'm not only His chosen, I love to obey and follow in His footsteps. I was once a prodigal son, but found it stupid to fight against His mighty power. You will not win. You can take my word for it. 

      So you can continue on with your dreamed up scenarios, and you can add more ignorance with your stupid words (i.e. vitriol gussied up), but all they amount to is more of the same, somewhat of a Jenga of lies. "Before school", not terribly relevant, but more proof that you fools weren't even there. Why don't you tell us what the weather was like, or if the moon was full, since you think you know everything else that transpired that day. Lying Hypocrites.

    • Dan says:

      The probability, possiblity, plausibility, actuality or reality, that 'Dan' accosted, harangued, harrassed or threw vitriol at school children, are absolutely false accusations and insinuations, which means they are totally lies. Do you two have absolutely no consciences, that you think you can slander and demean others, and there will be no consequences? You guys have been bowing down to your false gods and goddesses for so long, that you think the real God doesn't exist and won't punish you for your sins. Foolish ignorance, at it's best.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s on the 11th at 1027PM:

    Then that he was “on the public sidewalk” – as if that made any difference. A grown man goes up to a school-yard and starts haranguing the “innocent children” … if he had brandished a weapon, would the fact that he was on a public sidewalk have made any difference? What’s the point?

    As for whether the children – once they heard ‘Dan’s stuff – did “run towards the fence in order to hear the beautiful loving message” … readers may consider that bit as they will. And judge it accordingly.

    First of all, we have no way of knowing if this is merely ‘Dan’s ‘preferred narrative’ of what happened.

    Second, maybe the kids were just interested in seeing a genuine looney-toon on the hoof and under full sail. That sort of spectacle interests people sometimes, especially kids facing a day at school.

    And as to whether 12 of the 150 or so (12, the alert reader will note, being the number of Christ’s disciples) … readers may judge as they will.

    • Dan says:

      And just more of the same ignorance and nonsense. I'd like to direct this to peewee and mini-pee. You both don't think much of the intellegence of catholic school children, thinking they would run towards a "genuine looney-toon on the hoof" or a "train wreck", but seeing how you two imbiciles turned out, maybe you're under the impression that all catholics are idiots like yourselves, and could be just that dumb. These ridiculous, lying assessments have gotten way out of hand, so why don't you two deceiving hypocrites stop guessing with your warped minds and do something constructive with your life, while you still have one.   servant

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s on the 11th at 1027PM:

    And as for who might be among the “evil weirdos” … once again ‘Dan’ picks up remarks made in regard to himself and tries to toss them back in that familiar I’m Not/You Are gambit.

    And the whole performance ends – as usual – on a note of epithet and threat.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1215PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ doth clutch the pearls and sigh that he doesn’t “really care to get to [sic] deep into the ignorance and nonsense today”. Alas and forsooth. He should imagine how the rest of us feel.

    Then more of the I’m Not/You Are myah-myah gambit.

    And ‘Dan’ cawn’t think how he might be accused of “ignoring actuality, reality, objectivity or clear and critical thought”. That’s what a nice tight delusional system will do for you – you won’t be able to see things you don’t want to see.

    More pearl-clutching, then, as ‘Dan’ doth bleat about how all he’s been trying to do is to “open your slammed-shut eyes”. That too is what a nice tight delusional system will do for you: snap shut your ability to actually see what’s going on inside you.

  47. Dan says:

    No KenW, he's not the same Jimmy Mitchell, he's the lying Jimmy, cloned directly from bacteria scraped from the nose of a bigger liar, publyin', bookends, Frickin and Frackin, c-loners with nothing better to do in life than falsely accuse and demean anyone exposing their fraud and that of their cult.    servant

  48. Publion says:

    Not all of the comments in the most recent crop need to be dealt with; some of them are just further examples of the usual myah-myah comeback gambits with no content worth noting.

    And I will go down the list in the order in which they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 226AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ is trying to somehow salvage some ground upon which he can huff and puff.

    Specifically, he dons the Wig of Honest Exasperation to insist that he hath “clearly stated” and then goes on about how many times this and how many times that. His story has bounced around so much that one no longer knows for sure, although in any case the exact mix of “5150 holds” and the number of hospitals is – at this point – irrelevant to any major point on the table.

  49. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 255AM:

    Once again he tries to insure that his performance will be taken seriously by assuming the Wig of Exasperated Integrity and Intelligence, although with the added little oomph of some epithetical snark.

    Ya see … ‘Dan’ likes to take long walks (or “skates” … for that added touch of either realism or whackness). And during these romps – doncha see? – “at times” he just might “come across” – waitttt forrrr itttttttt – “people attending church”. (Sooooo … he just happens to be taking his walks and bumping into folks on a Sunday … what a coincidence.)

    And on those occasions – doncha see? – he then just might “talk to them”. Readers may imagine whether these folks initiate the conversation or rather that ‘Dan’ imposes himself (or Himself) and intrudes into their day. But – not to worry – all this happens on “public property” (so we haven’t gotten the point where some “property owner” is telling ‘Dan’ to scram).

    Well, then, as it turns out – doncha see? – it just might happen that on such occasions ‘Dan’ takes it upon himself (or Himself) to be “informing them that they won’t find truth in these manmade temples” (as opposed to, say, in ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror).

    And – really – is “informing” the right word here? Perhaps ‘opining’ or ‘declaiming’ would be accurate.

    • Dan says:

      I walk every morning, everyday, idiota.

    • Dan says:

      And wouldn't you rather add that I was accosting, haranging and harrassing them, to further justify all your past, present and future lies? We all know your lies mean more than the truth, for you were there to witness what really went on. Hypocrite, lying creep.

  50. Publion says:

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

    But not worry – doncha see? – because, he assures us, ‘Dan’ has also “talked to some churches with absolutely no problems”. Given ‘Dan’s deep theological animus against organized religion, that bit seems a bit of a stretch.

    But – doncha see? – “for some reason” (and ‘Dan’ cawn’t think why) Catholics and especially priests and nuns “become annoyed with” ‘Dan’. Gee, perhaps if ‘Dan’ goes after school-children in a school-yard then that might explain it. Especially if he’s done that sort of thing more than once.

    Or maybe ‘Dan’ especially has it in for Catholics even more than for organized religions in general. Who knows?

    And these Catholics – amazingly – do “threaten or curse” poor ‘Dan’ when he merely walks near – waitttt forrrr itttttttttttttttt – “their apostate, cult temples”.

    Then and only then – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ will ‘legally protest with signs’ – waitttt forrrr itttttttttt – “in front of their violent churches . It’s not ‘Dan’ whose “violent” – doncha know? – it’s the Catholics. ‘Dan’s just a victim, a heroic and truthy victim.