The ‘Secret’ Is Finally Out: False Abuse Accusations Rampant Against Chicago Ex-Priest McCormack

Daniel McCormack abuse fraud

Busted: Claimants caught on tape scheming to bilk the Church and falsely accuse Daniel McCormack

It has long been a poorly kept secret in the neighborhoods near St. Agatha Catholic Church and within the offices at the Archdiocese of Chicago that most, if not nearly all, of the abuse accusations lodged against ex-priest Daniel McCormack are completely bogus.

For the past several years, MacCormack has been the subject of many breathless headlines in Chicago with each new ridiculous lawsuit claiming "repressed memories" of abuse. But now the secret is finally out in the open thanks to the serendipity of a jail telephone recording of a plaintiff trying to defraud the Catholic Church.

In fact, a Chicago judge has even ordered that the plaintiff repay the Church for the money it spent defending itself after the audiotape was revealed.

But that's not all. It turns out that this one case is just the tip of a very large iceberg.

The story was first reported by Michael J. O'Loughlin at America magazine.

Show me the 'free' money

In court documents, the scammer is only identified as "John J. Doe," a convicted criminal. And as O'Loughlin reports:

In June, just before Mr. Doe was released from prison, his cousin reassured him that he had been "working with the archdiocese … [A]nybody I say got touched, or didn't get touched, they believe me."

Mr. Doe replied that he needed "free money" and that he was happy to proceed with the suit as long as nobody had to "touch me for real."

By July, Mr. Doe had contacted a lawyer. He told his cousin during another phone call that he should be able to convince church authorities that he was also a victim because he had previously met some of Mr. McCormack's victims and even Mr. McCormack himself.

"Yeah boy," Mr. Doe said to his cousin. "I gotta go play that role."

Burying the lede

Unfortunately, O'Loughlin waits until the very end of his article to report the real story here:

Mr. [James C.] Geoly, [Archdiocese of Chicago] lawyer, said there are some other pending claims against Mr. McCormack that may be turn out to be false.

"We are defending cases right now and we certainly think there are some that are fraudulent," he said.

Earlier in the article, O'Loughlin had run to the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP and quotes the hysterical Barbara Dorris, who claims, without any evidence, that false charges against priests are "rare" and that "[t]his is going to make it harder for victims to come forward."

In truth, however, false claims like these will only make it harder for more false claims to come forward! As a matter of common sense and logic, if one case of fraud is uncovered, there are likely many more to be found.

TheMediaReport.com has recently contacted its sources in Chicago who have indicated that we likely have not heard the end of this story.

It was reported years ago – back in 2001, in fact – that an East Coast lawyer wrote, "I have some contacts in the prison system, having been an attorney for some time, and it has been made known to me that [accusing a Catholic priest of abuse] is a current and popular scam."

Some things never change!

Stay tuned.

[SEE ALSO:

TheMediaReport.com : Falsely Accused Priests (tag/multiple pages of archived posts)

Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories (Amazon.com)]

[And RECOMMENDED:

"Plea Deals or a Life Sentence in the Live Free or Die State" (TheseStoneWalls.com)]

Comments

  1. Greg says:

    Too bad for everyone..  As I  understand it, this is a very poor area and the temptation for these guys to make up a false claims must just be too much for them.  Wonder how many claims were made and what the church has already paid out.   Any chance that they will be criminally prosecuted for this as this seems like a crime to me to be doing this stuff.? 

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    "Burying the lede"? "

    "Lead" perhaps? More inaccuracy from TMR.

     

    • TheMediaReport.com says:
    • Phil Steinacker says:

      Your reading experience is neither very wide not deep, is it? You really ought to run that word through a dictionary before speaking  your mind, or at least a search engine.

    • Jim Bowman says:

      "lede" in common use in newsrooms. I knew that but thought it of no legitimacy, only practicality, to distinguish from various meanings of "lead." Glad to learn of the Merriam-Webster endorsement. 1951, eh? I feel better already bout using it now and then in blogs.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Never saw it spelled that way. I worked at a weekly paper for 10 years. I stand corrected,a bit.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Phil Steinacker, What do you know about my reading experience ? You insulting piece of crap. How many tired old queens like you know anything you pretend to know?

      I have read every thing from Gilgamesh to Camus. From Sartre to Voltaire. From William Burroughs (Who I interviewed and spent a weekend going to different events with) to Jean Genet. I have read Pushkin, Beckett, Steinbeck; Kalfka; Coward; Joe Orton, I know the grand daughter of F Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, and I've read him. I've read Joyce; Inge; Williams, Synge and Turgenev and Edward Albee. I've read Germaine Greer to Kate Millet. I've read Engles and Marx and Che Gueverra and Pepys. I've even read the Bible cover to cover, which made me an atheist. I've read Ginsberg and Keroac; and Nietzsche.  I've read Mao, Lenin; and Stalin, George Jackson, Shirley Jackson and Angela Davis. I've read poets from Byron to Pasolini to Vachel Lindsey to Edna St Vincent Millay to ee cummings and TS Eliot and Ezra Pound and Dylan, and Dylan Thomas and Proust. I've read Dreiser, Artaud; and de Sade. I've read Gide and the Buddha. Augustine and Aquinas. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, Sophocles, Euripides, Edna Ferber, London,  Chesterton, Willa Cather, and Tolkien. Ray Bradbury and Azimov. and Thomas Wolfe, Stanislavsky and Strasberg. Sinclair Lewis to Charles Dickens and Shakespeare to Upton Sinclair and Eugene O'Neil, and Jane Austin.Truman Capote, Herman Melville, Hawthorne; Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. To Enid Blyton and Carolyn Keene. (lol)

      I have known 4 Pulitzer Prize winners. 2 for playwriting, Chuck Gordon and Robert Patrick, 1 for reviewing, Johnathan Gold and 1 for news photography.  The man who took the picture of the napalmed girl running in Vietnam, His name eludes me because I don't race to a search engine when I'm writing off the top of my head to jerks like you.

      So, you pompous little bedeviled deist, shove what YOU think YOU know I know and what YOU think YOU know I've read, where the sun don't shine. No one knows everything (and my spelling is awful).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I left out Willa Cather and Chekov and Salinger. I even read Ayn Rand and Hitler Yechhhh!( I'm sure P is their love child. )

    • Jim Robertson says:

      And most importantly I left out Mark Twain, my first pornography: "Git on da raft Huck honey".. and I did mention Cather in the longer post.

  3. Joanne says:

    Ms. Dorris, let's be clear. If false charges make it harder for victims to come forward, the responsibility for that lies with the scammers and not with the Catholic Church. SNAP isn't exactly known for discouraging or weeding out false accusers.

  4. malcolm harris says:

    Dave Pierre makes the point "As a matter of common sense and logic, if one case of fraud is uncovered… it is likely that there are other cases to be found". How very true. And on the question of logic, I cannot understand what constitutes "credible". Because even when watching cop shows on T.V….., we learn that the opportunity to commit the crime has to be established. Zero opportuniity usually means the suspect is crossed off the list. And in my time only the alter servers were ever alone with the priests, usually on a Sunday. And two of us were rostered on. Moreover our parents were usually attending that same mass. So were is the opportunity??. Am beginning to think that the Church is paying out on claims, which they know are false, because they fear a merciless witch-hunt. Which will result in a court loss, whatever the lack of evidence.  You only have to read about the conviction of Fr. Gordon MacRae… to understand that the court system is not fair and impartial. It is loaded and biased against Catholic priests,.

  5. Dan says:

    Dave, Are you aware that ex-priest Fr. Daniel McCormack plead guilty to sexually abusing five boys and was sentenced to five years in prison. With information from police reports, the archdiocese and records from the Illinois Dept. of Corrections, psychiatrist, Dr. Angeline Stanislaus, diagnosed McCormack with pedophilia, concluding it was "substantially probable" he would reoffend if released from custody. In separate reports written in 2009 and 2011, Stanislaus identified sex abuse allegations against the ex-priest from more than 25 people in addition to the five victims whose accusations led to his conviction.

    So now some jailbirds come along and see it as an opportunity to bilk some money from the Church, and now we can bring into question the veracity of his 5 year conviction and the fact that there was 30 other people that accused him of molesting them as children? All you continue to prove is that there are many pedophile creeps among clergy in your church. This article and it's claims that as far back as 2001 some lawyer claimed that prisoners "[accusing a catholic priest of abuse] is a current and popular scam" is ridiculous. Oh yeah! The whole Catholic Abuse Matter is all perpetuated by anti-catholic bigots, catholic haters and fake news from the media. Sounds to me like publiar has taken control of "TheMediaReport" and has exposed it as the biased, fictitious fraud that it really is. Catholics come and soak up your favorite catholic fake news. "Separating Fact From Fiction in the Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative", but we'll fail to inform you that we're the ones spewing most of the "Fiction".

    • Mark says:

      What do you know of the McCormack case?  I'd like to know what exactly were the allegations and prior convictions?  Were they all plea-bargained or did they go to trial?  If the latter, was it a jury of "peers" in an all black neighborhood?  Did McCormack's cases involve inappropriate touching or requests for oral sex, or did they involve penetration from the black alter boy accusers?  I'm asking for clarificaiton, because I read of a case involving another priest which failed at trial twice, and a friend was convinced the guy raped a ton of kids when the TRUTH was the Fr was only accused of asking for oral sex; and the accusation failed at trial, twice.  The public are such fools for our liar media who never correct their incorrect reporting.

    • Mark says:

      Oh looks like you already answered my question in your initial post.  That original conviction of Daniel McCormack was YET ANOTHER plea bargain.  Plea bargains are heavily encouraged as a means to "make the pain go away."  And now Father McCormack is rotting in an insane asylum. 

      There is another case where the Priest was heavily leaned on to cop a plea.  Father Andrew McCormick was offered "sweetheart" deals too.  Thank God he refused, and thankful he had many friends supporting him, even if the Catholic Church wasn't one of them; they abandoned him at the first utterance.

      Speaking of which, if you fancy yourself an expert in the Daniel McCormack trial, can you tell me; did the Church abandon him too, or did they provide him lawyers?

    • Mark says:

      I would also add that the occurence of white men raping blacks is statistically zero; so I magine the raping of black boys is even less.  So the idea that Father McCocmarck "would reoffend" strikes me as odd.  But admittely I am not an expert on the Father McCormack case.  Just sounds fishy, and most of the time this sense has served me well.

  6. Jim Robertson says:
  7. Jim Robertson says:

    mirror.

     

  8. malcolm harris says:

    JR…. on the 7th….. says that just because I never experienced sexual abuse….. doesn't mean that it never happened to others?. Fair comment.  But I could equally say… have never been mugged….but wouldn't be implying that others haven't been mugged?. Of course they have!  But if I had been mugged… then would have run to my parents to tell them. And they would have gone to the police. Not just for my sake…. but because others might also be attacked… by the same mugger. This, to my mind, is exactly what would have happened if anybody sexually abused me. Even as a kid I had heard about 'dirty old men' and 'perverts'.What's more every other kid I knew would have run to their parents straight away, And certainly not have waited decades before telling anyone?. My considered opinion is that the majority of these claims are false. Like a feeding frency… for opportunists.

    • Dan says:

      These assumptions you make are utterly ridiculous, Malcolm. In many child rape and molestation cases, these young innocent children are groomed, treated to trips to camp and sometimes the perpetrators have even befriended their parents. I've heard several cases where the child was going to tell on the priest and they, their parents or their whole family was threatened. Also reporting families were threatened with excommunication, and didn't want to loose their membership in such a Holier Than Thou cult. For you to make such outrageous claims that as a child you would have definitely reported them and all your friends would have done the same, is ridiculously presumptuous ignorance. And how about stopping with your stupid witch-hunt accusations and your "opinion is that the majority of these claims are false". Nobody asked for your twisted, pro-catholic biased opinion. We get enough of that ignorance and nonsense from the deceiving liar and excuser, publiar, and we surely don't need to hear the same lame excuses from you.  servant of the Truth

      P.S. I've even heard where creepy priests claimed to forgive the child for giving him oral sex or for the sicko sodomizing the child. Disgusting nasty hypocrites, and there are no excuses.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Malcolm, How old are you. I'm 70 and went to an all boys Catholic high school. I assume you are a heterosexual. I was not. Being male when i was growing up meant one thing: you weren't gay. You being straight sexually meant never having to worry about being gay now did you?

    I couldn't face who i was, being gay, at 16 when I was abused. I was afraid the other boys would find out if i told. I was already tormented daily as a "fag". My parents were older and both had been ill. My parents never even told me about sex. that's how open my family was around the subject.

    I just wanted the abuse to end. I didn't know whether I'd even be believed if I did tell. (Which I eventually did to the priest at school. 2 authorities at my school knew about the abuse  at the time aside from the perp. they did nothing. It was their job to report it to the police and my parents. they did not. It was not the duty of a 16 yr old sexually traumatized child who had told his school authorities, to call the police. )

    I thought by ending the sexual abuse. I could get over it and move on. It just didn't work out that way. All survivors of such abuse by adults never get "over" it.

     

    • Mark says:

      Jim, what was the name of the abusive Priest?  At what parish did this take place?  Sorry to ask, but you did bring it up.  And of course everyone on the internet tells the truth, so let us share your pain by knowing who did this to you.

  10. Publion says:

    I’m going to take JR’s recent ones first, and then get on to ‘Dan’s.

    In a marvelously un-self-aware bit, JR (the 7th at 528PM) tries to extract himself from the howler of not knowing that “lede” is a perfectly established term: he claims never to have seen it “spelled that way”.

    But he can’t let it go with that because it makes him look as if he didn’t know stuff – and he can’t possibly entertain that thought. Thus (cue trumpets) he now says that he “worked at a weekly newspaper for 10 years”. And never encountered the term “lede” … perhaps navigating the streets on a bicycle with a basketful of newspapers all those years precluded his actually getting to know much about the newspaper business.

    But that’s still not enough for him. He acknowledges that doth “stand corrected” … “a bit”. I would say ‘completely’ is a far more accurate term, rather than the self-servingly minimizing “a bit”.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "If it bleeds it leads" that I've seen.

      Never saw "If it bleeds it ledes". Just telling the truth.

       

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Get how asswipe P mocks paper boys/girls/ men/women. You know those workers who are up pre dawn to deliver your paper in everykind of weather?

      Why I, according to P, if I did work 10 years for a newspaper only delivered it on a bicycle. (I had been, in the 70's, a bike messenger on Hollywood blvd. I was never fitter physically.)

      But just for once the fucker is right. Back in the '80's in L.A. I could work one day a week delivering the LA Weekly from the back seat and trunk of my 72 Chevy Nova and live. I had a one room cabin in Echo Park with a view of the Hollywood sign for $90 a month. Stupid fucking me. LOL!

      The more important issue here is P's denegration of workers no matter what the job. He thinks saying someones a paper boy etc. is an insult. Any of the readership ever paper deliverers?

      I'm so dumb I can only deliver duh! papers infers P. He attempts to denigrate my intelligence and capacity by imagining me in what he deams a childish, low ranking stupid job. (God knows what he does/did for work. He's probably a priest living off the parishioners largesse. He used to golf 4 days a week but now he plies his lying trade here.)

      This is the "type" of person referenced so brilliantly in,

      http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/

       

  11. Publion says:

    On to the 7th at 530PM where JR tries to revive his Total Church Conspiracy (TCC) theory: Barbara Dorris’s death was “both a murder and a suicide”. That breaks remarkable conceptual and legal ground: can one and the same death be both a murder and a suicide?

    Yes it can … in a cartoon universe where all that counts is that you have some snazzy ploppy-bits you can toss.

  12. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    In conformity with his basic agenda, ‘Dan’ has to engage – if it isn’t actually already permanently engaged – some serious reading mis-comprehension: the current TMR article here is not focused on McCormack’s prior legal history; it is focused on the efforts – via lawsuit – by some persons to make hay off the whole thing, surfing the still-functioning and now-classic Stampede waves.

    In regard to McCormack’s conviction (apparently through a plea bargain of some sort): we don’t have access to the vital information that might be contained in assorted court records but we do know we are dealing with Stampede dynamics here. And it is a well-known tactic of prosecutors to apply all sorts of pressure to get accused to accept plea-bargains;  97 percent of federal convictions come through such pleas; Jed S. Rakoff has an acute article entitled “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty” (The New York Times Book Review, Nov. 20, 2014).

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    But – keeping in mind both Stampede dynamics and the dynamics of plea-bargains as they exist in the criminal justice system – let us assume here that there is some or even much solid basis for his conviction, and perhaps also for the subsequent declaration by a judge (on the authority of a State-employed or –contracted clinician) that McCormack remains at high risk of re-offending and is thus legally classifiable as a Sexually Violent Person (which enables the State to continue incarceration – although in a secure ‘therapeutic’ facility rather than an outright prison – for any amount of time after his actual sentence has been served).

    What is of interest in this TMR article is the clear evidence that at least one person – whom I would call an ‘enterprising allegant’ – is now trying to piggy-back his own desire for “free money” onto the back of this conviction. Or, more accurately, onto the Chicago Archdiocese (I don’t think McCormack – who by this point probably has few financial assets – is named as a Party Defendant in the lawsuit; were this only a lawsuit against McCormack himself there would be few torties who would see it worthwhile to pursue it – that’s the nature of the tortie business model in this sort of thing).

  14. Publion says:

    BT

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    The article from ‘America’ magazine – surely no friend of the Church – that is hyperlinked above in this TMR article is instructive in several ways:

    First, an Archdiocese of Chicago (AoC) attorney lets a cat out of the bag when he is quoted as noting that in defending against these lawsuits the defense counsel have to steer between a) their responsibility as stewards of Church funds b) “while avoiding the re-victimizing or re-injuring” of “the people coming forward” … “by questioning their allegations to rigorously” (italics mine).

    Thus – and I would say this has been the well-strategized gambit of torties in the Catholic Abuse Matter all along – in trying to mount a defense against an allegation (and we recall that so many of these abuse lawsuits contained multiple allegants and allegations) defense counsel have to steer between i) the Scylla of simply giving money away to anyone who “comes forward” and becoming seen as such a source of “free money” and  ii) the Charybdis of falling afoul of reigning Victimist sensibility by actually “questioning” the allegants and allegations “too rigorously”.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      It's "too" rigorously. not to. Question people till the cows come home Evil one. You'd never believe any of us anyway. You never have.

      Oh yea the church and their insurors just caved in with no heavy hard questions being asked on their part to the total tune of $3 billion.(If we are to believe Satan here.) LOL ( the church has only laid out half of the 3 billion).  But they like to act like the coffers are so strained by greedy victims but guess who strained them, if they are strained? Not the victims and our lawyers but the fucks who did the covering up and transferring of perpetrators to fresh fields of  Catholic children. You all brought this on us your children and yourselves by supporting the oligarchs of the church without question. You still do that. You are all accessories after the fact.

      Don't believe us all. Question us as much as you like. We'll stop you, if you are like P never willing to accept the truth. 

       

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    That reigning Victimist sensibility dogmatically requires that the ‘victim’ (a presumption far too gratuitously made at the outset) / be believed / and precisely not be ‘re-victimized’ by being doubted or questioned .

    Thus – and from the get-go in these lawsuits – defense counsel are hobbled in their ability to defend.

    One wonders – in these lawsuits – if this well-strategized tortie gambit hasn’t undermined the legal process and the genuine process of defense before the allegations can even be examined. Thus resulting in ‘game over’ before it’s actually begun.

    As the article further quotes defense counsel: “many dioceses have been reluctant to question the veracity of many claims”.

    • Dan says:

      publiar quotes "many dioceses have been reluctant to question the veracity of many claims"

      Well of course they were, knowing that in the majority of cases there was truth to every accusation. The priests and bishops were well aware of the extent of pedophiles, perverts and perversions going on in their own churches and afraid that exposing another pervert might open a can-of-worms and bring scrutiny down upon their own malfeasances. Now they've found that denying and lying about every accusation is the best policy, in hopes they can get away with their disgusting crimes against innocent children. All of them, including pope John Paul II, cardinal RAT-zinger, bishops and priests did their very best to hide their perverts and perversions, all for the good of "Mother Church". And Ohhh!! What a Mother of a sick cult of hypocritical deceivers it's turned out to be. servant of The Truth

  16. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    Defense counsel is further quoted as trying to resolve this profound and abyssal legal problem by saying that now the defense is “going after fraud, not going after victims”.

    The legal layman might wonder why defense counsel in these lawsuits didn’t simply do this decades ago at the outset of the Stampede. But a) back when Insurers were footing the bills the Insurers had a great say in how to proceed (i.e. settle rather than go to the expense of so many trials).

    And b) there was little if any proof available that plaintiffs were more ‘enterprising allegants’ than genuine ‘victims’.

    After all, the client-attorney privilege blocked any examination of tactical and strategic discussions between the tortie and the allegant-plaintiff in preparing the stories that would be included in the Complaints.

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    But Time and events have a way of moving along. At this point, Insurers are no longer covering many of these cases, which actually serves to free the defense counsel from insurance hobbles while also prompting more dioceses to make a more active defense.

    And this is especially so since there is, in this instance, clear evidence of fraudulent planning and manipulation, at least on the part of an individual ‘enterprising allegant’ if not of torties.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    Thus getting to ‘Dan’s particular points:

    First, it is not clear that the psychiatrist “diagnosed McCormack with pedophilia” rather than simply hewing to the specific legally-required task of offering her clinical opinion as to whether he is a Sexually Violent Person according to applicable statute. She is careful to limit herself to saying that it is “substantially probable” that he is, which is all that the statute requires.

    Second, in the matter of there being (as far as we know) a number of further allegations: clearly these allegations never proceeded to a point where she can characterize them as definitively proven. And we are then also faced with the clear possibility that some of those allegations may themselves be the result of ‘enterprising allegants’.

    And if these mere allegations constituted a major element in her diagnostic conclusion/opinion, then we see what further complications arise.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    Third, ‘Dan’ tries then to minimize (as Victimist argot likes to put it) the (possibly conspiratorial) actions as being merely “some jailbirds” who have “come along” and “see it as an opportunity to bilk some money from the Church”.

    That point alone – that we now have evidence of such actions – is the key relevant point. Nobody here, and not the article, and certainly not I, are in any way proclaiming McCormack’s innocence on the basis of the subsequent present lawsuit.

    But – yes – so much very much indeed “does bring into question” elements of the whole affair.

    Among which I would also point out that a plea-bargain offered by prosecutors with a 5-year cap does not indicate something as serious as actual (and apparently multiple) rapes of a child or legal ‘minor’. For that prosecutors would surely have set a higher cap. And the very fact that a plea-bargain was offered in the first place might well also indicate that prosecutors didn’t really feel they had enough of a case to result with any certainty in a whizz-bang and media-pleasing trial conviction.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 211AM:

    Fourth, nothing in the article or this present lawsuit supports ‘Dan’s assertion that “all you continue to prove is that there are many pedophile creeps among clergy in your Church”. That is ‘Dan’s self-serving personal cartoon and nothing more.

    Fifth, nor can his typical attempt to dispose of the 2001 attorney statement that “accusing a catholic priest of abuse is a current popular scam” be taken seriously when he waves it away as being “ridiculous”. As usual, ‘Dan’ seems to think that his mere epithetical characterizations somehow constitute serious and credible rebuttal and demonstration.

    Sixth – and when ‘Dan’ brays that “it sounds to me like” you know we’re on our way down the rabbit-hole – I have not “taken control” of TMR. Rather, the vivid but scanty rantings of the Abuseniks have failed to “take control” and they aren’t happy about that at all, no siree.

  21. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1102PM:

    Here he accuses ‘Malcolm Harris’ of making “assumptions” that are – had you been waiting forrr itttt? – “utterly ridiculous”.

    In support of which characterization, he proffers a bunch of now-classic Victimist come-backs:

    First, that in “many” (a weasel term designed to sound ‘scientific’ while not actually establishing anything at all) cases there is “grooming” and such. What is the relevance here?  Some are groomed and some are not. What’s the point here?

    Second, if this “threatened with excommunication” bit is based on the 1962 Church directive, that punishment was only enjoined on clerical participants in canonical trials and – once the trial was completed – not on accusers. And as to what ‘Dan’ has “heard” … readers may take it as they will.

    Third, ‘Dan’s pearl-clutching effort to assume the Pose of Shocked Decency with his claim that MH’s saying that he would have reported any abuse to himself is “outrageous” is itself a clearly manipulative and self-serving bit of histrionics that are par-for-the-course in Victimist theater and also in ‘Dan’-verse theatrics.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1102PM:

    Fourth – and moving beyond yet more examples of ‘Dan’s larding on more assorted epitheticals – ‘Dan’s bit “Nobody asked you for your … opinion” does nothing except reveal the repellent and childish level of ‘Dan’s mentation and tactics. Nobody asked ‘Dan’ for his assorted opinions either, if there is in his statement some principle to be applied.

    But it’s a comment-enabled website here so ‘Dan’s  comment is nonsensical on its face.

    And he tries to bring it all home with more stuff that he has “heard” (and one can only imagine where). Readers may judge as they will.

    • Dan says:

      My response to publyin's lyin' longwinded ignorance, stupidity and nonsense on Nov. 8th – Aren't we all impressed now that the publiar clearly lists by number or letter all the excuses, manipulations and lies he can fabricate in regards to minimalizing the disgusting crimes of the pedophiles and perverts of his cult. Problem is he's gotten so used to making excuses, that even his excuses have excuses. I'd like to ask if he even believes all of the garbage that spews from his forked tongue.

      Now in regards to my statement on opinions, I have absolutely no problem with anyones "honest" opinion. The quote was "Nobody asked for your twisted, pro-catholic biased opinion." And likewise, no honest or truth seeking person needs to hear your longwinded slew of 'twisted', lying, deceiving, manipulating and 'pro-catholic biased opinion' either.

      Quit trying to impress us with your vast vocabulary and now your use of "Scylla and Charybdis" to show how learned you are even in Greek mythology. Do you have any idea how annoying your pompous arrogance is?

      And Jim, I don't think it's fair to call publiar "Asswipe". It wouldn't be fair to toilet paper, which actually has some value and importance. LMAO

       

  23. Publion says:

    As for JR’s of the 8th at 1226PM:

    Here JR tells his story as he has a number of times before here. As far as his family history (the first two paragraphs) goes, who can say and readers may take it as they will.

    However in the third paragraph, getting to matters touched upon in regard to his case when documents relating to it were released in an LA Times cache a few years back, I would note the following:

    First, it is not accurate to characterize “the authorities” at the school as having ‘known’ “about the abuse”. JR told them his story (against a teacher, we recall, in whose class JR was failing, endangering his scholarship status) and they came to the conclusion that it was a case of JR trying to get payback for getting low grades in the class. It was on that basis that they “did nothing”, or at least, they did nothing that JR wanted them to do.

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 1226PM:

    At the time of the incident (the early 1960s) the statutory requirements of reporting allegations were not in place as they are now.

    Nor would it have seemed necessary to allow themselves to be turned into JR’s pack-mules by saving him the unpleasantness of informing his parents of his allegations (and, as well, the fact that he was failing in a class and his scholarship was endangered).

    If it was not the “duty” of JR – as he so self-servingly describes himself in the paragraph – to inform the police, it was not also the “duty” – half a century and more ago – of the administrators to do so, especially in the case of so dubious an allegation, which would have wrought – if JR’s descriptions of his parents is to be believed – even worse traumatic experiences upon his parents.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 1226PM:

    All of which is repetition of points made over the course of several years on this site when the topic has come up.

    But lastly, and much more recently, we have demonstrations by JR which would certainly not indicate that the administrators were wide of the mark in their initial assessment   fifty-plus years ago of JR’s allegation and what they knew even then of his rather vengeful and self-excusing tendencies.

    Whether there was any abuse and whether such abuse (a hand stuck down his pants, perhaps on several occasions within a period of weeks) could credibly be blamed for how he and his life have turned out remain questions for consideration by those so inclined.

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Again. This will be my response to Asswipe from here on.

    http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    Barbra Dorris lives. She and Jesus both returned from the dead. Miracles abound.

     

  28. Publion says:

    On the 8th at 547PM JR proffers the point that some “they” “were in California”. Readers who can suss the meaning and relevance of the comment, especially in light of the vague “they” are welcome to share their thoughts.

    He then refers to the same or some other “they” as being “20 years later” (as so often when JR’s grammar starts to slip, he’s trying to put something over but trips over the effort). And ditto for any readers who can suss the meaning and relevance of this bit.

    However the subsequent snippet does provide something to think about: he claims to have “told a Marianist brother” and – remarkably – “a Gardena detective” at his 20th reunion (thus sometime in the early-mid 1980s) and both of those persons – he says – “failed to report”, apparently referring to his abuse story.

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 547PM:

    In the era of JR’s high-school days the California mandated-reporter statute (first enacted in 1963) applied only to physicians. It has since been amended a number of times over the past half century and more, but its primary focus in on abuse of a child (Sec. 11164 b) – and by the time of his 20th reunion JR was far beyond that category.

    The current and presumably most refined version of that law (Sections 11164 to 11174.3 of the California Penal Code) requires that “all persons who are mandated reporters are required by law to report all known or suspected cases of child abuse or neglect” if they have a “reasonable suspicion” (Ch. 11166 a).

    Whether JR’s recitation of his allegation 20 or more years after the (alleged) fact qualified as grounding a “reasonable suspicion” to those whom he told in the early 1980s is surely of relevance here, and it is hardly beyond possibility that even the detective did not see grounds for “reasonable suspicion” under even the broadest interpretation of whatever form of the mandated-reporter law was in effect at that time.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 547PM:

    But we see here in JR’s oft-repeated story the echoes of a standard element in the classic Victimist ‘abuse scenario’, i.e. that ‘they did nothing’. No doubt, during whatever polishing sessions JR had with his counsel in the mid-00s preparatory to whatever maneuvers were pulled to include his and other cases in the massive Los Angeles case and settlement of 2006-7 (we recall that he recently complained here that due to the complications and time extensions required to effect that inclusion his attorney fees substantially increased beyond the usual one-third) every effort was made to conform his allegation to the classic Victimist ‘abuse scenario’.

  31. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 8th at 542PM where he is apparently going to try to evade all the problems with his story or stories by now insisting that from now on his “only response” will be to put up the link to some “evil person” bit he found on the internet.

    Regular readers may recall that for quite a while he was on about my being a “sociopath”: his thinking or logic – so to speak – was apparently that lack of sympathy for other humans’ suffering was one diagnostic indicator of sociopathy / I didn’t sympathize with JR (nor – of course – unhesitatingly accept his stories)  / therefore I was demonstrably and definitively a sociopath.

    Beyond the basic irrationality – conceptually and clinically – of such ‘logic’, there remains the problem that the diagnosis requires that the subject be unsympathetic toward some ‘suffering’ that is generally recognizable as worthy and deserving of sympathy. But JR’s entire story can quite legitimately be seen as not qualifying on that score, thus undermining his ‘diagnosis’ of my sociopathy (which diagnosis also requires other indicators as well).

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 542PM:

    He has a new chew-toy now, i.e. that I am “evil”. And that just tickles ‘Dan’, his pod mate, as well, who usually has nothing but this or that bit of Scriptural or ‘prophetic’ grumbling and growling to put up along those lines.

    Readers may judge as they will.

  33. Jim Robertson says:

     Mirror mirror on the wall  Publiar is the most evil sociopath of all.

    He says Barbra Dorris is dead. A BIG FAT FUCKING LIE. Or just an error that he like his president must never admit to?. When has P ever admitted a mistake here? Why won't he?  Why can't he? Why daren't he? Only a fool or a demon never admit when they are wrong.

    Dan. glad you find the 12 warning signs applicable to Pliar. When I read them I thought nothing could be more accurate about the ahole.

    Dan, Why would you and I be called peas in the same pod. You the believer and me the atheist. Because we agree the church is at fault here. ( All religions save Buddhism are cults, to my mind but calling Catholics cultists seems redundant and off putting to me. I wouldn't do it) but you have your reasons to be here. They are not mine. Yet we both hit the Pliar stonewall and have reacted to it very similarly. He/ its disgussting.

     Dan, I am your twin when it comes to hating bullshit from asswipe. Your critiques of his horrific behavior are the same as mine. So I've decided not to deny you as a twin. Your flaws make you human as do my own make me human too.

    P is above us all. P is the problem with this world.  Not because he questions victims but because he still pretends that I am a liar about what happened in my life. Victims can always be questioned but when we are never believed. We hold up this mirror to the turd who feigns decency.

    http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/

  34. malcolm harris says:

    On the 7th….I made the comment that the court system is loaded and biased against Catholic priests. A week or so before that, somebody on another site, told us that nearly all Court Judges are themselves former prosecutors. But that any former public defenders were hardly ever considered for elevation to Judges. And that this caused a built-in empathy between a Judge and a Prosecutor. Perhaps even a sub -conscious bias in favor of the prosecution. The Judge himself does the sentencing…deciding the length of prison term. So how is it that a Judge would allow his right (to decide the sentence)  to be boldly assumed by a prosecutor? In the trial of Fr. Gordon MacRae the prosecutor offered him a plea deal… of 12  months prison… if he would change his plea to guilty. Otherwise a jury guilty verdict would cause the book being thrown at him.That's what happened..he was given 33.5 years to 67 years…a life sentence?. But how did the prosecutor know that he could safely offer such a plea deal?. He must have known that the Judge would go along with him?. I suspect empathy…. as though the priest was contending against a tag-team.

     

  35. Publion says:

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

    On the 8th at 630PM JR opens with a statement that is ungrammatical as written and makes no more sense if you ignore the periods and treat everything from the opening “It’s” to “one” as a single sentence.

    He then falls back on his well-rehearsed dodge that I wouldn’t “believe any of us anyway”.

    First, the key is to put up believable material  in the first place – not to go and blame those who note the numerous veracity issues with the material one has put up.

    Second, this “us” is gratuitously and manipulatively self-serving since there’s really been no convincing demonstration of JR’s membership in any genuine-victim collective.

    Third, we see that JR has now retreated at last to the point ‘Dan’ retreated to quite some time ago in his life: JR will declare anyone who doesn’t buy his stuff as “evil” and – marvelously – “Satan”. It remains only for JR to pick up the God’ll-getcha trope from ‘Dan’, which, of course, will raise a problem of incoherence for as reliable an atheist as JR but when has coherence ever really given him pause?

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 630PM:

    As for the rest: he tries hard to preserve the classic Victimist-Stampede narrative from the revelations and dynamics that are now finally coming out. And surely if JR’s own story cannot even stand up to the type of questions put up in the internet setting, then the story wasn’t going to stand up under far more acute adversarial questioning if the Insurers and assorted Church defendants hadn’t – as he nicely puts it – “caved in”.

    In fact, given that by JR’s own admission his story got him nowhere until the tortie shenanigans that were pulled off to get him onto the 2006-07 LA lawsuit gravy-train were effected, then the dynamics now coming to light appear even more probable.

    And he tries to top it all off with some sort of faux-legal indictment that “you are all accessories after the fact”.

    Whatever the “we’ll stop you” threat means, it certainly doesn’t apply to the examination of JR’s material, which gets more mushy every time he tries to fluff it and puff it up.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 8th at 630PM:

    And we also see an echo of the type of excuse that allegants made to themselves: the money’s going to come from insurance anyway, so it’s not that bad and they’ve got plenty more where that came from.

    Bonny and Clyde – and others in their trade – might have said the same thing, if they had been concerned for keeping up appearances.

  38. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1036PM:

    ‘Dan’ – the other pea in the pod – also tries to preserve his own preferred cartoons in the face of the statements and dynamics that are now coming to light.

    Thus he tries to put his own spin on the weight of the dynamics that we now know were active in the Stampede: dioceses were reluctant to question the claims … but only – brays ‘Dan’ – because they ‘knew’ that “in the majority of those cases there was truth to every accusation”.

    And how does ‘Dan’ ‘know’ “that in the majority of cases there was truth to every accusation”? He doesn’t know, of course, much less can he demonstrate it. But it’s the only thing he could come up with.

    And the comment then trails off into a quickly-introduced distraction based on ‘Dan’s 3×5 pile.

  39. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1013PM:

    Here – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – ‘Dan’ tries to evade all my material and points put up on the 8th by merely waving them away as “lyin’ longwinded ignorance, stupidity, and nonsense”. As usual, he thinks that he has thus made a “response”.

    He then tries – slyly – to distract by changing the subject, going for the idea that I am trying to ‘impress’. I’m just asking questions and pointing out relevant points. “That’ll be the day” – as the saying goes – when I need to ‘impress’ the likes of the Abuseniks we see on this site.

    If ‘Dan’ – again trying a variant of his old I’m Not/You Are bit – can put up any accurate quote from my material that demonstrates my “minimalizing” anything, he can do so.

    And the bit trails off with word-play on “excuses” and so on.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1013PM:

      Here ‘Dan’ has to extricate himself from the mess he made for himself with his juvenile “nobody asked for your opinion” bit that he tossed at ‘Malcolm Harris’.

      But – doncha see? – ‘Dan’s fine with “anyones honest opinion”, oh very yes and absolutely and truly.

      It’s just that … ‘Dan’ doesn’t allow “twisted, pro-catholic biased opinion”. There’s a big big difference there – doncha see? – and it turns on the ‘fact’ that ‘Dan’ gets to say what opinions are “honest” and what opinions aren’t. In ‘Dan’s sandbox – doncha see? – he gets to make those calls.

      TMR isn’t ‘Dan’s sandbox and neither is the comments section. His sandbox is in his bathroom with the mirror and such ‘prophecy’-spewing friends as join the séances there.

      Back then to his ‘impress’ bit, apparently irritated at my use of the “Scylla and Charybdis” reference. Did he have to look it up? He can blame the séances where he was told he didn’t have to know no stinkin’ ‘worldly knowledge’.

      And then – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr itttt – the one pea gives a shout-out to the other pea, with both of them up to their elbows in their currently favorite bit of juvenile scatology.

      And they wonder why they aren’t ‘believed’. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 8th at 607PM:

      Here JR informs me that I was inaccurate about his story: he had actually lost his scholarship a year and half earlier. But if he was a junior when the alleged abuse happened, then that means he got to school and lost his scholarship his freshman year. And that status was achieved without any abuse at all.

      But since the story changes over time, who knows? Either way, it’s not pretty. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 9th at 538PM:

      The key point is not who was dead; the key point is that JR said that it was both a suicide and a murder, and further that the Church was behind it all. Which bits he tossed up with not a shred of evidence.

      Then a bit incorporating JR’s latest smokescreen about my  being – now – “either a fool or a demon”. He’s been hanging around ‘Dan’ too long, it would seem.

      Then the one pea shouts-out to the other pea about those “12 warning signs” in whatever piece of internet ‘knowledge’ they’ve glommed onto. But since he brought up the subject, I’d say that the “warning signs” of JR’s abyssal lack of veracity are in his material, and he can thank himself for his not being ‘believed’.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 538PM:

      Then JR further expands this now-familiar, catty little just-entre-nous shout-out by – yet again – ‘wondering’ why he and ‘Dan’ are two peas in a pod.

      I would say he has hardly scratched the surface of why they are two peas in a pod. I would say that they are both deranged by their self-serving purposes as well as by their lack of veracity (‘Dan’s stemming from delusion and JR’s from a rather basic and long-standing character flaw / their queasy and repellent un-ripeness as mature adults / their manipulativeness (truth being to both of them a rather play-dough like thing) /and – never far from the surface – their deep tendency to deploy violence and threats in order to impose their deranged and un-veracious and unreliable cartoon thoughts on others and to get their way.

      And his comment trails off along those lines. 

    • Dan says:

      Publiar, Evil Incarnate, Calling opponents deceiving, delusional, deranged, manipulative, untruthful, un-veracious, unreliable, while he's the worst lying, deceiving, manipulative, accusing catholic creep I've ever come across, and boy have I run into quite a few. If it talks like the Devil, walks like the Devil and acts like the Devil, well it surely must be the Devil. Remember that the Devil came as an Angel of Light. He is the deceiver, father of all liars and Accuser of the brethren. Don't allow his followers the chance to blind you from the truth and prevent you from the true riches of the Lord. Publiar is truly the lying, hypocrite snake of this forum. Read the Word, know the truth and it shall set you free from the lies of this world.

    • Dan says:

      And do explain to us how I'm "deranged by [my] self-serving purposes and lack of veracity". The only purpose I have here is to let catholics know they are being terribly deceived by an unbiblical, anti-Christian, goddess worshipping religion, filled with a hierarchy of pedophile, porn addicted perverts and pederasts, their excusers, deniers and liars of the false faith. If anyone disagrees with that truth, then they are some of the above, all of the above or so blinded and brainwashed that they have lost all sense of truth and reality.

      Now tell me, publiar, how and in what way this is "self-serving" or "un-veracious" and how my job of bringing souls to Christ is of any benefit to myself. I'm sure you have a slew of outright lies and manipulations in order to deceive and mock my beliefs and my mission of following the One True God. If I have no false church I'm asking anyone to join, not asking for anyones money, not selling idols or icons, books, DVDs, etc. and definitely not interested in raping innocent children, then tell me again how I'm the one who is "self-serving". What an organization of lying, hypocrite, perverted creeps, pointing their guilty fingers at others while truly behaving like the scum of the earth. Judgment Day draws near. Repent and seek the Truth or pay the consequences.   servant of the Just and Forgiving God and Savior

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    What's your purpose here P? To tell us Dan and I that we are not adults?

    I never wanted to be that. And if you are what you think a mature adult is? Well I'm glad I feel the way I do.

    How long have you been a compulsive liar P?   The pot calling the kettle un-voracious.

     What's an unreliable cartoon thought?  What's a reliable cartoon thought?  What's a cartoon thought? I'm not 2 dimensional. Dan's not 2 dimensional. Cartoons are 2 dimensional. The only 1 dimensional person here is you.

    Hey, Maybe cartoon thoughts are like farts? He who smelt 'em dealt 'em

    http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/

    Threatening to kill an evil person. Is no crime. It's a pleasure. A moral duty if you will. You crossed too many lines. Lines of truth and virtue. Violence is all you've left me to use. Never once have you shown the modicum of respect I am due simply for being a person, your fellow human being.  And for that lack of kindness you deserve to die. Who will miss you when you're gone P? No body  here. You are not a nice person. You've never ever tried to behave like one here.  Requiem in Pacem, Baby.

  41. Jim Robertson says:

    P, Who do you serve here? The Lord? If so then you and Dan are peas in a pod. (Sorry Dan) If he's not working for the Lord who's he working for? What's in it for him?

    What part of your self is being served here, P? The sociopath? the liar? You work those parts of you every day here. and that's all you do.

     I lost my scholarship because I was molested twice in high school. The first and lesser abuse  (comparatively, if one can  compare levels of betrayl) was when I first arrived. my freshman year by a  Marianist brother, my 9th grade Algebra teacher, squating next to my desk and rubbing his forearm accross my groin over my pants. Back and forth. Back and forth 5 or 6 times, rubbing like he was trying to engourage a boner, while cuddling my shoulders in a hug with his other arm.  in front of the whole class. He did it to two other boys also over the school year.. I knew after that I was through the looking glass. This was nothing like the nuns. I was 13. My grades plummeted. Scholarship withdrawn.

    Here's what P will do next.

    http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/

    • Dan says:

      Sorry Jim, Totally different God, different Savior, different belief system. Catholics serve "the Church", the religion and worship the goddess and savior of their Catechism, Mother Mary, "Queen of Heaven". They can claim that they only honor, adore and venerate her, when in reality those are all synonyms for worship, especially the way in which they pour such admiration upon her. She's only a human and they've bestowed her with the blessings and honor given only to Christ and God. So if you don't worship the One True God and yet adore, venerate and worship false gods and goddesses, then you're of your father, the Devil, Accuser, liar, deceiver and father of all liars.

  42. Donald Link says:

    ​Whenever I hear of these alleged scandals, especially the pile on accusations, I remember the McMartin Pre-School in California in the 90s when dozens of people had their lives ruined by false accusations and prosecutors with agendas.  I feel sorry for real victims but theses days it is difficult to tell who they are.

    • Dan says:

      And another catholic excuser joins the fray. When are you catholics going to stop the denials, excuses, lies and blindness. Wake up to reality and face the truth. Your insistent deceptions only add to your many repetitive sins. Do you think you're just forgiven and can continue in your deceiving ways. There are way too many horrible cases of pedophilia, pederasty and perversions among your hierarchy to just whisk it all away claiming it's "difficult to tell" who the "real victims" are. Remove the blinders to see that there are vicims everywhere "the Church" stepped foot. servant of Truth

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Donald, Seen any victims at your church or in a court room telling what exactly happened to them? No me either.

      There's a very good reason why claims are settled out of court. Public testimony only hurts the abusors and their backers. So the church and its insurors settle. And maybe they even settle with a few lying victims (who really aren't victims)  John Jay report extimated 3% were false claims and so what? If the system screws up by 3% getting through unjustly. Well that's just the cost of doing buisness when you get caught fucking kids.

      If you expect me or anyone else to feel sorry for the church or to somehow feel guilty that 3% of claims maybe false? I don't. We don't feel guilty. You are the ones who should be feeling guilty that the abuse happened at all. But you are too busy trying to make the oppressor out as the "true" victim in all of this and that, my friend, is a failing proposition.

  43. Publion says:

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

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1031AM:

    I think it’s now clear that ‘Dan’ doesn’t write comments to ‘be believed’ or to maintain any sort of identity as a rational adult. Rather he is simply a) ranting as if at his TV while also b) living in his cartoons whether he is aware of it or not. Thus his opening, addressing me as “Evil Incarnate” (the poor thing really does need to get out more).

    That is followed by – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – another variant of the old I’m Not/You Are bit.

    No doubt ‘Dan’ has run into “quite a few” of the “lying … creep” types, especially as we know that his definition of same is basically anybody who doesn’t buy his stuff and thinks he’s gone a bit off.

    And the comment trails off with a riff on the Devil and so on and so forth.

  44. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 222PM:

    And then – as if the point hadn’t been explicated at great length a number of times – he bleats the query as to how he is supposed to be “deranged by his self-serving purposes and lack of veracity”. Regular readers can consult the record here; any reader who would like me to repeat my points raised on this particular bit can put up a comment requesting repetition and I will provide it.

    But I will say again: “the only purpose” ‘Dan’ has here is to further his delusional cartoons and impose them on others at the risk – he would like to think – of God punishing anyone who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s stuff. That’s the game he plays in his sandbox and that’s the game he’s trying to play here.

    And then – with a sublime lack of self-awareness – he recites a bellyful of his now-familiar assertions and claims for which he has provided no demonstration that they constitute the “truth”, and certainly not ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ – as the saying goes.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 222PM:

    As to the second paragraph’s opening question: all his stuff is “self-serving” and “un-veracious” because it is all designed to further his delusional and vengeful agenda (against the Catholics who called the police and had him haled into court and so on). And if that “goddess-worshipping” bit is not “un-veracious” then nothing is.

    ‘Dan’ serves nothing but his delusional and vengeful agenda, and that’s how he serves himself.

    And then – with a sublime lack of self-awareness – he recites another God’ll-getcha threat, while posing himself as a Biblical prophet or apostle with that injunction to “Repent and seek the Truth or pay the consequences”.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:

    JR had a problem: how to keep commenting while evading the several points I had raised that render his favorite ‘narrative’ of his alleged travails something rather notably less than credible.

    Whatever will he do?

    Why, he changes the subject. Neato.

    Thus he opens with the query as to what my “purpose” here might be. He’s going for the idea that my purpose is to “tell Dan and [JR] that [they] are not adults”; that would make them both – had you been waittinggggggg forrr ittttt? – victims, victims of some personal smear campaign and nothing else.

    Their own material has demonstrated the point about “adults”; all I have done is note the fact and explicate it at some length (as they both always complain about).

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:

    JR then – and marvelously – doth hereby declaim, pronounce and proclaim that he “never wanted to be that” (i.e. an adult). Well, I can certainly congratulate him on his success in that endeavor.

    But actually, he was simply trying to lead up to an epithet; his rather unsettlingly revealing admission was just an unwitting revelation provided while he was trying to work up to an epithet. Did it backfire on him? He would like to think that it would be insensitive and ‘re-victimizing’ to notice the fact.

    At that point – and again borrowing one of ‘Dan’s signature bits – JR will then launch into the “compulsive liar” bit (about which see more below when I get to JR’s following comment).

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:

    Then a bit of a romp through the semiotics of ‘cartoon’, leading up to nothing more than a bleat that he and ‘Dan’ are more than “2 dimensional”. I described their thoughts as cartoons, not they themselves. I have no doubt that they are 3-dimensional; I did not ‘victimize’ them by claiming they were minus a dimension. Their poses, of course, lack a certain 3-dimensional credibility, but the poses are not the real ‘them’ either.

    And then – had you been waitttingggg forrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – from this 70 year-old who seems to think he doesn’t get the respect he deserves we get … a fart joke.

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    JR now shares with us an example of his self-serving capacity to turn reality into his own personal play-dough: “Threatening to kill an evil person is not a crime”. That’s breaking new ground in Western law (at least since 1692 or thereabouts)… although in a number of 3rd-world countries even today one can be brought to court for witchcraft and being “evil” and such.

    But wait. There’s more.

    In JR’s self-serving manipulation of truth-and-reality-as-play-dough he goes even further and asserts that making such threats (such as he has recently made on this site) is “a pleasure” and even (cue the trumpets) “a moral duty if you will”.

    That “if you will”, of course, is JR’s stab at imitating a knowledgeable and informed adult. That the content of his statements leads precisely and vividly to the opposite conclusion utterly escapes him. No surprises there.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 10th at 1158PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    JR is a victim – doncha see? Because “violence is all” I’ve “left [him] to use”. Actually, truth and rationality and coherence are still available for him to use, but those aren’t things he’s really familiar with; one might imagine that he is positively averse to them.

    And more in the victim line: He has had to resort to violence – doncha see? – because he gets no “respect”. And he cawn’t think why.  And anyway, it’s his material that doesn’t get the respect, and it doesn’t because it is not credible and his efforts to insist upon its credibility just dig him in deeper.

    And he tries to bring it all home with a bit of Latin – which is clearly not a subject in which he is competent. The familiar Latin phrase is requiescat in pace or – in the plural – requiescant in pace.

  51. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 11th at 1234AM:

    He opens, once again, by trying to keep the focus on something other than his dubiously credible material. And he does so by creating something (that I “serve … The Lord”) which – he would like one and all to think – actually makes myself and ‘Dan’ two peas in a pod (rather than himself and ‘Dan’ sharing a pod).

    I don’t beat people over the head with my personal vision of God and I don’t threaten them if they don’t buy it. ‘Dan’s does that, as JR beats people over the head with his stories and threatens them if they don’t buy them.

    Then a bit working in his old “sociopath” bit and the “liar” bit (borrowed from ‘Dan’). For neither of which bits he proffers a whit of credible explication.

  52. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 1234AM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    And it’s a doozy.

    In trying to evade the point I raised about his having – if his present story is to be believed – lost his scholarship before he was ever (allegedly) abused, he now – had you been waittingggg forrr itttttt? – announces that actually he was “molested twice in high school”.

    And that doesn’t mean that he was (allegedly) molested (not “raped”, as previously storied) several times over a period of two weeks in junior year. No, now it is announced that – come to think of it – he was also subjected to “lesser abuse”  “in [his] freshman year” by some other Marianist brother.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 1234AM:

    All these years of his story here and not until now – by amazing coincidence – does this earlier ‘abuse’ come out.

    And since the junior year abuse had something to do with hand-stuck-down-pants, what “lesser abuse” could this freshman thing have been? Apparently, at  JR’s desk  and “in front of the whole class” the teacher squatted next to JR’s desk and rubbed his forearm across JR’s groin multiple times  … in the type of combination seat-desks that they used back then? And “cuddled [JR’s] shoulders in a hug”. “In front of the whole class”.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 11th at 1234AM:

    But as a result of that incident – in front of a class-ful of witnesses – JR lost his scholarship.

    Soooooo,  the junior year thing, about which JR has gone on at length for years here and which apparently formed the gravamen of his legal ‘case’, didn’t really cause all the damage. It was, rather, this now-suddenly revealed freshman year thing that did it.

    And yet none of the paperwork released in the LA Times cache a few years back mentioned it, nor did the administrative staff mention it in the relevant memo that was included in the cache.

    Wow. Hmmmmm.

    And they wonder why they aren’t believed.

  55. Dan says:

    victims, of course

  56. Jim Robertson says:

    Donald you can't tell who we victims are because you can't see us. That's why the church created SNAP. So you'd think you were seeing "victims". You were but you were hearing from SNAP what the Catholic church  wanted you to hear. "Information" "Political stances" it could react to in the "best" way that helped the church get through this scandal as it unfolded.

    SNAP would talk about "Protecting Catholic children from being abused now" So that the church could easily step away from the crimes they had committed and discuss instead "How they were protecting children today"

    That left victims, those who were sexually harmed, twisting in the wind.

     

    The questions SNAP never asked of the church. Like when are you going to compensate all your victims? Never was asked. Odd for a "Tort lawyers front group" to never ask for compensation don't you think?

  57. Publion says:

    On the 11th at 1020PM ‘Dan’ tries to characterize the ‘Donald Link’ comment (the 11th at 852AM) as being the work of “another catholic excuser”.

    DL – as the text of his comment demonstrates – had simply said that in regard to “real victims” “these days it is difficult to tell who they are”. Which is a modest and certainly true observation, especially in light of DL’s making reference to the McMartin Pre-School Day-Care Satanic Ritual Abuse trials. There is no way at all for any third-party (i.e. anybody who wasn’t physically present to observe the (alleged) abuse) to be absolutely certain.

    ‘Dan’s solution to the modest but unavoidable problem that DL has noted is simply to lard on as many epitheticals as might be stuffed into a couple of sentences, while slyly presuming that “reality” and “truth” erase the problem and – amazingly –‘Dan’ then doth pronounce and proclaim that DL’s “insistent deceptions only add to your repetitive sins”.

    And the comment trails off with more of ‘Dan’s usual ranty boilerplate along those lines.

    • Dan says:

      And the catholic deceiver and manipulator of all catholic deceivers is back, right on cue, to defend another excuser of catholic clergy pedophiles, perverts and pederasts. Take a look and see that I was speaking of all catholic deceivers and liars, of which you are the leader of the pack. "When are you 'catholics' going to stop the denials, excuses, lies and blindness. Wake up to reality and face the truth. Your insistent deceptions only add to your many repetitive sins." The master manipulator (publiar) wants to claim that statement was directed only at "DL", when it was more appropriately directed at the lying, deceiving, manipulating creeps of your cult, which once again you stand out as the worst.

      In regards to the rest of your garbage and ignorance the last couple days, there isn't much that's worth wasting my time. While we're speaking of your propensities to lie and deceive, manipulate and try to put the blame on others, I want to clear up some of your other major lies and denials. The catholic religion is full of gross idolatry – you deny it – You bow, pray repetitive prayers to and definitely worship your false goddess, Mary "Queen of Heaven" – you insistently deny it – You are a coward and Accuser like your father, the Devil – you deny it – You are a repetitive liar, denier and excuser of your clergy pedophiles, pederasts and perverted creeps, and yet have the nerve to acuse others of being untruthful. You are such a slimy, slithering snake and you most likely will DENY IT.

      When are the catholics in this forum going to realize who is really telling the truth and who has been put here to thwart and attack anyone who doesn't buy into their false evil religion?

    • Dan says:

      accuse

    • Dan says:

      And once again I'll warn you as anyone would want to warn such a liar, "Repent and seek the Truth or pay the consequences."

  58. Publion says:

    Then JR proffers his bit (the 12th at 1AM):

    But – as so very often – JR winds up doing more damage in the recoil than in the projectile.

    Because we have seen JR telling his stories and readers may consider the credibility level demonstrated there.

    The claims were settled out of court largely because of a combination of a) Insurer reticence to underwrite trials for each individual allegant – especially in a time of Stampede – and because (as Federal Judge Schiltz observed some years back, having presided over a number of lawsuits against the Church) b) the torties themselves often demanded ‘secrecy’ (and as we’ve seen just how a classic story such as, say, JR’s doesn’t hold up even to the most basic questioning, it is easy to see why torties were not real excited about having their plaintiff-allegants’ stories examined adversarially under oath in open court).

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1AM:

      Perhaps JR could specify which John Jay Report and the numbered paragraph of that Report where the figure of “3%” was “extimated”.  At any rate, Judge Schiltz – who presided over such lawsuits and settlements – estimated the false claims to be better than half of the ones he had seen (and I am simply repeating what was discussed  here about his statement at the time).

      And – but of course – JR tries to spackle up the mushy nature of his point by resorting to some adolescent scatology, because – doncha see? – if you use potty words then you are really cool and your stuff must be true because cool guys just know stuff that uncool people don’t. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1AM:

      Apropos of absolutely nothing DL had said or implied, JR then creates two straw-man bits, i.e. that DL had made a plea that readers “feel sorry for the church” and that Abuseniks should “somehow feel guilty that 3% [or more than 50%] of claims maybe false”.

      As I said, DL did not do so. But JR needed DL to appear as if he did, so JR could deliver some declamations.

      And we hear again the echo of something that either the torties or the example of Bonny and Clyde suggested to aspiring allegants: don’t feel guilty, even if your own story is a little cheesy because there are plenty of real ones out there and you are doing a great service to humanity even if your story isn’t quite on the level and so we’re gonna get each of you a nice check. What was not to like?

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 12th at 111AM:

      Having gotten that far out on a limb and not feeling it crack under him, JR will now go for broke and lard onto DL the full JR theory about the Church creating SNAP and so on and so forth.

      Thus the Church created SNAP so it could “easily step away” from (alleged) abuse … while paying up to 4 billion in settlements and costs. You’d have to hold your head at quite an acute angle for JR’s theory to appear to be on the level.

      And we are once again proffered the evidence-free idea that there are still gazillions of ‘victims’ out there somewhere, waiting to be ‘compensated’ and now just “twisting in the wind” (not to include JR who long ago cashed his check for the story or stories we have recently seen performed here).

      As for his final stab at wearing his Gumshoe Wig: the torties didn’t need to “ask for compensation”; they strategized the acquisition of compensation by their long-devised strategies of requiring deep-pockets defendants to choose either a) expensive individual trials or b) lump general settlements.

      JR’s own case may be taken as a classic (and perhaps better-than-classic) example of how it all worked.

    • Dan says:

      So here we have a prime example of how honest and truthful the catholic publiar can be, disputing JR's claim that 3% of cases were estimated to be false. So who would he choose to state a fair, unbiased opinion disputing Jim's claim, and claiming the number of false claims was "more than 50%"? Well of course, catholic Judge Patrick Schlitz, graduate of College of St. Scholastica, Judge Scalia's law clerk from 1985 to 1987, joined the faculty of Notre Dame Law School and became associate dean and law professor at University of St. Thomas School of Law. Wow! We can surely trust a catholic judge to make an honest estimate of fraud against the catholic church. That more than 50% is such a blown out of proportion lie, but no surprise coming from the disingenuous compulsive catholic liar and excuser of pedophiles, pederasts and perverts of "the Church". Find us an unbiased opinion if you're going to dispute someone's claim, not another catholic excuser and deniers opinion. This Judge wrote an article about being an "Ethical Member" of an "Unethical Profession". If he was so "Ethical" then why did he join an "Unethical Profession"? And since he's a catholic judge, then we can surely trust that he's not a lying creep like the hierarchy and the rest of the leaders of the cult. NOT!! When are catholics going to figure out that the corruption in "the Church" is systemic and they all lie, make excuses for perverts and deny, deny, deny. Wake up and read the Word, because it describes "the Church" in detail as being unbiblical, anti-Christian and destined for Hell's Fire. Rev.17- Rev. 21:8 – Rev. 22:15 Notice how liars like publiar are included in the quotes.  servant of the One True God

  59. Jim Robertson says:

    You are obssesed with Dan and I, literally obssesed. 

    My life is none of your business. What I choose to share and when and if i choose to share it,is my business. My life. My business.

    Your comments from your hiding place. Are nonsense, inaccurate, bitchy nonsense. You get paid to distort and mock. If you don't get paid for it. It's your avocation and shows even more how truely , deeply fucked up you are.

    My first perp was included in my suit against the church. After it happened to me. I remember walking out of the classroom and saying that was fucked, weird, strange, awful at the time and all the other boys I talked to agreed they never seen anything like that before. We were being conditioned. Conditioned to be treated by them any way they liked. No boundries were uncrossable with them. By the time the bigger abuse happened years later. I was programmed into thinking who will believe me if I did tell. What's the use they can do what they want. We were treated like prisoners of war only with no Geneva convention to protect us.

    The same brother who did this was THE most violent brother I remember at that school. There was another but he only beat his students. Brother Barney the rubbing perp (Bernard) was beside the sex abuse was a basket case of the first water. He would freeze in what ever he was doing, immobile when the air raid sirens would go off. Someone said he'd been a dynamite driver in Hawaii during WW2. I don't know if that's true. But he was unbelievably violent when the sirens were off. And then he'd act couand loving when he did his rubs. I was lost.

  60. Jim Robertson says:

    coy not cou.

     

  61. malcolm harris says:

    On the 12th, at 9.16 pm, Publion makes reference to insurers. In particular their reluctance to underwrite a separate trial for each individual claim, in the atmosphere of a Stampede.  Recently, in another country, the police were highly critical of the insurance industry in general. This was in regard to motor vehicle claims. A task force of cops investigated  an organized gang which had succeeded in staging phoney car accidents. Then the claims for personal injury were made. Usually with gross exaggeration of the non visible injuries, like post traumatic stress, insomnia, loss of libido, ect. The police were surprised that the insurers had not adequately checked out the veracity of claims, before paying up?  The police concluded that the insurers…  to cover the cost a higher level of claims,  would simply push up the premiums on all policies.  Meaning the honest policyholders actually paid the cost of the fraudulent claims. So perhaps a federal task force of cops should investigate fraudulent claims made in respect of alleged sexual assaults in churches and schools.

     

  62. Publion says:

    And ‘Dan’ is back on the 13th at 1206PM:

    Will there be anything but yet another rehash of his gratuitous epithetical characterizations and another evasive performance of his (allegedly) divinely-sourced must-be-believed status?

    Let’s see.

    Nope. Not in the first paragraph.

    And who here has attempted to be an “excuser”?

    And – wow – I have been promoted now in the ‘Dan’-verse demonology to “leader of the pack” among “all catholic deceivers and liars”. No examples or explications provided, of course.

    • Dan says:

      Why do I need to show "examples or explications" when just about all your material is slathered with deceiving, manipulating, excusing of pedophiles and lies. You should be happy that you're finally a leader of "the Church", although it is the leader of "all catholic deceivers and liars". Wear the title proudly, Son of Satan, you deceiving, lying catholic creep. Maybe someday you'll be their next Pope-A-Dope. The popes seem to be more ignorant and stupid as time passes, so you should fit the part perfectly.

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1206PM:

    How about the second paragraph?

    Nope. He simply evades the problems with his material by waving it all away as “garbage and ignorance” over which – had you been waitttinggg forrrrr ittttttt? it’s not “worth wasting [his] time”  and figures he’s done a good job. And he wonders why he’s not taken seriously.

    Then a rehash of his Mary-as-goddess-idolatry bit which he says I “deny”. I not only deny it, I have provided clear textual and theological evidence that Catholicism does not and never has held Mary to be a “goddess”or a divinity of any sort whatsoever. And at every point where ‘Dan’ has proffered his “proof” that Catholics “definitely worship” Mary, I have pointed out the relevant theological or Scriptural or dogmatic or linguistic evidence that refutes that “proof”.

    But ‘Dan’ is in the delusionally-fixated cartoon business and if he can’t have those cartoons then he’s got nothing except his own image in his bathroom mirror: a guy with a record as long as your arm, legal and psychiatric, and – thought-provokingly – a rather pleasurably-indulged interest in the concatenated subject-matter concentration of “pedophiles, perverts and pederasts”.

    • Dan says:

      If anyone has "a rather pleasurably-indulged interest in….subject matter…. of 'pedophiles, perverts and pederasts' ", then that would be the disgusting sick deviant creeps of your cult. Quit trying to place the blame on me for all the malfeasance of the hierarchy and leaders of your cult, with your immature "I'm Not/You Are" "cartoons", DECEIVING HYPOCRITE!!   servant

  64. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1206PM:

    Then more epitheticals topped off – to bring the performance home – by the frayed bleat as to when “catholics” here are “going to realize who is really telling the truth”.

    Echoing, in conclusion, the recently-raised JR bit about my “purpose” here: I have “been put here to thwart and attack anyone who doesn’t buy into their false evil religion”.

    First, I haven’t been “put here” and I was around here long before ‘Dan’ arrived to deliver and demand acceptance of his assorted delusional-cartoon bits.

    Second, I point out that it’s not a matter of ‘Dan’s ‘buying’ Catholicism or not; whether he believes in Catholicism or not is none of my concern.

    Rather, it’s a matter of ‘Dan’ trying to insist that his own attacks on Catholicism (such as, inter alia, the Mary-goddess-idolatry bit) are and must be accepted-as God’s very own truth, channeled by God’s very own speshull Deputy Dawg. I don’t buy ‘Dan’s bit at all and have explicated my position at great length.

    • Dan says:

      The only "cartoon" being played here is that of the catholic catechism, it's pompous idolatrous masses and it's stupid raising of the eucharist, when in reality it's the pagan worship of the rising sun. It's funny how you're continually bothered with the catholic worship of your Mary "Queen of Heaven", and claim how you've proven me wrong, when Biblically and theologically I've proven the opposite. And when you realize your argument to be weak, you revert back to being a mocking fool and insist on rehashing the catholic lies that caused my incarceration. The pedophile, pederasts and perverted creeps of your cult committed felonies against innocent children, preferably little boys, but you feel compelled to constantly repeat the lies of your lying catholic cohorts that only cost me misdemeanors. You're not only a coward but your also a evil lying imbecile.

      And since we're on the subject, I quote the publiar saying, "There is no way at all for any third party (i.e. anybody who wasn't physically present to observe the (alleged) abuse) to be absolutely certain." So here's your excuse for defending catholic pedophile and pervert abuse, and yet you're damn certain with your ignorant assessments of myself that I was "accosting, haranging, harrassing, intimidating, threatening and violent" towards children and those leaders of the cult who falsely accused me of crimes I didn't commit. And we know this to be true because you were "physically present to observe" during all of these instances, LIAR. Open your big mouth and insert foot!! So why don't you take your jackass HeeHawing and pig-faced oinking and grunting back to Hell where you came from, you deceiving mocking demon possessed creep.  servant of the Almighty

      P.S. I happened to notice that you didn't deny being a coward, Accuser like your father, the Devil or a slimy, slithering snake, you lying hypocrite. Guess you just wear it well. Notice also my example of just some of your lies (accosting, haranging, etc. etc.). So stop lying that I've never proven or shown examples of your blatant and compulsive lying, LIAR!!

       

       

  65. Publion says:

    And on the 13th at 1217PM ‘Dan’ remembers to add – had you been waittttinggg forrr ittttt? – another God’ll-getcha threat.

    Let him deliver that warning to his bathroom mirror – when it isn’t otherwise crowded with the phantasmic entities that he thinks he sees there.

    • Dan says:

      That wasn't a "God'll-getcha threat". It's a "God'll-getcha" promise. Repent and change your ways, especially your lies, false accusations, Biblical misinterpretations and making excuses for the guilty creeps in your cult or you will suffer the consequences, sometime in this life, but most definitely through all eternity. Your choice, publiar, but you won't stand before Him and claim you weren't warned. This is not one of your "cartoons", it's Biblical. Get your head out of the toilet and face the truth. You're heading down a slippery road, and you will slip and fall. That's a promise.  servant of the Lord

  66. Mark says:

    Thank you for the courageous and excellent report!  True journalism in 2017?  Very rare.  God Bless you!

  67. Publion says:

    The comment by ‘Malcolm Harris’ (the 13th at 807PM) prompts the following point:

    As readers who have encountered those tortie-ads on TV may recognize, there is a ‘Mesothelioma’ fund set up by a consortium of potentially-liable corporations for anyone claiming to suffer mesothelioma due to exposure to something produced or caused by those corporations (and perhaps by any other corporations).

    The most recent crop of ads advises the viewer that s/he need only call the 800-type number to see if s/he has a shot at the pot. The ads further seductively advise that one needn’t “file a lawsuit” or even “go to court”. Thus this route provides an administrative mechanism that basically functions as an ATM for claimants.

    This remarkable opportunity was created by tortie-pressure and the manner of its working is on this wise: the huge (30 billlion dollars, I think was the figure) pot is there, presided over by a special administrative judge who simply considers whatever claim is pushed his/her way and can then issue a ‘settlement’ without much further ado. (Politically-informed readers may recall that it was a similar type of scam that got former New York House Speaker Sheldon Silver convicted and imprisoned.)

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Malcolm Harris’ comment of the 13th at 807PM:

    I think that – had everything gone the way the torties wanted it to with the Stampede –they hoped that the same sort of ‘pot’ could have been created for Catholic Abuse ‘victims’ as was created in the matter of mesothelioma: you just have to retain a tortie, compose and submit a claim, and then  bingo bigtime for claimant and tortie.

    Yes, the Stampede – created under the conditions of Victimist law and ‘sensitivity’ – pretty much did that anyway. But there was still the necessity (and possible dangers – to the tortie if not to the allegant) of submitting to the strictures of the legal system, and why endure even that modicum of professional risk if the mesothelioma-type  route were available instead … ?

  69. Publion says:

    And now on to the entertainment portion of the program.

    ‘Dan’ (the 14th at 1212AM) marvelously trips himself up yet again, in yet another bit of conceptual slapstick that simply becomes more entertaining when one realizes that ‘Dan’ actually thinks he’s making major substantive points.

    Specifically: I wasn’t “disputing” the JR claim of a 3%-falsity rate. Rather, I was simply asking for the reference within whichever of the two Jay Report documents JR says he found the claim.

    But ‘Dan’ has pretty much built his comment here around the “disputing” misreading.

    I had also mentioned – yet again – the Schiltz opinion. Well now, ‘Dan’ has done some research (and yet he’s so often said that his bathroom mirror told him he didn’t need to do no stinkin’ worldly knowledge … go figure).  Why believe the judge – doncha see? – since the judge is, not to put too fine a point on it, Catholic … ?

    Well, one might say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and ask why anyone would believe ‘Dan’ is “unbiased”. After all, he has a legal and psychiatric record as long as your arm, has an axe to grind against Catholics (who so often called the police when ‘Dan’ was carrying on in public), and has provided the extensive corpus of whackulent stuff that is now in the record here.

    Can we then “surely trust” ‘Dan’?

    • Dan says:

      And the lying, mocking coward is back to his repeated accusations from the catholic liars like himself that led to my incarceration. If you claim I have "an axe to grind against [c]atholics", then you're absolutely wrong. I'm against all religions that claim to follow the Holy Bible, when nothing could be further from the truth. They don't worship the Almighty God, only the almighty dollar. They refuse to listen to the prophets of God, they're only interested in making a profit off of God. So quit your crying that I'm only picking on your poor little church of hypocrite creeps, because I have no use for any false unbiblical religions, but your's is the one who has attacked me the most with all it's lies and liars. Just so happens that you're one of the biggest deceiving slandering Accusers of the whole bunch of wicked creeps. Enjoy Hell's Fire, because you've already one foot in and half of the other.  servant of the Truth

  70. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1212AM:

    ‘Dan’ then lards on his own epithetical characterizations as if they were evidence or proof: the Schiltz opinion is “such a blown out of proportion lie” which – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – comes “from the disingenuous compulsive liar and excuser of [‘Dan’s favorite rhetorical flourish coming up here] pedophiles, pederasts and perverts of ‘the Church’”. (One wonders, as the Bard might have put it, if ‘Dan’ doth not “protest too much”.)

    Which bit then platforms his huffy instruction to “find us an unbiased opinion” … an instruction better delivered to ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror when – if ever – he dares to be alone in front of it.

    And he tries to bring the performance home with a pericope … from the Book of Revelation no less. Readers will no doubt note that the text of Revelation itself does not say it is describing the Church. No, that bit comes from – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’s own manipulative and delusional fever-vision and agenda.

    • Dan says:

      In regards to your obsession with bathroom toilets, only question is whether that's where you find your material or just where you come up with your stinkin' thinkin'. ACCUSER

      Rev.17 – Describes a whore that sits on the beast. A whore is what "the Church" made of Mary, "Queen of Heaven", by their ridiculous bowing, praying to and worshipping her, they have committed adultery against the Almighty and His Son, the only ones to be adored and worshipped. Dressed in purple and scarlet (colors of cardinals and bishops), she's adorned with riches, of gold, precious stones and pearls, demonstrating the greed and wealth of "the [false] Church". She holds a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. No catholic liar is going to claim that this description doesn't describe their evil, sexually perverted and immoral cult.

      In regards to Rev. 21:8 and 22:15, I'll combine them because I'm tired of teaching a lesson to the unlearned. Outside are the dogs, cowards, unbelievers (believe they go to Mary for salvation because they're scared of the "Awe-ful" Jesus- refer back to cowards), vile (deviant perverts), murderers, sexually immoral (pedophiles and pederasts), idolators, all liars and all who love to live a lie. The last ten words definitely describe you, publiar. Catholics, don't allow these insistent liars tell you that these phrases from Revelations don't describe the filth going on in your church. Your cult fits these perversions better than any church I know, but these descriptions apply to any false churches or people who refuse to repent and fail to seek Jesus as their Savior and continue their sinful lives. Don't allow this publiar to make these outlandish claims as to my being manipulative, delusional or having whackulent stuff, just because he's doing the work of his father, the Devil and trying to deceive in order to send your soul to Hell. He is evil personified and anti-Christ in all his accusations, lies and slander. LYING HYPOCRITE UP FROM THE DEPTHS OF HELL.

  71. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    JR’s problem here was that he had been asked to provide the specific locus of the reference regarding the ‘3%’ claim. He might have just tried his old I-don’t-need-to-tell-you wave-away, but instead he tries another familiar tack: he tries to change the subject.

    Thus – donning his Wig of Psychological Chops – he simply declares that I am “obsessed” and even “literally obsessed” (is there a non-literal form of obsession?) with ‘Dan’ and himself.

    They’re the most vociferous and demanding of the Abuseniks so I work with what’s available. The obsession – if one wishes to use the term – lies with ‘Dan’ and JR continuing to run their stories, claims, assertions, denunciations and so on.

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    JR then tries to buttress that dodgy bit with the huffy declamation that “my life is none of your business” (thus that he’s being – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttttttttttt? – victimized by having his privacy invaded).

    I didn’t go and dig up all this stuff about JR. He put it up here himself. And he put at least some of it into a formal public lawsuit that attempted (successfully) to extract a tidy sum from the Church.

    Then a double-whammy bit: from my “hiding place” (as if my identity would have any impact on the grossly problematic nature of JR’s submissions here) I put up – echoes of ‘Dan’ here – not only “nonsense” but “inaccurate, bitchy nonsense”. But – doncha see? – that’s my “avocation”. Well, and JR’s and ‘Dan’s “avocation” is tossing up their stuff and demanding to be believed. I just ask questions and point out the problematic elements in their stuff.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Grossly problematic"? Says you. Fuck you! you living piece of dog shit! Isaid Barney froze when the sirens went off. They didn't make him violent. He was violent without sirens or warnings.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    Then the Wig doth diagnose and declare that I am “truly, deeply fxxxd up”. Five cents, please.

    And if JR’s “life” and “business” are his to “choose to share”, then it apparently has to be pointed out to him that he himself has chosen to do so on a public, comment-enabled site.

    Then we get yet another version of JR’s story – and at this point readers may judge for themselves just how to evaluate it.

    The major point I see is that if the first instance took place in a class-room full of witnesses, then … what happened to the corroborative effect of all those (alleged) witnesses? Why rely on the mere he/said-he/said weaknesses of the junior-year instance when there was a class-full of witnesses to the freshman-year instance? Surely – both in the then-present of the early-60s and the preparation of the lawsuit inclusion in the mid-00s – the staff in the high-school and then JR’s tortie would have sensed the better value and more convincing credibility of the freshman-year instance.

    But we then also recall that JR had – sometime in the 1990s – tried to run with a case, but that fizzled … for some reason.

  74. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    That’s the core and key to the question here. The bits about being “conditioned” and “programmed” are pure red-herring distraction, very much conforming to the Stampede Playbook strategies. (JR and all of the class were thus – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttttt? – victims … of being “conditioned”.)

    And anyway, if JR is to be believed, he went to the staff with his allegations; so clearly he wasn’t “conditioned” or “programmed”.

    And he tries to bring that paragraph home by now characterizing his high-school experience as being “treated like prisoners of war”. And if that isn’t queasy enough, he further lards on that in the case of his high-school experience there was “no Geneva convention” to “save” them.

    Perhaps JR has been watching too much TV in this Veteran’s Day season. But that surf is up right now and when it comes to self-exculpation and manipulation JR is ever-ready to toss his board in the water and declare ‘Kowabunga!’.

  75. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    The second paragraph contains nothing but JR’s story about the Brother “who did this” (either the first or the second instance … or whatever).

    And then he tries to spackle that bit up with more World War 2 imagery. Although if JR’s text here is to be credited as written, then there were “air raid sirens” that “would go off” … in early-60s California.

    And then – marvelously – JR would have it that this Brother was himself a veteran of World War 2, and a “dynamite driver in Hawaii” no less. But – equally marvelously – JR doth admit and opine that he doesn’t “know if that’s true”. This must be one of the few things that JR didn’t and doesn’t ‘know’ about it all.

  76. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    But even that’s not enough (for JR, when he’s on a good roll with a story, he really can’t seem to help himself): when those mid-60s California air-raid sirens were going off, this veteran was “unbelievably violent”.

    I’d say that this is a classic example of the Stampede (and tortie) Playbook: try to come up with some interesting ‘details’ that will make your story sound more real and truthy.

    If it is to be believed – and that’s a big ‘if’ – then this veteran was perhaps suffering from some form of PTSD (although the actual specific diagnostic conceptualization of PTSD didn’t really develop until the later 1970s and early 1980s, in connection with Vietnam experiences).

    And although there were no further Imperial Japanese air-raids on Hawaii after Pearl Harbor (which would have required carrier-based aircraft, and especially after Midway the Imperial Japanese Navy was in no position to risk sending its fleet carriers that far east). But maybe – I’ll do some of JR’s work for him here – the veteran was actually present at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and driving “a dynamite truck” to boot – … which would have been a remarkably stressful (and heroic) thing to do.

    • Dan says:

      publiar states, show me where anyone in this forum, speshully me, makes excuses for pedophiles, pederasts or perverts. Can anyone be more disingenuous?

      In regards to the perverted marianist brother who sexually rubbed Jim, publiar says, "then this veteran perhaps was suffering from PTSD", and next paragraph, the poor guy must have had a difficult job "driving 'a dynamite truck' to boot- … which would have been a remarkably stressful (and heroic) thing to do". The catholic creep has now not only big excuses for being a pervert, but is now even "heroic". Maybe a hero to other pedophiles and pederasts of "the false cult". Please stop with your slew of lousy excuses before my head does explode, lying disingenuous hypocrite. Servant of the One who hears your every rotten deceiving excuse.

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 13th at 625PM:

    “His rubs” … ? Did the veteran do this classroom ‘rubbing’ on multiple occasions and with a number of other students? Surely those students would have made fine corroborative witnesses.

    It’s curious that the staff memo released in the LA Times cache didn’t mention any of this. Did JR in his junior-year not mention this ‘rubbing’ to the staff?

    So many questions arise – as so very often – from JR’s story-telling. Readers may consider and judge as they will.

    But – of course – JR has to wrap it all up on the right note, i.e. that he was a victim of … whatever. Thus the fine concluding rhetorical flourish: “I was lost”.

  78. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1102PM:

    In the first of the (predictable and now-familiar) poses he will assume in this sequence of comments, ‘Dan’ here bleats that he doesn’t “need to show” no stinkin’ “examples or explications” because – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – “just about all [my] material” is little more than “deceiving, manipulating, excusing of pedophiles and lies”. ‘Dan’ just sorta knows that – doncha see? – and it’s all so very clear to him that he cawn’t possibly think why he would have to demonstrate to others what seems so real to him. He mistakes his delusions for reality, but – of course – that’s what delusions do.

    Readers may judge as they will.

    And the comment trails off with some more recent rants he’s developed, about my being appointed (by ‘Dan’ – doncha know?) “the leader” and so forth and then a bit about ‘Dan’s assessment of the intellectual capacity of the Popes.

    Thus the table-talk from the ongoing Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in ‘Dan’s head.

  79. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1150PM:

    More table-talk from that Tea Party as ‘Dan’ – in his self-presumed capacity as knowledgeable and competent (and of course “unbiased”) thinker – doth hereby bray about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Which, if ‘Dan’s grammar is to be accepted, includes “pompous idolatrous masses” and that “stupid raising of the eucharist” – which, he now declares, declaims, and pronounces, is “in reality … the pagan worship of the rising sun”.

    Any normal person sitting at ‘Dan’s Party would need something stronger than tea to keep a straight face. Readers may sip as they see fit.

    Remarkably, he then tries to deflect his deceitful whackeries about Mary-as-goddess by claiming that it is I who am “continually bothered with the catholic worship” of Mary and so on. I have no problem with Mary’s role in the Church; it’s ‘Dan’ who seems quite bothered, though he can hardly make a coherently rational and accurate case about it.

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1150PM:

    He now claims to have “proven” his delusions “Biblically and theologically”. Any reader who has seen those successful proofs here is welcome to share them.

    And then – marvelously if queasily  – he tries to wave-away his proven legal record of convictions by claiming that his crimes were only “misdemeanors” while (his fever-vision cartoons of) rampant and myriad priest-perpetrated crimes were felonies. His convictions are real; his cartoon fever-visions are … not.

    On the basis of which gambit he then feels his oats sufficiently to indulge himself in not only his favorite recent epithet of “coward” (go figure) but also “evil lying imbecile”. As if name-calling in support of delusional plop-tossing can substitute for coherent and rational explication.

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1150PM:

    He then tries to wave-away the hardly arguable point I made that if one wasn’t present and there is no corroborating evidence, then “there is no way at all to be absolutely certain”.

    For ‘Dan’s cartoon purposes this can only be an “excuse”. This is the equivalent of asserting – when told that fallen apples cannot then rise back up onto the tree – that ‘gravity is no excuse’. Alas, yes it is. And not an excuse really, but rather a simple logical fact about reality. But ‘Dan’ is seriously delusional, so who can be surprised that “reality” doesn’t really get much traction with him?

    And the paragraph then meanders on with assorted bleats and brays culled from his 3×5 of grievances over the problems noted with his various stories and other material, topped off – but of course – by a lusty descent into epitheticals from – in a sublimely ridiculous effort to wrap it all up – the self-styled “servant of the Almighty”.

    And he wonders how it can be that he is not believed nor taken seriously.

  82. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 209AM:

    Here he adopts the high-school (perhaps grade-school) pose with his variation on the age-old ‘that wasn’t a threat, it was a promise’ bit.

    Actually this may not be a pose; it’s quite possible that this bit actually does indicate ‘Dan’s real level of mentation and even maturity.

    At any rate his delusionality robs it of any heft: were he referring to himself as the enforcer of either the threat or the promise, then at least he would reveal a self in there somewhere. But no; he’s actually just channeling God and presuming to speak-for and commit God to the desired ‘Dan’-plan.

    One hardly needs the likes of ‘Dan’ to be convinced of the reality of God. The real problem here is the reality of ‘Dan’, which is deranged by a delusionality so abyssal as to now become almost comical in its demonstrations.

    • Dan says:

      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

      "Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, and the impending things are hastening upon them. For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants…"  Deut. 32:35-36

  83. Jim Robertson says:

    Every paragraph you write about me is a negation of me.

    How does that work anywhere else other than in a religion?

     

  84. Jim Robertson says:

    Pliar assumes that we did not have air raid drills in California in the '60's. We did. Duck and cover sunshine!

    He also assumes that the authorities in Hawaii in WW2 knew that there would be no more air raids from Japan. They did not. So the authorities would have had air raid drills or even false alarms raised accidentally during the war's span.

    Calling injuries, PTSD that happened before the term PTSD was created means zip. I could just have easily called his behavior shell shock.

     

  85. Jim Robertson says:

    There was an entire classroom full of corrobrative witnesses. Yes and they could have testified. I can name the two other victims, whose attacks we witnessed. Tony Fruitt and Jim Reidt.

    Are you saying because I didn't mention the abuse to the authorities when I was abused in my junior year that it didn't happen? Of course you are. Negation; dissemblege and manipulation are the only trinity you truly worship P.

  86. Publion says:

    On the 15th at 1114PM ‘Dan’ will open with some stab at word-play over the bathroom mirror scenario.

    Leaving that to hang where it was left, we are then given – tah dahhhhh – nothing but an extended demonstration of precisely what I had pointed out: that the actual texts of ‘Dan’s Revelation pericopes do not mention Catholicism or the Church at all; ‘Dan’ – borrowing from the fundies – merely lards in his own stuff and tries to pass it off as actually being part of the text.

    If the words ‘Catholic’ or ‘Church’ appear anywhere in the actual original text, in such a way as to indicate that the text itself is actually referring to the Catholic Church, then ‘Dan’ is welcome to point those words out.

    This would, of course, exclude any ‘paraphrase’ translations – dear to fundies and ‘Dan’ – whose ‘translators’ might have actually slipped in a phrase or two about the Church just to steer readers in the direction that the translators (but not the original text) would like readers to go.

    • Dan says:

      And to answer to the plethura of nonsense on Nov. 17th and 18th, once again attempting to teach the ignorant and unlearned -

      The book of Revelations is absolutely prophetic and predicting the coming on the scene of "the [false] catholic Church" with it's false teachings, false preaching, false catechism, false hierarchy and false lying brainwashed followers. Well of course there is no mention of "Catholicism" or "the Church", because as I have explained, there is no mention in the Bible of a catholic church, popes, cardinals, Mary adoration, Mary sinless, Mary's rosary, Mary's assumption, Mary Mother of God, which is all nothing but goddess worship. It is UNBIBLICAL IDOLATRY at it's best, and that's why "the Church" has taken such a slippery slide into evilness and perversions against children. A terribly evil church that God wouldn't even mention by name.

      Revelations 17 and 18, 21.8 and 22:15 does describe in fine detail, without having to mention the name of your cult of hypocrites, for everything about your church is evil, greedy, cowardly, sexually immoral and packed with lies and liars. "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction." Rev. 17:8 Pagan Rome was, was not, and became "the Pagan Roman Catholic Church". "This calls for a mind that has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits." Rev. 17:9  Aside from that fact that a mind with wisdom wouldn't apply to you, publiar, your own catholic Bibles have a footnote referring to 17:9 that "This is Rome, but don't take it literally". And of course we shouldn't take it literally because "the Church" never tells lies. What a slew of lying phony hypocrites.   servant of the Almighty and His true followers

  87. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1114PM:

    Thus, for example, in the second paragraph of the comment we quickly see ‘Dan’ moving from the actual text (about “a whore that sits on the beast”) to ‘Dan’s interpretation of that phrase, going on about what he thinks the “whore” is and so on and so forth.

    Ditto, the bit about the color of the garb of the cardinals and bishops: there were no cardinals in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD and bishops of that era wore no such uniform vesture; this is an example of reading-back-into the text whatever persons from a much later era (the fundies in 19th century America, for example) wanted to see there.

    If ‘Dan’ is looking for a “liar” in all this, that “liar” would be anyone who tries to impose his own interpretations onto a text that says no such thing. But then again, to a fundie, anti-Catholic agenda ‘Dan’ adds his own considerable delusionality, so perhaps “liar” would not be as accurate as ‘whacko’.

  88. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1114PM:

    And the same dynamic is clear in ‘Dan’s efforts to shoehorn his delusional agenda into the pericopes of Revelation 21.8 and 22:15: all sorts of sins and sinners are mentioned, but nowhere in the text do the words ‘Catholic’ or ‘Church’ appear.

    So then, to make any connection between the listed offenders in the text and ‘Dan’s rantings against the Church ‘Dan’ must lard on a layer of his own, reading into the text what is not actually there in the text at all … and then insisting that it is in the text and then bleating and braying that if one can’t ‘see’ it there in the text then one must be either stupid or evil.

     That’s ‘Dan’s Bible game and has been all along.

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1114PM:

    There’s nothing “outlandish” about what I have noted; the fundies have been doing the same thing since long before ‘Dan’ came along. What he claims to be clearly there in the text isn’t there.

    The only honest thing for him to have done would have been to whomp up a Bible-according-to-‘Dan’, clearly marked not as a faithful and honest  translation of the Bible but merely his own take on the Bible.

    But that route would have robbed ‘Dan’s delusions of the masquerade-cover of participating in God’s own authority. And on some level ‘Dan’ apparently came to realize – quite accurately – that his own chops would hardly command much authority at all; hence his delusional equating of his own stuff and God’s Word and Will.

  90. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1129PM:

    Once again ‘Dan’ bleats about how Catholics ‘lied’ about him and that’s the only reason he was incarcerated and sent for psychiatric treatment so many times. He is so often surrounded by “liars”, and especially “catholic liars” and they are completely to blame for his convictions and so on.

    And of course, when ‘Dan’ bleats about “the Holy Bible” ‘Dan’ actually means only his take on “the Holy Bible”.

    And we also see a further level of deceptive delusionality: no religions are capable of accurately and reliably presenting the Bible (they are all “false” and “unbiblical”); only ‘Dan’ himself is capable of accurately and reliably presenting the Bible – doncha see?

    He simply cawn’t think why that isn’t clear and obvious.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 15th at 412PM:

      He simply cawn’t think why any of his material could be characterized as “grossly problematic”, no doubt feels ‘victimized’ by my doing so, and then larsd on some adolescent scatology (because when you use scatology that proves you’re really really cool and you know stuff).

      On the 13th at 625PM JR said of that Brother: “But he was unbelievably violent when the sirens were off.” One might also wonder how the same individual could both “freeze” when the sirens went off and also be “unbelievably violent when the sirens went off” – but it’s a JR story, after all.

      One might also wonder how it was that nobody at all ever brought such “unbelievable” violence to anyone’s attention if it happened in the classroom. Especially since JR then also – come to think of it – insists that this Brother “was violent without sirens or warnings”. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1115AM:

      I had asked if anyone can show where a commenter on this site “makes excuses for pedophiles”.

      That would, of course, require demonstrating first that we are dealing with reliably-demonstrated “pedophiles” and then second that someone was ‘making excuses’ for same.

      Is ‘Dan’ going to demonstrate the logical and evidentiary chops to follow those necessary steps?

      Nope. He merely dismisses the whole question as “disingenuous”. How does that term apply in this matter?

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1115AM:

      He then proceeds to the JR story about the violent Brother of the freshman year incident who also (allegedly) “sexually rubbed” JR (in front of a class-ful of witnesses, we recall).

      He appears to have accepted the story as veracious, which already puts things into swampy territory.

      He then tries to characterize as “excuses” my further comments on the material that JR provided  I wasn’t making “excuses” (indeed, I have expressed with explication my doubts about the story’s veracity  in the first place). I had merely observed that anyone who might have found himself driving a truck full of dynamite at Pearl Harbor during the raid would surely have been in a stressful situation and the man may well have handled the challenge heroically. And that experience might surely have been capable of creating some form of what is now called PTSD.

      But ‘Dan’ has a delusional system to keep up and keep going, so he’ll try to shoehorn anything he can into that game-plan.

      Thus he cannot permit any possible positive aspects of this Brother to come to light.

      ‘Dan’s own capacity for “heroism” was demonstrated when he whined here about having to sit on a hard bench in a jail cell during one of his legal misadventures that was the result of his own actions.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1016AM:

      Opting here for the Zen koan style, JR intones that “every paragraph [I] write about [him] is a negation of [him]”.

      I am dealing with the material JR has provided, and with the character revealed by the material in his comments.

      He doesn’t like being “negated” (whatever that might mean)? Then he should put up better material. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1023AM:

      Here he tries to spackle up his accusation that the freshman year Brother would become “unbelievably violent” – in the classroom, in front of all those witnesses? Did he attack students when experiencing such fits of ‘unbelievable’ “violence”? – during air-raid drills when the sirens went off.

      The air-raid drill was an immediate postwar phenomenon that resulted from the possibility of Soviet bombers making literal air-raids on American cities. But then the Soviets got missiles, which didn’t allow the time that approaching bomber fleets might provide.

      Thus the air-raid drills of the late 1940s and early-mid 1950s were not anywhere near as useful in the missile era (the 1960s) as they were in the late 1940s and the 1950s. And surely they would not have been as frequent as they had been in the bomber-era.

      Did such air-raid drills still happen in the 1960s? Maybe so. Were they frequent? Not likely. How many times did this teacher have to undergo the air-raid sirens going off during class or the school day in the early-mid 1960s? It just sounds like an attempt to add some pizzazz to a story, but confusing historical actualities to do so.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 1023AM:

      As to possibility of air-raid drills in Hawaii that JR goes on about: after the conclusion of the Midway battle there was little if any possibility of the Japanese risking the fleet carriers necessary to conduct a raid on the mainland US or even on Hawaii. Could there have been air-raid drills in the post Pearl-Harbor years in Hawaii, perhaps to keep residents on their toes? Why not? So what?

      And my historical background as to the PTSD diagnosis was just something to keep the record straight. Sure, we could say that the Brother was suffering from “shell shock”, presuming JR’s story is credible in the first place. That still leaves us with somebody simultaneously freezing and becoming “unbelievably violent” and  yet that doesn’t really do much to create relevance for the sexual allegation in the first place anyway.

      Did JR experience a shell-shocked teacher? There was a lot of that sort of thing going around in that era. Was this man “unbelievably violent” toward students (presuming the sirens went off during a class)? Surely that must have created injuries that couldn’t have been hidden from parents and medical personnel, especially if – as JR tries to imply – there were air-raid sirens going off with some frequency during his high-school years.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1031AM:

      I had said that in the freshman year instance there must have been a classroom full of witnesses (and perhaps victims, come to think of it) of the sexual ‘rubbing’ activity JR alleges.

      Here JR says that there indeed were all those witnesses. (And he even comes up with a couple of names.)

      OK then. As I had also gone on to point out:  so many witnesses (or other victims) would have surely created a body of corroboration. Yet as I said, there appears to be no record of any such corroborative activity on the part of these witness/victims (and it would seem that if the Brother was given to this sort of activity, it was not simply limited to JR’s class or simply to his 4-year cohort). 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1031AM:

      And it is surely a stretch that the inter-staff memo we do have (released in the LA Times cache from the junior-year incident) doesn’t mention any indication of such a history of violence and sexual rubbing  on the part of a prior teacher that might have lent – possibly – some heft to JR’s junior-year allegations.

      And none of any of this apparently had any useful effect on whatever litigation JR says he participated in during the 1990s.

      Too many loose ends; too many things don’t quite connect and don’t add up. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 1031AM:

      So what am I saying? I am saying that the (alleged) freshman incident – which if true would have been supported by numerous corroborative witnesses or victims and perhaps stretching back for years – resulted in no recorded action initiated by any of those witnesses or victims.

      While the he said/he said junior-year allegation, utterly bereft of witnesses, failed as some form of legal action when JR tried to use it in the 1990s. And even when it was successfully shoe-horned into the mid-00s LA 500-plus plaintiff lawsuit, it took – as JR himself has said here – a significant extra amount of time to effect that inclusion, which would indicate that even the hard-pressed LA Archdiocese balked at including so iffy an allegation in the torties’ well-strategized settlement demands.

      I am engaging in questioning and doubt; that is not “negation”. As to who is engaging in “dissemblege” and manipulation here … readers may judge as they will.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1220AM:

      Here he tries to somehow impose sense out of his God’ll-getcha threats. Having riffled through the relevant 3×5 pile he has come up with the pericope from Deuteronomy, later repeated by Paul in Romans.

      ‘Dan’s lack of Biblical and mental chops is right there in his own selected pericope: Vengeance – not to put too fine a point on it – belongs to God. ‘Dan’ has nothing to do with it. Vengeance is God’s when and if and where and however He wishes to exercise it.

      But ‘Dan’ provides (unwittingly, of course) a useful and relevant demonstration here:

      He – like the fundies whom he has copy-catted – just looks for words that might be shoe-horned into whatever plop-tossing is on the menu; having come up with a word in the text of some pericope, he then merely imposes his own agenda on the text in order to make it seem like a) his take and his agenda and b) what Scripture says are one in the same. Which they very rarely are. 

    • Dan says:

      "Put on the full armor of God, so that you can stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world's darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."   Ephesians 6:11-12

      "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or are absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God." Phil. 1:27-28

  91. Jim Robertson says:

    I've made 28 comments here 4 of those were corrections of my own posts. My spelling usually. There are 137 comments here. P's total: 69 posts here. Almost three times as many as mine. Any body wonder why I call him a smoke screen?

  92. Jim Robertson says:
  93. Publion says:

    I had put up a series of comments dealing with the problematical elements of JR’s most recent stab at story.

    And what do we get from JR?

    Why, he’s going to change the subject.

    On the 17th at 14PM he’s gone to the trouble of toting up the number of comments he’s made and even that he’s made four corrections to his own posts (though – surprise, surprise – “usually” it’s only because of his “spelling” (as the substance of his material was pristinely credible).

    Meanwhile, out of the remaining comments (137) I have put up 69 of them, thus “almost three times as many” as JR’s.

    And what does JR rationally conclude from this? Why … that I put up “a smoke screen”. Because – doncha see? – if you put up a lot of posts then you must be putting up a smoke screen and – apparently – if you put up fewer posts then you are being honest and true. Soooooo … if somebody put up zero posts then that person would be the most honest of all … ? That’s where you wind up with JR’s ‘logic’.

  94. Publion says:

    But wait. There’s more.

    On the 17th at 634PM JR will toss up – yet again – whatever that link is to some ‘how to tell an evil person’ bit; JR, we recall, has finally retreated to ‘Dan’-verse territory and has settled for the come-back of just trying to tar me as evil (for – but of course – pointing out the problematic aspects of his proffered stories, claims, assertions, allegations and so on).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No "trying to tar" at all just holding up the mirror to what you do. http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/ Your actions speak for themselves. You are a one note samba of mendacity.

      Don't  get to pass off onto me your logic and then claim it to be mine. You post more, that you might obstruct more. hide more. It's so obvious to anyone who reads you, what lies you are up to. You fool no one.

      (and poor Dan's defending the idiocy of Revelations as truth. And calling Catholic devotion to the Virgin names. It's like dueling street corner preachers. Lost in a minutia they have no possibility of proving true. Pliar you have chosen to pose as an Aristotilian logic broker with lies for premises. It's all you do while Dan according to his belief system is trying to save your souls.

      I know the majority of those, here, have no souls to save; that's why they are religious. They think their beliefs (fantasies) will save them. Those hopes are all GWTW. Scarlett.

Speak Your Mind

(email addresses will not be displayed publicly)

*