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)]
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.
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.
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.
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.
victims, of course
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?
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.
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?
accuse
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."
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
coy not cou.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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
Thank you for the courageous and excellent report! True journalism in 2017? Very rare. God Bless you!
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.)
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 … ?
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’?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!’.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Every paragraph you write about me is a negation of me.
How does that work anywhere else other than in a religion?
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.
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.
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.
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
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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
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?
Pliar in a tea cup :http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
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’.
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).
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.
Jim, I don't understand why you find it necessary to couple me up with publiar, anymore than being matched to you as a pea in the same pod. I'm not a member of any false religions. You and peewee are a much closer match as an atheist and a heathen liar. Funny that you require undisputable proof of the existence of God, and yet I've never required any proof from you of any of your claims. Why do you think that is, Jim? It is because from what I've heard from you I trust, because you seem to be honest in what you have said, and you're willing to admit when you've made a mistake. I see no reason to doubt your stories, and also see nothing for you to gain if they are not true. This has made me trust and believe you. Why do you have such a problem with trusting, believing and insisting on doubting the Creator who made you and all of Creation? I'm sorry that you think of me as "poor Dan", because you have no clue how rich I really am. Not only that, but it's unimaginable and words can't describe how much peace, love and happiness I'm enjoying in my life. I don't so much display the peaceful or happy side when dealing with liars, idolators, cowards, pedophiles, pederasts, perverts, their excusers, or any religious hypocrites who insist on fighting against the truth of the Almighty God. I'm not sent here to coddle or agree with them, but to warn them that their doom awaits unless they are willing to make some drastic changes to their lives. God saves my peaceful and loving nature only for those who deserve to share or see it. That's why you see little of it in this forum. My "beliefs" are no "fantasies", and only unbelievers would think so. Poor Jim.
And let's be clear, Jim, I don't preach on street corners, standing on milk crates, pray in churches or hold hands in public, praying to be seen by others. I don't believe in placing my hands on others and praying for them, as if I'm the one holding the only direct line to the Father. Jesus predicted that in the last days, their would be many false teachers and those claiming to be the Messiah or Savior. It takes a discerning mind to distinguish between the true believers and the charlatans. I follow the Word and live the Word, so do your best not to line me up with the phony religious hypocrites you prefer to stereotype and box me in with. Much appreciated.
publiar, Do you happen to have an acquaintance named Fr. Peter Glas, catholic exorcist, because apparently he knows you very well. He has a youtube video describing you "The Strategy of the Devil".
Quoted from the beginning – "Satan wants to be seen as the master, powerful master who preys on this world….but his tremendous eh, his tremendous power is manipulation, he manipulates us. He will always lie to you. The devil will make you think you have done the most foolish things by following Jesus Christ. This is the way he works. He will always make you think you have done something stupid when you're young. You have lost your life. There's no way back. There's no hope for you…. Satan and his followers are trying to snake in and confuse us and lead us away from God. He always hates God in us. As we follow God he is jealous of us, because he cannot be saved anymore. He is the loser. He cannot reach heaven."
Apparently, publiar, if you deny knowing Fr. Glas well he surely knows you and your father, the Accuser. Are you now going to tell us that he must be an Abusenik and part of the Stampede. The only Stampede that's about to happen is going to be the unrepentant, idol-worshipping, deceived catholics that bought into the catholic catechism and were led to Hell by the manipulating and lying pied pipers like yourself. servant of the One and Only Almighty God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 238PM:
In response to the points I had raised in comments of the prior two days he opens here by manipulatively trying to spin them beforehand as merely “the plethura of nonsense” while I am “attempting to teach the ignorant and unlearned”.
He’s wrong about that. I don’t presume that most readers here are “ignorant and unlearned” and I am certainly not trying to “teach” ‘Dan’, whose delusionality alone precludes any such effort, before we even consider the level of his intellectual capabilities (which do seem to rise (or sink) to the level of the category of “ignorant and unlearned”).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 238PM:
‘Dan’ will then – nicely – get on with his own project of manipulating (far more than ‘teaching’) the “ignorant and unlearned”.
Thus he merely doth insist, declare and pronounce that “the book of Revelations is absolutely prophetic” about “the [false] catholic Church”, and then riffs along on the basis of that utterly undemonstrated assertion.
He then segues into the familiar old fundie bit about there being no mention of anything Catholic “in the Bible”. And what would be the relevance of that point? There is no mention of automobiles or airplanes either and are we to presume that they therefore don’t exist today? History – under the good providence of God – does move on.
To thus try to declaim that if something is not mentioned in the Bible then it is mere “unbiblical idolatry” is profoundly inaccurate – if not also ludicrous – on its face.
Au contraire, "Catholicism" and "the Church" is mentioned in the Bible (i.e. Matt. 23, Romans 1, Jude, Rev.17, 18, 21, 22 and all over the Bible), just not ever by name. Just because it's not mentioned by name isn't what makes it "UNBIBLICAL IDOLATRY". It's "UNBIBLICAL IDOLATRY" because that's exactly what the Catechism, teaching and worship of your Queen Mother, popes and numerous unqualified saints is. You might work your lying manipulations on your brainwashed followers, but you won't pull the wool over a believer's eyes. And by the way, it would be me who "once again" would be "attempting to teach the ignorant and [Biblically] unlearned", which would describe none other but you, peewee. Again your twisting, manipulating and deceiving M.O. is becoming extremely nauseating. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 238PM:
And thus he is reduced in the final paragraph to merely repeating his talking points from his pile of 3x5s all over again. He cawn’t think why anyone couldn’t see what is apparently crystal clear to him. But that’s what a nice tight and deep delusional system will do.
But wait. There’s more.
If you can’t see what ‘Dan’ sees – doncha see? – then that’s because you don’t have “a mind that has wisdom” (like for example – ‘Dan’ would have us think – ‘Dan’s mind having such “wisdom”).
And on the 18th at 154PM he merely tosses up a couple of more similarly-problematic pericopes from his pile.
Readers may judge as they will.
Nothing more "problematic" than your lying manipulating ignorance and stupidity.
On then to JR’s of the 19th at 205AM:
Here JR registers his displeasure at having logic applied to his stories and claims.
And then in nicely vivid display of the same manipulative whackery we see in ‘Dan’ JR doth merely fall back on whatever that bit is about “evil person” that he (and/or ‘Dan’) found somewhere down in the whackier precincts of the internet. Which, we recall, neither one of them has bothered to explicate. Instead they just toss it up as a link and expect it to do their ‘work’ for them.
JR then claims that apparently either a) there is no logic in his stuff and one shouldn’t look for logic in his stuff or else b) there are different types of logic and JR just happens to be using a different one from the logic I applied to his stuff. Readers may consider as they will.
And once again, the publiar trying to place his "manipulative whackery" accusations on others, when truthfully he's the one who fits the bill, the evil personified lying hypocrite.