Agenda-Driven Journalism: NY Times Refuses To Report Jeff Anderson’s Big Loss In Milwaukee Courtroom But Trumpets His Silly Motion To Disqualify Judge

Laurie Goodstein

Jeff Anderson mouthpiece: The New York Times' Laurie Goodstein


  • After the New York Times published three articles suggesting that Cardinal Dolan committed wrongdoing – possibly even criminal wrongdoing – as Archbishop of Milwaukee, the Times did not publish even a single story of a federal judge's later decision completely vindicating Dolan;
  • Weeks later, however, the Times' Laurie Goodstein published a story about Church-suing contingency lawyers filing an unimportant motion to disqualify the federal judge who had rendered the very same decision that the Times had completely ignored.

As we reported back in July, the New York Times published three different articles aggressively attacking its local bishop, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, for merely transferring diocesan monies in 2007, when he was Archbishop of Milwaukee, to a cemetery trust fund to ensure that the monies were going to be used as intended by the original donors: for the future care and maintenance of Catholic cemeteries.

The Times and other professional anti-Catholics, such as those at SNAP, claimed that the $55 million transfer to the trust fund was a part of a diabolical plot by Dolan to "protect the assets from victims of clergy sexual abuse who were demanding compensation" by moving the money away.

Jeff Anderson : lawyer Jeffrey Anderson

"Suing the sh&@ out of the Church":
contingency lawyer Jeff Anderson

To these folks, all archdiocesan monies must only be used to line the pockets of accusers pursuing claims and their wealthy contingency lawyers.

A few weeks later, a federal judge vindicated Cardinal Dolan and declared that Dolan's transfer was completely proper.

Yet the Times did not publish a single article about the judge's decision and the huge victory for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and Cardinal Dolan.

End of story? Not quite. It turns out that the main Church-suing lawyer in this case is the notorious Jeff Anderson, who has an extensive record of theatrics and questionable behavior in his self-described pursuit of "suing the sh#^" out of the Catholic Church.

In his typical bombastic fashion, the losing Anderson filed a meritless motion to reverse the judge's decision, claiming that because the ruling judge happened to have some deceased family members in some of the 100+ archdiocesan cemeteries, the judge somehow had a conflict of interest in the case.

The NYT carrying water for the usual suspects – again

Marci Hamilton

Professional anti-Catholic:
lawyer Marci Hamilton

Yet even though the Times did not feel the judge's original decision vindicating Cardinal Dolan was even worthy of any mention, the Times did feel that a story about a subsequent specious motion filed by Anderson to disqualify the trial judge warranted an entire 800+-word story.

And, not surprisingly, the author of the Times' story was none other than the predictable Laurie Goodstein, who always appears at the ready to lend the Times' reputation to advance Jeff Anderson's legal career and raise money for SNAP.

To lend credibility to Anderson's silly, attention-getting motion, Goodstein turns to none other than lawyer Marci Hamilton, a well-known anti-Catholic bigot, who also happens to be financially involved with Anderson in the case.

Goodstein waits until the very end of her article to quote Prof. Stephen Gillers of New York University School of Law, who trashes Hamilton's legal analysis of Anderson's nonsensical motion to disqualify the judge:

"An appellate court is going to say, if you could learn these facts after the ruling, why couldn't you do it before the ruling? Why all of a sudden did you become interested in whether this judge could sit, other than the fact that you lost. That's something they have to explain."


Goodstein as Jeff Anderson's and SNAP's unpaid PR machine

Yet the most troubling aspect of Goodstein's article is that it was published at all.

Goodstein's never-ending obsession with old abuse claims in the Catholic Church makes it quite clear that she is nothing but a mouthpiece for Church-suing lawyers like Jeff Anderson and anti-Catholic groups such as SNAP.

In 2010, when Goodstein published a high-profile series of articles about a Wisconsin priest who abused boys over a half a century earlier, it was no secret that Anderson funneled court and Church documents to Goodstein, which she then dutifully published. There is no doubt that her reporting resulted in the value of Anderson's cases being increased greatly.

In 2012, when a judge ordered SNAP president David Clohessy to merely sit for a deposition involving a lawsuit in Missouri, Goodstein naturally leaped to the defense of Clohessy with a front-page story decrying that Clohessy was being unfairly persecuted for simply being asked to testify truthfully about his relevant knowledge.

It is well known that the New York Times' editorial policies stand in heated opposition to the Catholic Church on nearly every "hot-button" social issue, whether it be gay "marriage," abortion, or birth control.

And with every successive article, Goodstein – the Times' purported "National Religion Correspondent" – only makes it more evident that her main role at the Times is to endlessly recount old stories of sex abuse occurring in a single institution – the Catholic Church – in order to advance the agendas of contingency lawyers like Jeff Anderson and other Church haters.


  1. delphin says:

    "You and D are not even religious.

    How would you know this? How can you make such a declarative statement on such an obvious 'unknown/unknowable' [and, oddly, not be able to do the same for all the 'knowns' we regularly debate]?

    If you were your approach to victims posting here would be very different. 

    You and some others did not come to TMR as confirmed [irrefutable] priest abuse victims looking for solace and comfort; you came here as victim-claimants of highly dubious integrity, antiCatholic bigots, spewing hatred, vitriol and baseless criticisms of God, Catholicism, commenters beliefs and positions, attacking commenters personally,  and verbally assaulting anything and anyone that didn't fall 'in-line' with your ideology. You were, thus, appropriately treated as as well as you treated us.

    A person of faith and humility could never say the outrageous lies that you two come up with about victims. Never."

    As you are neither, how would you know what a person of faith and humility would/could say? Specifically, what 'outrageous lies' have 'we two' directed toward confirmed/real victims?

    You need to provide actual quotes, in context, to support your claims above. You're not blackmailing an Archdiocese here, with no evidence, and strictly based upon the du jour ideological/political will of the persecutors. Your 'claims' here require actual proof.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Keep ripping me up honey. you're a laugh riot. Dennis is no one's side kick. Have I accused you of being P's "side kick?

        I have a settlement for very real injuries. You even said you believed me. Now I'm a blackmailer?

      Keep it up the more you attack; the more empathy I get.

      The only fraud here is you and P [edited by moderator].

      What else have you got? More pie in the sky nonsense?

      [edited by moderator]

  2. delphin says:

    "Do the words "weapons of mass destruction" ring any trillion dollar bells?"

    Well, aside from the Democraps en mass approval of the invasion of Iraq, yes, these words do ring 'trillion dollar' bells, insofar as the Iraq weapons are documented by Russia and a few other 'observers' as eventually landing in Syria. Go figure! I hear that most of them are now on their way back into Iraq, you know, before your Dem President Goofy signs onto the UN agreement to give UN 'oversight' to the WMD cache.

    If it weren't for the fact that the very security of the world depends on these unbelievably incompetetent 'Keystone Kops', this would all actually be kinda funny, as in, Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner funny. Beep-beep.

    Hey, so long as we have 'gay' marriage and a major socialist/communist push toward 'income equality' and socialized medicine, we're all good, now, right?  It is your peoples priorities dictating this Adminstrations' (and every past progressive/socialist/communist)agenda – right?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I only hope you are old.( I kind of think you are) so you might avoid the pain this vale of tears has so obviously brought you. What are you?

      What do you think should happen to Americans who can not find a living wage paying job?

  3. Jim Robertson says:
    • Jim Robertson says:

      Read the above link and weep at the horror your leadership enabled. But a sociopath doesn't weep, does he?

  4. Publion says:

    Now comes ‘dennis ecker’ (the 27th,  814AM) and adjures me to “get it right” (Wiggy formatting omitted) while – so very very very slyly – not actually pointing out what it is I am inferred to have gotten wrong.


     And yet then still provides his conclusion (based on information as to my ‘wrongness’ that he has not provided) that I am a “truly ‘confused’ catholic” – which is a remark he attributes to “Chaput” but also without giving us a link or any sort of reference info. Was there something ‘wrong’ (meaning here ‘inaccurate’; since clearly, discussing the problems with his material is ‘wrong’ from the get-go) with my pointing-out that ‘dennis ecker’ – according to a commenter on BigTrial – made an appointment to meet with another commenter and then never showed-up? (Time-saver: ‘dennis ecker’s mere counter-claim that he never made such an appointment doesn’t constitute ‘proof’ of anything.)


    And then (27th, 1021AM) the Wiggy bit about “since I am here anyway”: as if on the internet one had to make a long journey to get to a site; but of course this is one verrrrry busy and involved Wig of Affairs and there’s just sooooo much to do when you’re leading a world-wide (perhaps nation-wide, if the medication has kicked in) charge on behalf of Truth, Justice, and the Wiggy Way.


    So we are first given the Wiggish spin on a comment attributed to Archbishop Chaput that “catholics are confused”. (No link or identifying information provided by the UberWig, but see link at the bottom of this comment.) A truly global and comprehensive and sweeping statement for a prelate to make about “catholics” generally.


    If it were so. But – waittttt for ittttttt! – there’s more: it turns out that Abp. Chaput was referring to some Catholics’ responses to the recent papal interview (the article for which I give the link below contains a hyperlink to the papal interview material). And thus Abp. Chaput recommends that Catholics read the text of the papal comments themselves, rather than simply rely on second-hand reports … (such as ‘dennis ecker’s, say for example).


    Thus what we have in this 1021 comment is yet again a Wiggy effort to play with his blocks and put up his little construction just the way he wants it – even though what he wants (us) to get from his little block-house does not accurately or completely convey the complexity of what his quotation-source actually said. (No wonder this Wig doesn’t provide links to the material he purports to report.)


    Thus too: if the Wig of Affairs did read what Abp. Chaput said, and then still can ask – as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth – if the Archbishop were referring to certain commenters here (the ketchup bottle comes out and its lid comes off!), then clearly his reading-comprehension capability is compromised. If, on the other hand, he hasn’t read the material he purports to be reporting on, then he is a ludicrous and unreliable source of information or accuracy or truth. And the only remaining alternative is that he read the Archbishops’ remarks, realized they had little to do with anything relevant to this site, but simply had to find a way to toss that “confused” bit at somebody … and thus he deranged the report in order to arrange his little nip with his Chattering Teeth of Nastiness hidden away in his Wig (along with the tin-foil and the artfully-concealed antenna). A true fry-fly from the depths of the cafeteria.


    And we are then advised that the Wig has “spoken to many catholics” … yah. And were these conversations in offsite meetings out in the real world, or were they in the virtual world? And is this Wig really a candidate for being a reliably truthful claim-maker at all, by any extant measure of probability?


    The Pope – further – mentioned nothing about “sexual abuse by his clergy” (according to an unsupported Wig claim here). Perhaps the Pope (who once had to carry on ministry under an old-timey military dictatorship) long ago recognized a government-abetted PR Stampede when he saw one and also realizes that things are moving on now. Readers who wish to propose ‘dennis ecker’s name to the Pope as a source for accurate material about the Stampede are welcome to do so.


    And then – waitttt for itttttttt! – ‘dennis ecker’ feels that the Archbishop’s urging Catholics to read and pray over the papal words is merely some sort of magician-like exhortation to perform a “parlor trick”. By which the Wig means that the Archbishop hopes that “the words will change”. First, this Wig is no reliable source for any advice about how to read actual material accurately. Second, just how will the “words change” (although it is possible that the Wig actually reveals here an experience of his own: when he is reading stuff, the letters and the words actually do “change” and re-arrange themselves on the page … which – if that be the case – might well require some professional help, and sooner rather than later; although you’d think a former Firefighter/ Medic would know that on his own).


    Then another bit of ketchup-tossing about the Archbishop being a magician anyway (because he sells outmoded parcels of AOP real-estate and thus makes them “disappear”, doncha see?). (Time-saver here: this Wig was simply joking and shame on the confederacy of evil dunces here that can’t distinguish his serious truth-telling from his joking.)


    But – now the Wig of Breathtaking Still-Breaking Current Affairs – “another priest” was arrested at the behest of the Philly DA. (See the Big Trial site for an article that went up on the 26th.) Except that this priest – already bleeding into the water from prior accusations – was accused by an allegant who was “inspired” by the Lynn conviction (about which see more below) and comes forward now with a panoply of allegations from 1998-2001.


    Yet, while the DA called the press-conference, and while you would think that the DA would want to prosecute Lynn for these allegations the same way he did in the case now currently under appeal), yet the DA will not be prosecuting Lynn. Which is odd. But Ralph Cipriano notes that the DA may already fear an impending overturn of the case currently under appeal; which would explain the DA’s ridiculous claim that this new batch of allegations misses the Statute of Limitations by three months (whereas the case for which the DA did prosecute Lynn had missed the SOLs by nine years).


    Yes, this is interesting and still-developing news. Although apparently to the Wig here, the realities re-arrange themselves on the little screen behind his eyeballs even as he looks at them.


    And then – oddly  – there is a “third” point which seems to refer to the arrest of the same priest whose arrest constituted the second point. This ‘third’ priest was “diagnosed as a pedophile” (the Wig report) by the St. John Vianney evaluation and therapy facility in Pennsylvania; this ‘third’ priest was “had exhibited evidence of pedophilia, and had a recurring behavior pattern that ‘presents future risk’” (Ralph Cipriano’s report).


    But this makes the new arrest even more odd. If the DA now has a much more solid diagnostic record upon which to base the theory that Lynn can be in some way held accountable for failing to do his statutory duty, then this should make a new prosecution of Lynn more legally workable than the prior prosecution. So why not prosecute him now? (Again, the Cipriano surmise – and hardly inconceivable – is that the DA fears going after a person who may well soon have his conviction overturned by the Appellate court.)


    And in a final delicious bit in this (still-developing) Philly matter, the DA who had himself called the press-conference refused to take any questions when he had finished delivering his spiel.


    But the Wig may actually have picked-up an interesting bit while trolling those bottom-grounds where a lot of readers (myself included) don’t usually have the stomach or appetite or proclivity to go: this entire new allegation-pack may simply be the DA’s effort to provide either a) a warning or b) some cover to the Appellate court to the effect that Lynn is still guilty, even if the actual material from the convicting-trial merits overturn. (And one might even imagine that if the Appellate court somehow takes the invitation and refuses to overturn Lynn’s current conviction, then this new allegator’s menu will suddenly disappear itself.)


    Whatever betide (and clearly nothing is off the table in the Philly legal system now, since for whatever reason(s) the DA continues his shenanigans) we yet see once again: in Catholic Abuse Stampede cases, there’s no such thing as a ‘normal’ trial governed by normal jurisprudential process and practices.


  5. delphin says:

    "Keep ripping me up honey. you're a laugh riot. Dennis is no one's side kick. Have I accused you of being P's "side kick?"

    Because you two sweeties post for each other, and defend and regularly express your 'hoorah' for each other on a regular basis [as nauseum], as well as obviously collaborate 'off-line/site', you are clearly BFFs, therefore, you are each others side kick, 'honey'. Publion and I, and most others, barely acknowledge each other (except to reinforce salient points), never mind fawn all over each like high school clique members. The honest TMR commenters are just that, honest and independent [thinkers] commenters.

    " I have a settlement for very real injuries. You even said you believed me. Now I'm a blackmailer?"

    For the intent of commenting to TMR, it is just as easy for me to take the position that I believe you about your own (not others) experience, as not. If I were a juror, prosecutor or jurist, evidence would certainly be required. Do not conflate these two very distinct points. For here, believing you costs no one their livelihood, reputation, vocation or freedom (or life), and costs me nothing. It's an easier path to follow for my purpose at TMR. I am not interested in debating the veracity of claimed individual cases, I am interested in investigating and debating the conspiratorial aspects of the issue, as driven by antiCatholicism.

    Incidentally, I, unfortunately, am aware of too many shadey types that enjoy[ed] ill-begotten settlements. It doesn't prove anything to be granted an award, except maybe how corrupt people and the system can be, sadly. It does not prove guilt (hence, the "settlement"), or confirm claimed victimhood.

    'Keep it up the more you attack; the more empathy I get."

    Is that what you need, empathy?  Why seek out empathy at a site dedicated to flushing out fraudulent abuse cases and media bias against the Church? Why are you here? There are plenty of other, better suited places for you to go for your empathy. Are you only interested in shoving your bogus claims and ideology down our throats? Why are you looking for trouble at a site clearly not suitable for your "empathy" needs?

    "The only fraud here is you and P [edited by moderator]."

    What makes you say that (and [that])- what could you possibly think you know about either of us that would cause you to make such an obviously unsupportable claim? We make no claims for you to judge as a fraudulent? What fraud are we committing? Facts, including direct quotes in context required, please.

    "What else have you got? More pie in the sky nonsense?"

    Been there, done that. Yawn-

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What do you possibly know about me? And your entire religious belief system is fraudulent since there's not a tinsy weensy tiny whiney specky of proof for any of your religious claims. You of course are entitled to belief what ever fantasy you wish but when you attempt to control my and other peoples lives by spending millions in tax free dollars to enforce unilaterally what your faith tells you is true. Well if you attempt to make laws against my body, my person because of unprovable tax excempt "facts". I have to say no and tell you why, i'm saying no.

      [edited by moderator]

  6. delphin says:

    "Read the above link and weep at the horror your leadership enabled…"

    When I read this: "Karl Heinrich Leopold Deschner (born on May 23, 1924, in Bamberg, Bavaria), is an [atheist] German researcher and writer who has achieved public attention in Europe for his thorough and fiercely critical treatment of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular…" 

    ….I didn't bother to go to the 'link above' to read that, for the painfully obvious reasons.

    Perhaps you can find something written by Satan himself to support your virulent antiCatholicism – keep looking, it's out there, somewhere (in LA, for sure).

    Try not to refer any 'books' about Jews written by Hitler, either, while you're at your astoundingly failed attempts to [re]educate TMR readers.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well you sure don't want them educated that's gospel. If not gospel at least Genesis, He forbade them eat from the tree of knowledge. And the religious have hardly had a bite at it since.

      Facts are facts honey. You can say it ain't so regarding the church's corporate connection to and support of Facism. The Church has made a lot of money off the people of Germany before during and ever since WW2. That's a fact. The concordat Hitler created with the Vatican was affirmed as law by the post war West German now German government. That's another fact.

      [edited by moderator]

  7. delphin says:

    "I only hope you are old.( I kind of think you are) so you might avoid the pain this vale of tears has so obviously brought you. What are you?"

    Huh? Not even close to being decipherable.

    "What do you think should happen to Americans who can not find a living wage paying job?"

    They should show up at your house, break in and take everything you've earned  [income acquisition presumption here] your entire life because it is unfair that you were capable of earning your own keep and they weren't; they are absolutely entitled to your stuff by virtue of their gender, race/ethnicity, age, sexuality, handicap (including substance abuse and sexual addictions), citizen status, and minority (well, anything But Christian) religious affiliation.

  8. delphin says:

    "They need it they can have it. I'm still good."

    Unless you either have a sign hanging outside your totally unsecured abode (and, if that is owned, it goes, too) that says " Everything I Own Free to All",  or you gave away all your belongings, including your church booty, to your greedy Unc Sam (who gets a huge vig for his incompetency) as your broker, you're not 'good', you're lying. Libs are always very generous with other peoples money.

    "But Americans more and more will be out of work nor able to find work. Suggestions?"

    Yes, fire all the progressives (Socialists-Communists) in the Congress and the Administration - get busy 2014 and 2016 are closing in. Let's reward them all for their monumental failure to produce solutions to a now five year old crisis the same way that USC just rewarded their loser coach. We'll have to wait for the 'natural laws of attrition' to act on the leftist-activist Supreme's.

    Once we're back to traditional America values, based upon Judeo-Christian ethics, those values which built the greatest, wealthiest and most generous nation in history, the unemployment rate will drop, and then you can keep your bling (providing that you actually earned it, legally).

    Meanwhile, support charitable organizations [any reputable 501(c)(3)] that actually get the goods to the people,  and that do not politicize every proposition or act in order to keep their cushy jobs in congress, governors mansions or the White House (or their mansions in Georgetown and Westchester County, ala the 'Clinton Crime Family').


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why would I do as you suggest? Give away all my stuff? Who needs it.? Why do they need it? One person giving away everything; does what to end an injust system? Nothing. The world needs more Phyrric victories? Not hardly. Haven't enough of our ancestors been sacrificed to a system built not for the many but the few?

      How much money do you have? Why is it you are working with other people at your job? Shouldn't you be out grabbing on your own?. You know dog eat dog.

  9. delphin says:

    "Facts are facts honey."

    As pertains to the thoroughly debunked socialist/communist-driven fabrication of the Vatican-NAZI link, NYET, again.

    But, of more more interest is the imagery you conjure up by your overuse of your intentionally campy delivery of the 'honey'  endearment. It really does nothing more than  conjur up a subsequent and equally campy image of you strutting about in a sequined silver gown, with a fuscia boa strung about your neck and shoulders and sporting size 12 ladies pumps; all of which [oddly?] does not impress upon the majority of the TMR readers much faith in your ability to discern fact from fiction (or your 'reality' vs. wishful thinking)-


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey hon I'm just telling my truth here. The readership can take it or leave it. Either way's good for me.

  10. Publion says:

    At 132AM on the 29th JR gives us another clear example of how his mind works (so to speak; and he still wonders how astute readers can “possibly know about” him?).


    I had used the word “stuff” to refer to material in order not to keep repeating the word ‘material’, in an extended comment about the ‘dennis ecker’ stuff.


    Characteristically, JR avoids any substantive issues in that extended comment and instead goes for a one-liner ketchup-toss: that perhaps I care more about “stuff” than I do about “people”.


    First, we notice that he doesn’t say “victims” (in the trademark Playbook effort to get readers to presume that every allegator is a genuine victim). He says “people”. Neat. But obvious.


    Second, he reveals another little bit: somehow rational, coherent, accurate and truthful material (or “stuff”) is opposed to “people”. Say what? But this reveals a core presumption of the Abusenik game: if rational, coherent, accurate and truthful material somehow doesn’t further the agenda of the allegators and Abuseniks, then that simply means that the rational, coherent, accurate and truthful material has to go. And we have most surely seen that gambit played-out here time and time again.


    Apply this to allegations and you quickly see where this sort of thing can go.

  11. delphin says:

    "…when you attempt to control my and other peoples lives by spending millions in tax free dollars to enforce unilaterally what your faith tells you is true. Well if you attempt to make laws against my body, my person because of unprovable tax excempt "facts"…"

    So, the dirty little cat just came screaming out of the proverbial 'bag', didn't ?

    There are plenty of tax-exempt organizations (religious and otherwise) out there operating politically and socially on behalf of their benefactors, beneficiaries or constituents, why is it that only the Catholic Church exemption status irks you so? AntiCatholic much?

    Take some of your ill-gotten Catholic Church booty and donate it to your favorite communists, and/or other purveyors of immorality- do you need a detailed roadmap for everything?

    So far as what you do with 'your bodies', bad (immoral, unethical, criminal) behavior imposes itself on all society; such as, in the form of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, divorce, addiction, AIDS and other deadly STDs, child abuse, violent crime, etc.

    We all pick up the tab for [your] bad behavior.

    Following the narrow path (according to God, and natural laws) that Jesus laid out for mankind, eliminates all that is bad.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      God who? Just because you talk to imaginary creatures doesn't mean that I have to. If your imaginary "friend" tells you to do things. It's Doctor time. I can only hope you have healthcare insurance. You know health insurance where people pool their money  that it might be available when and if they need it.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When your imaginary diety through a bunch of closet cased hierarchs tells you that you and your beliefs are supperior to mine. I say no they are not. You want to spend $20,000,000 dollars on loosing battles (gay marriage) swell.  The tide of public opinion has moved away from the whirlpool of fear and loathing, people like you, wish to drown in. It's a better world than what you've ever offered.

  12. dennis ecker says:

    A history Lesson.

    We all must remember those days in class when we were told about the army's who would use the bodies of their dead soldiers by placing them around the fortress walls to give their enemies the impression that there strength was greater then it truly was.

    We have heard about this tactic being used for hundreds of years, in fact a similar tactic is being used today in Syria where soldiers are placing mannequins on roof tops and in windows to give there enemies a false impression of their man-power.

    I also believe we are seeing it here regarding the clergy sexual abuse debate.

    I direct your attention to a paragraph that I located and posted earlier this month that was penned by someone here who gives uninformed lengthy comments. The author of this statement back in 2012 on the Big Trial blog has failed to recognize his own writings or chooses to ignore it. The statement is as follows:

    "what happens when some groups get a small number of dedicated folks who adopt different screen-names to give the impression that the group enjoys a wider public support than is actually the case".

    Now, if you have not already guessed the writer of the above paragraph is no other then Our very own (let me write 20 paragraphs that in the end mean nothing) PUBLION.

    It seems that Publion has been doing what his very idea of a year ago suggested, and I have learned how truly simple it can be done. The secret is not to get caught.

    Its time for the Publions and Delphins to come forward and if your not ashamed of what you write come forward and use real names and not some false title.

    What you write can no longer be respected like the anonymous's on the other site.

  13. Publion says:

    We are now lectured by JR (29th, 117AM) as to what are “facts”.


    But then – marvelously – he immediately goes off the rails with his inaccurate Genesis reference. Genesis 2:8-9 refers to a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” not to “the tree of knowledge” in some general sense (Adam and Eve were welcome to eat of the fruit of all the other trees in the Garden). This injunction is to prevent them – 3:5 – from “becoming like divine beings, knowing good and evil”: that is to say, God did not want humans overloading their circuits (as if they themselves were divine beings) by trying to fathom the full mystery (“knowing”) of good and evil; they would now have enough trouble trying to deal-with good and evil (especially in themselves). Humans have their hands full with being human, without pretending toward a full knowledge of the mysteries of life and sin. Clearly, JR has overloaded his own circuits here – but what’s new?


    Thus we see in JR the adolescent and Cartoonish attempt to grasp at a word or phrase and toss it out as if it were a stand-alone “fact”, such that he need not know anything else and can simply toss his plop up on the screen. When a bit of accurate information is deeply intertwined with other bits that are also necessary for a full comprehension of what is going on, then that original bit of accurate information is more accurately characterized as a ‘factoid’ (rather than a ‘fact’) because that original bit, standing alone, cannot convey the full weight of the matter to which it pertains.


    Now, as to the bit about the West German government affirming the Concordat of 1933: clearly, if the post-Hitler government of West Germany reaffirmed the Concordat, then this indicates that the Concordat was not of a political nature specifically connected to Nazism. Rather – and as has been stated before even on this site – the Concordat was an effort by the Church to try and maintain control of Catholic education (which Hitler was threatening to eradicate altogether by subsuming all Catholic education under Reich control). Thus the profoundly anti-Nazi postwar German government reaffirmed the Church’s control of Catholic Education because that’s what the gravamen of the 1933 Concordat was in the first place. But obviously it has not occurred to JR that his own very example here (of the West German government’s affirmation) works against his own assertions and inferences as to the Church’s active political collaboration and collusion with the Third Reich.


    Lastly – although this would surely never occur to anyone not familiar with the nature and processes of historical research – Deschner’s work has never been peer-reviewed and he himself has never held any serious academic positions (he taught a summer course once 25 years ago at a German university); his sole professional membership appears to be in the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. He had been working for over forty years on his 10-volume magnum opus, entitled The Criminal History of Christianity, just completed this year. He appears to be financially supported only by private persons, having never received any formal academic research grants. And after so many decades since he wrote his stuff, he is only now coming to be published in English – by Prometheus, which is an avowedly secularist (thus anti-religious) printing outfit.


    We can perhaps look forward to more factoids from JR. I’m sure those ten volumes must be an omnium gatherum of all sorts of stuff.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey simple one. Did Einstien recieve any grants when he came up with relativity from any "formal academic research centers"? I thought when he did his thinking he was a customs clerk.


  14. Publion says:

    Continuing my thoughts on this Concordat matter:


    I offer at the bottom of this comment the link to the English text of the Concordat. Readers are welcome to read it and I would be interested in any evidence of some sort of political alliance with the Third Reich can be found. The various Articles of the document cover matters aimed at preserving some Church (local as well as Vatican) authority over Catholic matters.


    As I have said before on this site: Given the threat that Hitler posed – and the unscrupulous deployment of brutality and violence by the Nazis – I don’t see how anyone in a position of Catholic responsibility in that situation could have done much differently. Even as knowledgeable and outspoken a hierarch as Cardinal Faulhaber said “With the Concordat we are hanged; without the Concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered”. That is the unspeakably difficult situation into which the various European governments and the Vatican were put by Hitler’s accession in January 1933 – although none of the other powers had as many ‘citizens’ in Germany as the Vatican did (i.e. all Catholics in Germany).


    Nor is it acceptable historical assessment to judge the actions of the early 1930s by the actions that took place in the period 1942-45 (e.g. the Holocaust). No informed observer and certainly no government foresaw in 1933 what would happen with the Final Solution a decade later.


    I also note that as soon as the war had ended, Pius XII spoke out forcefully about the nature of Communism (which by the mid-1940s had pretty much eliminated most religion, religious personnel, and religious practice in the USSR; readers interested in getting a clear picture of that process might want to consult Michael Burleigh’s 2007 book Sacred Causes, particularly Chapter Two). And it was not long after those comments by Pius XII that various Soviet-friendly intellectuals here and there in Europe (on both sides of the Iron Curtain) began to spout that the Concordat indicated the Vatican’s collusion with the Third Reich, which – in the event – hoovered up all sorts of anti-religious types in the West and gave them a cause for which many of them are still carrying a torch, two decades and more after the USSR’s secular utopian and secular-millennial excitements and delusions collapsed (uncovering in the process even more evidence of the bloodiness and destruction deployed over the course of decades in the service of bringing the Soviet vision to fulfillment).


    So for those trying to get a clear comprehension of “facts”, I strongly suggest a competent reading of the text of the Concordat as an indispensable starting-point.


    And once that has been done, the task will be to see how very many (if any at all) accusations and assertions in regard to the Vatican and Hitler can possibly be based on the Concordat.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      What utter nonsense! The church restructures history for it's own benefit.( But that's no news that's the very core of religion). I notice you don't mention the rat line. Nor the rabid anti semitism of catholics at that time.. You always have an excuse. You always will rewrite history in the church's favor. if the church is the "bride of christ" ( actually it's much more like the bride of Frankenstien) how could it possibly ever do anything wrong? After all it was founded by god.

      You have to ( for the sake of your sad belief system ) always find the church justifiable in it's actions. no matter what. Remember the nun who died at Aushwitz, died because she was born a Jew, she wrote the Pope saying the Holocaust would happen and that he must do something. He did something he ignored her and the 6,000,000 other Jews who died in catholic Poland and all the other catholic countries where the death camps were.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Oh! the poor catholic church. It was forced to pray for Hitler, to sieg hiel (want some pictures?) to celebrate his birthday every year. They were powerless? Crap. The dissolution of the catholic party was the open door Hitler walked through into power.  I wonder if the church bells could be heard in the stripping rooms at Aushwitz?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The Soviet Union collapsed due to bankruptcy. Their entire economic system was geared to  support of their military. And when Reagan upped the arm's race, they did not have the money to keep up. Their economic engine over heated and their system blew up. There was no great moral victory for the superiority of capitalism and the west. We hocked our great grandchildren and the Russians paid the price.

  15. Publion says:

    I now notice a comment by ‘dennis ecker’ time-stamped the 30th at 1049AM.


    Let’s have a look.


    First, we are all manipulated (we “must remember”) about military history “in class” (Grade school? High school? College? West Point?) and especially about the particular tactical maneuver whereby one’s own dead were placed on the walls of one’s fortress “to give their enemies the impression that there strength was greater then it truly was” [sic; and this commenter is plausibly to be believed to have been an official report-writer?] But of course, with the exception of West Point or some undergraduate major in things military, I doubt many persons came across that bit of military arcana in their education – and, rather, moviegoers might have seen this sort of thing in one or another Hollywood flik, maybe about the French Foreign Legion in a lonely and desperate defense of a besieged desert outpost. But ‘dennis ecker’ doesn’t want to be considered as merely a fry-fly who gains his ‘knowledge’ from the movies, so he will make this stab at making it seem like this bit is part of his education (such as it was).


    Oh, and there’s a current-events connection to Syrian soldiers today (or so it is alleged – who knows for sure what is and is not being accurately reported from over there at this point?).


    Anyway, one wonders why a fry-fly Wig is going on about military arcana in the first place.


    Waitttttt for ittttttttt. He believes “we are seeing it here regard the clergy sexual abuse debate”. (“Debate”? I thought he said it was a fight or a war or something like that.)


    Then the Wig of Authority does “direct” our attention to a quotation from “someone here who gives uninformed lengthy comments” (Oh my  and oh dear – whoever could that be? And how could this Wig be any sort of judge of what is informed or uninformed? Meseems I hear the Teeth of Nastiness chattering like cheap castanets in a Wig.)


    My comment (it was me, if you hadn’t guessed, since ‘dennis ecker’ is playing his cards close to the vest) was to the effect that we can find Abuseniks adopting different screen-names. I put that comment up on the first Philly trial site (which was not – ‘dennis ecker’ blows it again – entitled “BigTrial”, which is a second title and a different blog entirely, set up for the second Philly trial and subsequent developments).


    Ah, but then the Wig of Tasteful And Coy Indirection is suddenly cast to the floor of the stage, to reveal … the Wig of J’Accuse!  (Can this really be a former firefighter? Or perhaps this was the reason the City and the Department were perhaps not unhappy to get rid of him?) He reveals that the writer of that material was … me, writing as Publion. Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


    OK then. We have established that I have written comments on other sites as Publion. Next?


    Well, dear readers, this somehow proves for ‘dennis ecker’ that I have been doing what I have suggested Abuseniks were doing: posting comments under various names so as to appear more numerous than I am.


    Oh …. Wait. It appears that this ludicrously inept Wig has just proven that I used the same screen-name.


    Ummmmmmmmmm …. So how did I “get caught” here? (Really: imagine yourself lying on a stretcher and this mentality giving a précis of your condition to the Trauma-Room staff … I think the City and the Department knew just what they were doing when they let him ride into the sunset.)


    Perhaps he meant to infer that I was getting other commenters to put up my material using their name somehow … but then that was what he and JR cooked-up, and then repeatedly blew holes in their own credibility by coming up with a string of ‘stories’ as to what they had done. Seriously, we are dealing with circus-people here; how many of them can fit into a single small car, do you think?



    Then the Wig Of Direction declares that – and here we go with this plop again – Publion and Delphin should “come forward” and “use real names and not some false title” (false title as in … “Firefighter”?) Like JR’s former (perhaps still-current gaga-interest BostonSurvivor/LearnedCounsel?


    I am not ashamed of the material I have put up. Is ‘dennis ecker’ not ashamed of his performance on this site? (Time-saver: No, he’s not. And the readership is welcome to make of that what they will.)


    And then – again mistaking his own crack-dreams for the world’s opinion – this Wig declares that “what you write can no longer be respected” … and his material is respected?


    As to “anonymous” writers on “the other site” (I think he means BigTrial here): whoever they are, they are not me. Had the Wig Of Knowingness come across some comment over there that somehow indicates my style? (Another possibility here: somebody has read my material on this site and used some bits of it on that other site – perhaps to deflate the Wig in yet another venue … the hot ironies! But the Wig dare not consider that possibility, because that would mean people are actually reading my material and doing something useful with it – and the Wig has been repeatedly insisting (in tag-team tandem with JR) that nobody reads or believes or credits my material or anybody’s material on this site if it doesn’t agree with their own cracked dreams.


    But the Wig is right about one thing. I have noticed a few thoughts or phrases of mine here and there on the BigTrial site. And good for the folks that use them.


    I also note that, though expending time and energy on the post he has put up here, ‘dennis ecker’ has not seen fit to point out just what I got “wrong” about the dodged-appointment matter. Was he ashamed to be seen if he had showed up at that meeting?


    As I have often said and we have often seen here, real names (and who knows if they’re real in the first place?) don’t really do much for the quality of one’s material at all.

    • dennis ecker says:

      It seems that a nerve has been hit and anyone can see how Publion or what other titles he may go by either on this site or others attempts to defend himself by either using the childish name calling or personal attacks most likely fueled by ENVY. (painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, a desire to possess the same advantage.)


  16. delphin says:

    "Its time for the Publions and Delphins to come forward and if your not ashamed of what you write come forward and use real names and not some false title."

    Suggest you use your usual tactics to get your way, i.e. hold your breath until you turn blue as you lay on the ground kicking your feet.

    "God who? Just because you talk to imaginary creatures doesn't mean that I have to. If your imaginary "friend" tells you to do things. It's Doctor time."

    So, let's put this on terms you can relate to; the imaginary 'monkey' in your ancestry that 'created' you and who you worship (aka your god) does not advocate to it's 'followers' any requirement to love and express charity to its fellow 'monkey-man'; so, in your world, which 'evolved' (eventually, still?) from primates, health care (doctors, hospitals, insurance) is not required according to the laws of nature. And, in reality, if it weren't for God, and the world was operating strictly under the laws of nature, you and your kind would serve no utilitarian purpose to the society/culture/community/population (since procreation is the sole reason for existence and goal of all living things), whatsoever, and you would have been 'selected' out of the population – discarded by society, or more likely, just eaten.

    'Imagining' that you'd be rather dry and 'chewy' at this late stage of the game-

    Nature is cruel. God is merciful.

    • dennis ecker says:

      History Lesson continued:

      During the initial trial of Fr. Lynn and Fr. Brennan the Philadelphia Daily News covered the trial with Mr. Martin being the reporter, and at the end of his column he had a comment section.

      As I once again show the idea that was penned by Publion "what happens when some groups get a small number of dedicated folks who adopt different screen-names to give the impression that the group enjoys a wider public support than is actually the case".

      A commentor back then was being accused of Publion's very idea by not only leaving comments under his name but those of others. The very strange thing this individual was doing was placing comments and responding to them under his additional names.  A sick second personality is one way you can look at it.

      Now before someone jumps down my back for attacking this individual I WAS NOT the one who made those accusations until now.

      Getting back to the events that unfolded. As the accusations continued this individual eventually ceased leaving comments on the columns and was seen leaving comments at the New York Times.

      The person who was accused of doing such a thing was DPierre.



    • Jim Robertson says:

      If god was merciful, he'd sweep you to the bosom of Abrahan now.

      O.K. so you don't belive in evolution. We get exactly how up to date you are.

      Social Darwinism is a lie. We got along by getting along if you get my drift.

      If the laws of nature aren't god's will, what the hell are they?

    • josie says:

      That is brilliant!

  17. delphin says:

    "Hey hon I'm just telling my truth here."

    Hey, {insert insincere endearment here], how about telling THE truth, here? There is " the truth", recognized and accepted by the [sane, moral] majority, and then there is the "my truth", aka the 'other than "the" truth'. If it isnt "The Truth", is isnt truth at all. Bending and warping realities (eg. gender, marriage, good, bad) and truths is the domain of evil (by whatever name your 'truth' refers to it).

    "The readership can take it or leave it. Either way's good for me."

    Evidently, it ISN'T good for you, you protest much, in writing, in your own convoluted, incomplete and disjointed words and 'concepts'.

    This is the problem with antiCatholic zealots, the Kool Aid has so pickled the brain that it no longer distinguishes reality from fantasy.

  18. Publion says:

    Rather than address any of the substance of my comment (the 30th, 810PM) or – what’s new? – any of the clear errors in his material,  the sly Wig decides that he sees that “a nerve has been hit”. Would that be evidenced by exaggerated formatting, epithets, declamatory faux-papal pronunciamentos and denunciations and the like? If not, then what might lead him to the idea that any nerve has been hit any more than usual (when, at this point, it is more often the funny-bone than a “nerve” that starts vibrating insistently when I look at the latest plop-piles).


    But ludicrous gives way to florid when the Wig then surmises that I am trying to “defend” myself because of “ENVY” [exaggerated Wiggy formatting retained].  Readers are welcome to make of that surmise whatever they will.


    However – alas – I believe that the Wig(s) must now accept that that descriptor “Wig(s)” is not at all some name-calling out of the blue but rather the now-accepted shorthand for the mentalities that the term describes and the various piles that they put up here.  (Nice touch, though: looking up ‘envy’ in a dictionary and sharing the fruits of that ‘research’. Too little too late, but a nice touch.)


    What I do think has agitated the Wig of Affairs, however, is this: it appears that on the BigTrial site too, some readers are starting to treat him not as a particularly outspoken and authoritative (if cranky and fixated) victim or Maximum Leader of The Movement, but rather as some sort of rodeo-clown. Did they get that from reading material on this site? Or did they come to that conclusion on their own? More grist for the vaudeville mill; readers are advised to please purchase your popcorn before the next show starts.

  19. Publion says:

    And before the popcorn can be popped for the next show, we have JR’s two (nine minutes apart – some serious deliberation must have been going on) from the 1st at 657PM and 706PM.


    He leads off his excursus with a descriptive conclusion (“What utter nonsense!”) and perhaps readers would like to figure the odds of any explanation for it to quickly follow.


    In what way has the Church ‘restructured’ history here? Just because there are historical factors (which I pointed out) that make mush of JR’s Cartoonish preconceptions … ? Has he read the text of the Concordat? Has he found evidence of a diplomatic alliance there between the Vatican and the Third Reich? Which Article of the Concordat supports that assertion or presumption?


    Instead he tries to change the subject from the Concordat to “the ratline”. But it is equally plausible that the postwar “ratline” – as with the prewar doings of some prelates and priests on the front-line of contact with the Reich or who were pursuing their own individual agendas (Msgr. Tiso comes to mind quickly here) – simply indicates that the Vatican was not in total and universal control of the doings of even its own prelates and priests.


    Which corresponds to that precise dynamic as it has manifested itself stubbornly throughout the history of pre-Reformation Christianity and post-Reformation Catholicism (contrary to the self-serving and strategically useful Abusenik and tortie Cartoon that the Church is some sort of monster totalitarian government … and isn’t that a neat symmetry to be fomented by actual monster totalitarian governments?).


    As for “the rabid anti-semitism of catholic at the time”: is that assertion supposed to accurately apply to all Catholics? JR’s research can establish that, can it? And what about the anti-Semitism of Protestants (in Germany, in the Western governments and peoples) and even the Soviets themselves? How does all that fit into the Cartoon here?


    In what way is history being re-written here as opposed to the far more plausible (and demonstrated) effort to correct Cartoonish inaccuracies? Just what “history” – specifically – is “being rewritten” here? Or – rather – are we seeing played out before us the confoundment of a Cartoon-dependent mentality when faced with the insufficiency (to say the very least) of its cherished Cartoons?


    More movie bits with the “bride of Frankenstein” plop.


    And then, still faced with the insufficiency of his Cartoons – JR has to find someone else to blame for that, and so he claims that I or other readers here “have … to always find the church justifiable in it’s actions” [sic]. Can JR show specifically where I have ‘rewritten’ history here?


    I’d say, rather, that in the material under consideration here I have found that the Church’s actions were understandable in the historical context in which they occurred, and when compared with other governments’ handling of the same type of challenges. (Although I note again: no other government has as many of its own citizens at direct risk of totalitarian violence as the Church had believers at such risk.)  What thoughts does that problem generate for JR’s deliberation?


    What precisely was the Pope going to do by the time people were dying at “Aushwitz”? Had the perfesser here noted that the existence and operations of Auschwitz as an extermination camp post-dated the era of the Concordat by almost a decade? And can he show other governments among the Allies who did a better job of dealing with the problem of the Final-Solution camps? What solution does JR consider would have been advisable and workable, and would not have run the risk of inciting even more deaths, and would have enjoyed any reasonable probability of success? I’d really like to hear that one.


    Bets on whether we do? I doubt it. The whole idea in this Church/Nazi bit is – by amazing coincidence – so very much like the Abusenik gambit: find some stick to whack the piñata and keep whacking it, without ever letting the focus turn to other alternatives.


    And if Pius XII can accurately be characterized (for purposes of discussion here) as having “ignored” the nun and the Six Million, then who among the world’s Western leaders cannot also be so characterized? And if all the Western leaders of that era can be so characterized, then what does JR do with that? What was the Pope to have done by 1942 after the Wannsee Conference? What were the other Western leaders to do?


    If JR has pictures of “the poor catholic church” sieg-heil-ing (rather than this or that individual) I’d like to see those pictures. Cardinal Innitzer in Vienna tried to put the Anschluss in the best possible light (and sizable numbers of his Austrian flock as well as Austrians generally were hardly opposed to it) but when it became clear a) that there was no light at the end of that tunnel and b) both Pius XI and then-Cardinal Pacelli distinctly made him aware of Vatican disapproval of his course of action, he opposed the Reich and suffered greatly for it at the hands of the Nazis.


    Monsignor Tiso was for all practical purposes a renegade and a political figure (the Slovakian People’s Party) and he was executed after the war as a political-figure who collaborated actively with the Nazis. It is of no small historical significance that he was executed and buried in secret, because the postwar Czech government feared that the Slovak people would make his grave a shrine. So much for the Vatican controlling everything and everybody.


    JR then tosses off some plop about the dissolution of the Catholic Center Party in Germany (which was the price Hitler demanded for his Concordat in 1933). If JR has some suggestions as to how the Vatican might have better handled the situation that Hitler’s sudden appointment as Chancellor posed (to all the Western governments and the Soviet government as well as to the Vatican) then let him share that alternative vision. But I think we shall get no such thing – and instead we shall simply get (if we get any more along this topic at all) more plop-tossing, historically incompetent and uninformed.


    As always, I am not so much interested in conducting an informed historical exchange with JR – which would be an act of almost insane presumption on my part for obvious reasons. But I think that since the subject of the Church – and the methods used to somehow use the Church as a piñata – is an important subject, then there is some usefulness to dealing with these bits that have been prompted by the recent publication of that book by Deschner.

  20. Mark says:

    Encouraging news – though still some way to go. The changes put in place after the Dallas Charter in 2002 have made the Church a role model in the care and protection of children. The abuse scandals are far behind us (1965-85) – though sexual abuse of children continues unabated, TODAY, in other faiths and is rampant and ignored in public schools and society at large. The influx of ACTIVE homosexuals into the seminaries during the increasingly permissive 1960s and 1970s led to a damaging episode in the Church's history. The uncompromising actions taken by Pope Benedict mean that young men who have discerned a calling feel confident now that they can enter the seminaries and follow that calling unhindered and unencumbered by the transgressions of the past.

  21. delphin says:

    "I wonder if the church bells could be heard in the stripping rooms at Aushwitz?"

    For the typical leftist-atheist, there are no rules (morals, ethics, truths) about how low one should stoop to bottom- feed for anything that could possibly be used to bash Catholics.

    Let's just let their statement hang out there in all it's glory as a fair representation of the lefts perspectives and tactics for engaging their opposition in debate.

    Meanwhile, while they bask in the afterglow of their despicableness (probably lots of experience there), one might suggest that the SOL be suspended for all the Jews and other holocaust victims and their descendents throughout the world so that they, too, can sue the Church for claimed 'crimes' (aka theology of morals, ethics, charity, love)  committed centuries ago.  We can go all the way back to the crucifixion of Christ- as we know, He offended much of His opposition as He hung on that cross. There must be psychological damage out there, as a result, somewhere?

    And, I have no doubt that this insanity, as framed, would be happily embraced by this 'fair-minded, logical, righteous and ever-evolved' lefty-atheist gang if they ever had the drug and alcohol-induced courage (and attorneys) to pursue such options. 





    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm sorry weren't the Nazi death camps overwhelmingly IN catholic countries?

      A friend just said that if lapsed catholics were counted; they'd be the second largest christian church in America. The first being the catholic church. Now dats a lot of catholics!

      And can we possibly pretend that a catholic church had no power in European countries in particular catholic countries? They sure had a lot of power before and during Mussolini; Hitler ; andFranco( all catholic boys, by the by.)

      And they sure had a lot of power after the war but somehow their power evaporated like Poof! during the war. Particularly around the evaporation of 6,000,000,000 jews.  Pull the other one.

  22. Publion says:

    In regard to the Einstein bit in JR’s of the 2nd at 1238AM: Einstein was almost immediately offered elite university positions after the publication of his initial work and he remained with important positions and university employment and a participant in an extensive peer-network of fellow scientists for the rest of his life.


    This character Deschner has been putting his stuff out there for decades and has neither attracted nor achieved anything at all like that.


    But he has attracted the gaga adulation of JR. And that surely must be indicative of something, no?

  23. Publion says:

    Once again we are given (the 1st, 1117PM) a “History Lesson” from ‘dennis ecker’, who seems not to have been fazed by the (embarrassing?) failure of his prior lesson.


    No link to any of the material he claims to have as a source.


    I don’t recall making a comment on the Philadelphia Daily News site; I do recall the comment on the original Cipriano site. But if ‘dennis ecker’ would care to put up the link to that PDN article, that would be nice. Otherwise – I trust he understands – there will remain some substantive doubt.


    Anyhoo, what’s going to be his point here? Let’s see.


    Well, ‘dennis ecker’s thought – as conveyed by his writing – is so convoluted that I can’t figure out what point he is trying to make. (And when his writing becomes particularly convoluted, that – in my assessment – indicates that there isn’t a clear reality that he’s working with, but rather the fuzzy lineaments of a phantasm that has appeared on the screen behind his eyeballs which he now wants to make appear in the minds of others as well. Not quite Madam Blavatsky here, but surely a manipulative type of mesmerism.)


    Apparently Dave Pierre had put up a comment and – we have the Wiggy word for this – was being accused of … using other people’s names as well as his own to leave comments. If DP was actually accused of that (no links to source material from guess-who here), how could anyone ever know if it were true or not? Has ‘dennis ecker’ not kept up with the discussions on this site about that very Problem? So what actually do we have as a point here, which ‘dennis ecker’ is trying to make?


    Notice also that to the Wig and to Abuseniks, an ‘accusation’ is apparently for all practical purposes as good as a demonstrated fact. And we wonder how the Stampede works?


    Also, my assessment of the Chief Wig’s material is that whenever he uses exaggerated formatting one can reliably presume that the truth of whatever he is ‘shouting’ about bears 180-degrees in relation to his actual assertion.


    Once again, we have no links to verify the assertion “as the accusations continued” and there could be a number of explanations for why DP – if indeed any of this Wiggy comment is accurate in the first place – commented on other sites. If all of this was indeed supposed to have taken place on a newspaper site, then I don’t see newspaper sites as a venue for carrying on extended comment-exchange (as is possible on the BigTrial site, its predecessor, and on this site); newspaper sites would attract less-sustained commentary by their very nature.

  24. says:

    Thank you, everyone, for your comments!

    This thread is now closed.


  1. [...] I received a note from Dave Pierre of The Media Report alerting me to the news The Times had finally reported the news of the church’s court [...]