Rhode Island TV Outlet Touts Story of Old Abuse Claims Against Priests, Ignores All of the Bogus Claims

Katie Davis : WJAR

Reporter Katie Davis, WJAR, NBC affiliate in Providence:
In search of the salacious.

WJAR, an NBC television affiliate in Providence, recently trumpeted a trove of documents it obtained from Rhode Island's state police. They contain letters alleging old sex abuse claims against priests which the Diocese of Providence sent to the police over the past several years.

And while WJAR reporter Katie Davis proudly proclaimed the papers as "detailing sexual abuse by Rhode Island Roman Catholic priests," what is most noteworthy about the documents is the large number of bogus accusations and outright attempts of fraud against the Church, none of which was mentioned by Davis.

Media credence and mental illness

The documents contain a number of claims which are clearly untrue and even preposterous:

  • an "obviously troubled individual" made "numerous calls" to the diocese claiming that a priest who had never been accused of anything was "a pedophile and had killed a young boy and buried him on the church property" (doc);
  • a man left a phone message and claimed he had a list of "73 active priests" who may have molested children, but the man never responded to any return phone calls by the diocese seeking additional information (doc);
  • a serial criminal whose crimes include manslaughter came forward to claim abuse by a priest decades earlier only after yet another warrant was issued for his arrest (doc1, doc2);
  • a man claimed two dead priests abused him over three decades earlier, but he only came forward after he had compiled an "extensive criminal record" in both Rhode Island and Florida (doc);
  • a woman under intense mental health treatment for nearly two decades came forward to make a claim of abuse of "unwanted and unsolicited hugging and kissing" by a priest back in the 1960s (doc);

Davis apparently embraced all of the allegations she read without expressing even an ounce of skepticism.

And days after airing her original story about the documents, Davis then presented a bizarre claim from a man in his 60s who did not report his allegation of abuse until 2013, nearly 48 years after he said it took place.

Saying he comes from a "dysfunctional family" and suffers from PTSD, the man relayed a surreal tale in which he claimed a priest took him to a public park and "forced him to drink from a Thermos," with the result that "the liquid inside left him drugged and unconscious."

The man also went on to claim, "People have asked me, would you rather have had that happen or gotten bitten by a shark? I'd rather have been bitten by a shark."

Think about that last one. Who on earth would ever ask such a odd question? Yet Davis enthusiastically embraced the man's claims without a hint of skepticism or even an attempt to fact check his claim.

And what of the priest whom this man accused of abusing him nearly a half a century ago? Well, we don't know, as he died a quarter century ago, in 1988, and is thus unable to defend himself or his reputation, a matter of little concern to Davis.

The ultimate counter-narrative story

The prevalence of false accusations against Catholic priests are much, much more common than the public has been led to believe. As we have recorded in the past, some abuse claims against priests are so blatantly bogus that one wonders what rational person would ever believe them.

But don't expect anytime soon a media story on false accusations against priests, as few in the journalistic community are ever brave enough to buck the trend and pursue a counter-narrative story.


  1. Publion says:

    There was a time – and no so long ago – when this old Stampede media gambit would have worked without a hitch.


    This thought had come to me last month when I realized that it has been 2 years since the December 2011 release of what is informally called the Dutch Abuse Report (formally titled the Wim Deetman report after the head of the commission that compiled it). Some readers may recall the hoo-hah back then: if I recall correctly, there were something like 109 claims of abuse going back to 1950 (do the math as to the yearly averages) and yet the media played it up as if it were yet another instance of more earthshaking revelations. But while there were numerous media ‘reports’ about it from around the world,  the text of the thing was impossible to find – and even now it has not been translated into English, and there is only a summary available for it in English, held on the Netherlands website Onderzoerk-dot-nl.


    (Although on page 19 of that summary, the commission very interestingly observes that since it is impossible scientifically to conclusively establish the causality-connection between an incident of abuse and any claimed sequelae, it will refrain from making that presumption.)


    This local RI station apparently had a friend or contact in the RI State Police who passed along the file with the assorted letters  - and perhaps hopes to create a Kowabunga moment to stir up some surf and viewer-numbers. There is no skepticism because (once again we see the Anderson Strategies at work) this media outlet is not interested in serious assessment, but simply in ‘reporting’ more ‘horrific’ (as they like to say) stories of Catholic clerical abuse. That’s where the viewer-numbers are, or at least were.


    What is also of interest is that a professional media-outlet would consider the publication of what is clearly a police ‘nut-file’ as actually being accepted by the (Stampeded) public as being presumptively accurate and credible reporting of accurately-described and presumptively-credible allegations, stories, and claims.


    But then, for so long that play actually worked out on the field, did it not? Which again raises the interesting thought of what we might see if somehow through the operation of law those tortie-demanded secrecy stipulations might get opened up the same way this RI letter file has gone up. Ah well, the Stampede is entering a new phase, a dozen years to the month after the Boston Globe started its own version of Anderson’s sue-the-bishops plan.

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    You know what the real "stampede" around here is?
    The stampede of deluded catholics to defend rapists and their enablers.

    Do you really hate your own children this much? That you would support their, our rapists?

    P has no children nor empathy obviously. But how about the rest of you "faithfull"? Do you have children? If this horror had happened in your families or to you, would you still hold the same lame postions? Where are your howls of protest for catholic children raped? You have none. You are moral; intellectual and spiritual bankrupts.  That faith you pretend to defend has taught you no morality at all.

    • KenW says:

      Where are your howls of protest for ANY children raped?!?!

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      KenW has children. I believe he was father of the year twice, and he still holds that lame position.

      I wonder not what he thinks but maybe what his off-spring are thinking about the position he has taken.

      I keep hoping though what he has said in the past is a lie.

  3. Ted says:

    These scum reporters don't believe it either.

    It is all about MONEY!

    • malcolm harris says:

      I agree with Ted (his comment on the 14th) it is all about money. This is all being driven by  greed for easy money.

  4. LDB says:

    Why do the religious still rally around these rotten humans? Do they really think that the priest, rabbi, pastor, or imam deserves protection? Yes, their religious belief is proof that they can be brought to believe anything on bad evidence or no evidence at all.

    This bribe story below is a more extreme example of the same kind of defense as the shady vague references to 'the numbers' in the TMR article above.

    NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) – A Brooklyn man who admitted he offered a teenage girl $500,000 to leave the country instead of testifying in a sex abuse trial against her former spiritual counselor has been sentenced to four months in jail.

    Abraham Rubin apologized and said he’d made a terrible mistake as he was sentenced Friday in Brooklyn.

    Three other men were also charged with intimidation in the incident along with Rubin.

    The 50-year-old Rubin offered the bribe to the girl and her now-husband in 2012. He told them justice would be better served if they didn’t testify in the case against Nechemya Weberman.

    Weberman was a highly respected counselor in the ultra-Orthodox Satmar Jewish community. After his arrest, the community rallied around him, and many people intimidated his accuser.

    • Delphin says:

      Speaking of being brought to believe anything on very bad or no evidence at all- does the irony of your claims about religious believers also ring true for the Catholic Church abuse crisis 'true believers'?  Is it your faith that compels your beliefs?

      Talk about bad/no evidence; I believe that when this thing has run out of that insidious steam being generated by the Church's political enemies, in government and the media, and the analysis of what happened, and why, is thoroughly examined, the scandal that is the persecution of the Catholic Church in 20-21 century America will rival other notable shameful eras in our nation.

      Abuse of minors isn't about religions or theology (except for those religions that actually sanction it, such as Islam), it is about the evil that man does. In the case of those crimes associated with the Church, the evil men who were the majority of the perps (>90%) were practicing homosexual ephebophiles. To reiterate your question; why do the irreligious still rally around these rotten humans?

  5. Publion says:

    We see once again (JR, the 14th at 939AM) an effort to avoid the actual issue in discussion and instead try to simply cast the old standard Playbook bits: thus a) in what way is the discussion about the RI news ‘report’ characterizable as an attempt to “defend rapists and their enablers”? JR doesn’t explain – but, really, how could he?


    And then b) we see “the children” brought up again like baby-harp-seals. How do we get from commenting on journalistic practices and integrity to somehow ‘hating’ “children”?


    And then we are taken even further: We are assured that I have “no children nor empathy obviously”. Readers are welcome to contemplate how that leap has appeared so ‘obvious’ to JR.


    And – yet again – what “horror” is it, actually, that we are dealing-with here? We have no evidence of anything here except the letters contained in a police file (which were apparently not acted-upon).


    And it is hardly impossible that there are no “howls of protest for catholic children raped” among the readership because there still isn’t any evidence as to who here in these letters was actually raped by a Catholic cleric. But we see here yet again: the Stampede was designed from the get-go to avoid the problem of evidence and instead it was designed from the get-go to simply cut to the Stampede-y emotional outrage over the stories, claims, and allegations.


    Thus there’s a lot of room for rational explanations before one can confidently and credibly assert that the readership here are “moral; intellectual and spiritual bankrupts” [sic] and that the Catholic “faith you pretend to defend has taught you no morality at all”. Not the least of which possibilities is that readers may want some demonstrable evidence before they credit the claims, allegations, assertions and stories (which, as I have said before on this site, is apparently synonymous with lack-of-empathy in the Abusenik dictionary).


    Then commenter ‘LDB’ (the 14th, 1249PM) tosses up the question as to why “the religious still rally around these rotten humans”. But what have we got in these letters to demonstrate that we are dealing with “rotten humans”? Or does ‘LDB’ credit these stories contained in the file just like the news-reporter does?


    Then we are given – magpie-like – a story from the Jewish community in the New York area. I don’t hold at all with attempting to bribe a person making a claim. But I can easily imagine why somebody dedicated to his religion might want to try a gambit like that: having seen how the Stampede chews-through rationality and problems of evidence like a buzz-saw, and perhaps also figuring that the claim was made in order to get money (hardly an improbable possibility) then this fellow figured to cut to the bottom-line and offer the money.


    I don’t condone it at all. But I think it is clear that once a Stampede-dynamic is loosed, then people are going to lose confidence in the integrity of the legal system to rationally and credibly process the charge, and are going to try to come up with their own solutions. This should be a very sobering wake-up call to the legal and judicial elements that people are losing confidence in Stampede-jurisprudence (seen vividly on display recently in Philadelphia).


    It is also a question as to what constitutes “intimidation” (which functionally here might be as elastic a term as ‘abuse’). Especially since this report says that three others were formally “charged with intimidation” and yet also that “many people intimidated” the counsellor’s accuser.


    As always in these ‘reports’, so very much necessary for a reader to get a solid grasp of the situation is left out, for whatever reason(s).

  6. LDB says:

    OK (Publion 1/14/2014 4:39 pm) Wow. That was a great defense of vigilantism. Just shy of being a vigilante yourself, though that would require real advocacy not just the sympathetic justification offered.

    The 'reports' often do not include every desirable detail and do not/cannot answer every question. True. You present very consistently in your writing as a skeptic and agnostic. It is strange and disappointing that you do not apply your questions and analysis to your religion and other subjects that you favor in the same manner. That is to say that it is odd that it takes so much evidence to convince you of some churchman's crimes and character, and so little evidence to convince you of say, the supernatural dimension. You make me think of Fox Mulder from the X-files with his UFO poster that said, "I want to believe." Indeed, if you want to, you will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well said, LDB.

    • Delphin says:

      Might be the most idiotic statement (LBD 15 Jan 1135am) to imply that someone of religious fidelity should apply those same rigors of faith and reason to the legal arena, which operates under the rule of law, which requires, among many other 'thing's, evidence and due process.

      It's fun to watch the newly minted/inked "intellectuals" slip, slide and flop around in their new scholastic clown shoes.

      Typically, they leave the overly protective homes of their parents, to sleaze their way as freeloaders and know-it-all's through their progressive university "careers" and then land in some cushy post-doc or other soft-landing position (if not back into their parents basements and businesses) where they think they get to tell the rest of us what and how to think, in spite of our experiences, the facts, and other realities.

      How quaint.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      "The rigors of faith and reason"

      You just can't make this stuff up. Priceless!

  7. Publion says:

    From commenter ‘LDB’ (the 15th, 1125AM) we get a “Wow” because my comment (the 14th, 439PM) “was a great defense of vigilantism”. By amazing coincidence, ‘LDB’ doesn’t explain how s/he arrived at that conclusion, so we are left basically with merely an epithetical assertion.  And one that is then immediately reinforced with the further plop-toss that I am “just shy of being a vigilante” myself. And again – but of course – no explanation about how this conclusion was reached either. But the plop has been tossed and that, apparently, is the objective for this commenter.


    No, news reports do not often “include every desirable detail” – especially since a wide range of readers can have a wide range of “desirable” details. So very true. But not quite to the point.


    Because it’s one thing not to toss in every little bit of detail; it’s very much another thing to leave out details that are essential for readers to come to a conclusion about the incident that is being reported. Thus my interest in the reporter’s working-definition of “intimidation” here: that word could cover a range that goes from a) baseball-bats to z) a polite request to re-consider, made in a civil conversation. In today’s journalistic world there is no way of being sure where along the spectrum from (a) to (z) that definition falls. And – as I said in my prior comment – such an elastic range of definition has already been demonstrated in words such as ‘abuse’, ‘molest’, and even – as we have seen on this site recently in comments – the concept of ‘rape’ itself.


    So ‘LDB’ – if s/he wishes to retain credibility – would have to provide some serious explication as to how s/he has gotten from my point about the definition of “intimidation” employed in this article to the bit about my being something just short of being a “vigilante”.


    I “present very consistently in [my] writing as a skeptic and agnostic” (which would be news to JR, who is certain I am an “apologist” for the Church). I’m not sure how much of my writing here ‘LDB’ has read, but I would have to say that it doesn’t support my being an “agnostic”.


    But there’s a method to the madness here: my being (putatively) an “agnostic” then provides the bottom-block for the next block on the pile: that “it is strange and disappointing” (awwwwwww … ) that I do not apply my “questions and analysis” to my “religion and other subjects you favor in the same manner”. Well, this isn’t a general religious-subjects site and I am not using it as a personal blog and the site is actually rather tightly and specifically focused on the Catholic Abuse Matter. So what does ‘LDB’ expect in this regard? What can ‘LDB’ legitimately expect in this regard?


    ‘LDB’ then presumes – rather contrary to the substance of my comments on this site – that a) “it takes so much evidence to convince you of some churchman’s crimes and character” while b) it takes “so little evidence to convince you, say, of the supernatural dimension”.


    In regard to (b): hadn’t ‘LDB’ just written that I appeared to be an “agnostic” or simply “agnostic”? Has ‘LDB’ lost track of his/her thoughts here?


    In regard to (a): just how little evidence does ‘LDB’ require to be convinced of “some churchman’s crimes and character”? As I recently said on another recent thread: if I am an “apologist” for anything, it is for the rule of law (and thus the rules of evidence) and for rationality and coherence in making inferences drawn from the evidence and for a weighing of the probabilities of this or that assertion being true – or otherwise.


    I won’t be taking responsibility for ‘LDB’s mentation in somehow getting him/herself to Fox Mulder and The X-Files show.


    And yet ‘LDB’ has moved the discussion to a useful point in the end: we are talking about evidence here, and what we “want to believe” isn’t really the point at all. Except in the Abusenik and Stampede Playbook, where that ‘belief’ is precisely what they seek to manipulate through the consistent sidestepping of evidentiary considerations and then substituting for those considerations the mere plop-tossy repetition of various stories, claims, allegations and assertions and the various Playbook ways of distracting from the evidence-problem.


    Thus, then, it isn’t about what I or Abuseniks “want to believe”; it is a matter of what the evidence will support and to what probabilities (if not outright conclusory demonstration) that evidence will lead.


    Moving along, I had mentioned in prior comments on this thread and on this site’s ‘Best Articles of 2013’ thread the recent matter of the NY criminal case recently brought against police and firefighters making false disability claims, and having been coached by several enterprising gentlemen as to how to mimic the symptoms of ‘stress’ or ‘PTSD’ in order to obtain higher disability benefits and payouts.


    I add here a very interesting bit mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article (Friday, January 10, 2013, page A12 in the print edition, entitled “Grand Theft Disability”): it was in 1985 that “Congress relaxed the disability standards to make it easier for people reporting pain, discomfort and mental illness to qualify for benefits”.


    That date may remind readers here that 1985 was also the year that the still-Father Doyle and his psychological and tortie partners submitted their thoughts to the nation’s Bishops. The tortie may well have realized what huge flood-gates Congress had just opened.


    Which opens up the following line of thought: the Stampede, as envisioned and shaped by the Anderson Strategies, was always a variant type of disability-scam from the get-go. Although neatly camouflaged under the vigorously-stoked hoo-hah of victimization and ‘abuse’ and  ‘rape’ and so on and so forth, conveniently fronted by the SNAP and similar organizations, and taken up by a melodrama-seeking mainstream media. Evidence – neatly – not required.


    That line of thought may be more than enough to contemplate, but I would add one more thought. Imagine the Spring of 1942, when the US Navy’s command did not wish to deploy warships to the (putatively) hum-drum task of escorting merchant ships, although the Brits had had some real success with doing so to counter the U-boat threat in the North Atlantic. Several hundred merchantmen were lost – sometimes in sight of American beaches and shores – before the US Navy took the Royal Navy’s advice to heart.


    Imagine further a US Navy mid-rank officer who had urged convoying on the command staffs and had been rebuffed – at which point he decided that since his (ultimately accurate) recommendations were not receiving the respect that deserved, he would make contact with agents of the Reich and offer his not-inconsiderable abilities to a Kriegsmarine that would give him the respect he felt he deserved.


    That scenario gives us a somewhat useful image of still-Father Doyle and others who – rebuffed by the Bishops or at least not given immediately the ‘respect’ they felt they deserved – simply took another route to fame and fortune.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I judge people by their actions. You are an apologist for the church not for truth and justice as you would pretend.

  8. KenW says:
    • Dennis Ecker says:

      I don't understand what YOU think I should walk away with after reading your belated response ?

      I think you clearly understand how I think about you, not that it would matter to you. I am though concerned about people you most likely say you love.

      Its great you finally found salvation within the Catholic Faith, But you don't have to believe what the Catholic Church has to say to have a feeling or sense of belonging.

      BUT, as you say its NON OF MY BUSINESS.


    • KenW says:

      Dennis, what is none of your business is how I handled the situations and how good or bad of a parent I was. My kids are grown up now. They turned out fine in spite of attempted abuses. My children and God are the ONLY ones that lay claim to the right to judge what kind of parent I was. No one else can lay claim to that right. not even you. Especially you. 

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Something much more interesting is happening tomorrow: Blaine and Company. Will speak for all the church victims in the world. The whole f%$#ing WORLD at the U.N., the f%$*ing U.N.

    Do you actually think victims world wide couldn't find some one better to represent us than Mahatma Blaine? You don't think we could field a better presentation of victims issues than what Barbra will, can present? You either got it or you ain't and she ain't got it.

    Do you actually think SNAP will mention victims anyway but briefly? The majority of SNAP's speech will be about protecting children. It always is.

    Here's my take on SNAP. SNAP = Offered "careers" to a couple of deeply catholic victims.   And poof! Along came Blaine to frustrate and eliminate from the dialog, all victims

    Note when this is posted and see if I'm wrong about the pitch SNAP makes tomorrow.

  10. Publion says:

    In regard to JR’s of the 15th at 1114PM:


    First, this is taking place in Geneva – which (I suppose it must be pointed out) is not the headquarters of the UN ( which is in New York City).


    Second, this will be a committee of the UN and not the General Assembly. And thus in a committee room and not on the floor of the General Assembly. The committee is the Committee on the Rights of the Child.


    Third, this is a hearing (according to the New York Times, “U.N Sex Abuse Panel Questions Vatican Officials”, dated the 16 in the print edition and the 17th for the online edition) and the article refers to a “panel” of U.N. officials which may or may not indicate even the presence of the full Committee.


    Fourth, we are confronted once again with the fact that after all this time SNAP is the only go-to group for ‘victims’. This may well be by default, i.e. no other group has “coalesced” in the past decades. It may also be the result of the media realizing that SNAP is the only reliable tortie front-organization (in the Anderson Strategies schematic). But in any case, there is nothing to indicate or to support the theory that the Church is behind SNAP (and perhaps as well the Anderson Strategies, the mainstream media, and the U.N.).


    Fifth, while Blaine is clearly in Geneva (according to the NYT report), there is no indication she will be addressing the Committee (or the panel) nor speaking to them. She may well use the venue for a press conference (or some sort of tweets or phone-interviews to make sure her spin is delivered) but there is nothing indicating that she will be speaking or will be questioned – and certainly, the image of her standing on the podium of the General Assembly and delivering an address is completely off the table.


    Sixth, it seems to me that if the panel is – as the NYT article seems to infer – asking about the Church’s current policies and situation, then it’s going to be a different scene altogether from what might have been expected back in the days of the mere recitation of ‘historical’ allegations and claims and assertions and allegations (think of the presentation made in that Complaint to the ICC at The Hague, which has been utterly dismissed by that Court).

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    KenW, Your post of the 14th at 6:28 pm is nuts. Victims of childhood sex abuse is unilaterally horrific. And?

    I'm a catholic victim, raped by catholic clergy. Why shouldn't I be talking about how your church and you deal with the consequences of our rapes by your priests? Let the victims of other institutions adress those institutions. We are talking about your institution because that's where we were raped.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      I will end my thoughts about KenW this way, I can tell someone not to touch the pot on the stove because its hot, but its people like him who must touch that pot and get burned to learn a lesson.

      We then can only be the support or ice cold running water he places his hand under.

    • KenW says:

      Nope. It's not nuts. It is REALITY for our current time. It is RELEVANT. True or not, your case is IRRELEVANT to our time. It has no bearing on the safety of our children here and now. None. What you and Dennis want us to do is chase after ghosts that may or may not have existed in times past, while ignoring the monsters in our midst right here and right now. 

      The Kansas City Star EXPLODED with headlines about accused Roman Catholic clergy back in '08. EVERY SINGLE ACCUSTAION was no less then 2 decades old. Most of the accused priests were dead, and each had one lone accuser with no one to substantiate their claims. One of the accused priests still living proclaimed his innocence, but stepped down for the good tof the Church. Two of the accused priests still living proclaimed their innocence and mounted vigorous defenses, one was successful and the other is a stroke of the pen away from being exhonerated.  Of the 14 priests implicated in the '08 lawsuit, only 3 cases involved claims that could be subsantiated. 2 of those 3 involved priests that 20 years ago, the diocese gave them the choice of lifelong penance in a monastic cell or complete excommunication, They both chose the latter,  and virtually disappeared off of the planet. And 20 years later, with a new generation and a new bishop and a new dynamic that is not perfect but is pretty doggone good, people start having "repressed memories" recovered, and they simply want us to take their word for it, and those same people and their professional "victim's advocates" use Salinksy style techniques to inflame public emotion in their favor. And, while all of this hyper emotional ghost chasing is going on, Shawn Davies, a real, breathing monster whose victims are JUST NOW becoming young adults, is convicted molesting, with full exposure, copulation, and penetration, 7 young boys in a local Baptist church.  In the course of the investigation, it was discovered that Pastor Mike Roy hindered the investigation, and that Shawn Davies was REPEATING behavior he had done in previous churches, and his superiors in those churches knew about his problems. 

      So, like it or not, THAT is my perspective. A major metropolitan newspaper IGNORES a real living and breathing monster in favor of chasing ghosts that may or may not have existed. And I have anecdotal experiences to boot. 

      Dennis, if I ever see a pedophile or abuser of any kind in the hierarchy of my Church, you will be the first to know, OK? 

    • Publion says:

      For those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook, more interesting bits.

      From JR (the 17th, 1252AM), something about sexual orientation (which may be regularly on JR’s menu of issues but not relevant to anything on this thread or the matter under discussion), but what’s new there? More interesting is this new twist: aside from avoiding any complicated questions by calling me a “liar”, JR now goes for the idea that if I go to the trouble of explaining myself, then I am “one wound tight person” [sic] (thus the Wig of Diagnosis declaims). Why else, after all, would anybody bother to conduct an extended discussion (rather than, say, toss in content-less one-liners from the Horsehead Cafeteria)? Ovvv courssse.

      Then also that I am “nasty”. No quotations to back that up, but of course. Also the queasy gender-bending to which this commenter so often reverts. Charming. Then the scatology. Then the claim that he now doth “know” something (which is apparently such a novelty that he feels he has to announce it to everybody). But as I have said before, I think this is as close to the actual basic nature of this commenter – unadorned by any simulacrum – that we are going to see.

      The Anderson Strategies demonstrate their queasy, sleazy dynamics yet again.

      Then ‘LDB’ returns, rather quickly (the 16th at 954PM). He does like to declaim, which is apparently supposed to distract people from the fact that he has no substantive response to make. Thus my “criticisms of [his] writing are superficial”. No demonstration or any example; just the declamation.

      Thus too my “misunderstandings are purposeful avoidances of issues”. No demonstration or example of where (s/he thinks or claims) I had done that; just a declamation. And here we also see ‘LDB’ resorting to the time-honored Abusenik dodge of using the objections usually applicable to their own material in that juvenile I’m Not/You Are way.

      But then also, a neat effort to punch a path of retreat for himself (since the boundaries of rationality and coherence are blocking the conventional exits): he knew what he was in for “as soon as I read your ‘clinical’ definition of plop”. Except it wasn’t a “clinical” definition – unless in ‘LDB’s mind any systematic definition is somehow “clinical” (and who am I to wonder what goes on in LDB’s mind?).

      Then also that the “explanation [I] offered was deceitful by omission”. First, did he mean to say ‘definition’, so that it’s clear he’s still on the ‘plop’ subject, or has his mind gone on to something else? Hard to say. But in any case, there is once again a hissy, Wiggy declamation and pronunciamento, but not a shred of evidence or substantiation offered to back it up. (Which is pretty much the way with so very much of Abusenik material, is it not?)

      Then his opaque question: “That’s all you mean when you use that term?” Now a competent participant would then explain that question of his/hers further, perhaps by explaining what s/he means when s/he uses the term. But that’s not how ‘LDB’ rolls here. While the plop is tossed in regard to my definition, no indication is given of what (if any) definition ‘LDB’would use (if s/he uses any at all). The objective here apparently is to at least appear to be putting up some apparently substantive come-back material without actually risking having to come to grips with answering the issues actually on the table.

      Then, moving him/herself right along, ‘LDB’ doth declare, declaim, and pronounce that “no reasonable person of sound mind would, could, or should believe you”. Oh my – sort of like the old papal triple crown, this Abusenik has fashioned a triple-crown of authority for him/herself. How they do love to deliver their thunderbolts, these Abuseniks. And readers are welcome to consider whether they themselves are bound by these pronunciamentos. Or are taken in by the act, Wig and costume and script notwithstanding.

      And then, just to top it all off with a reely reely authoritative mimicry, ‘LDB’ instructs and orders me to “stop lying” – although s/he has not actually demonstrated any of my material which has led him/her to assert and declare that I am “lying”.

      The Anderson Strategies demonstrate their queasy, sleazy dynamics yet again.

      And at the end of the comment, the attentive reader may realize that not a single substantive issue raised in my assessment has been addressed. And there’s the bottom-line, as it almost always is with Abuseniks.

      Then (the 16th at 748PM) “Dennis” is back to provide in quotation marks material for which no identifying reference is given. So who knows what is real and what isn’t here? – but that’s nothing new for “Dennis” or for Abusenik material.

      Neatly, he absolves himself from having to put up any more such stuff by claiming – curiously in the same accents as ‘LDB’ – that he “could spend all night” in “cutting and plastering headlines from across the world” …but if his first two profferings here are any indication, it wouldn’t take that long to make up half a hundred such bits, since one isn’t going to offer supportive links or identification.

      But he will avoid putting up any supportive information (or, if you wish, ‘proof’) because – waittttt for ittttt – he wants to do the readership a favor so he does “not wish to take up as much space as Publion”. Apparently the readership is supposed to be as repelled by supporting evidence and identifying corroborative information as Abuseniks are. Neato. But alas kind of obvious at this point.

      If he has even one identifiable source for the authoritative statement (addressed to the Church) that “We got your number”, then let him put it up. He won’t because he can’t because it doesn’t exist – but in the “Dennis” world, it’s not about demonstrating what is actually said and done, but simply about what he wants people to believe was said and done. And isn’t that so very often the way with Abuseniks?

      But this is a neat one for the Notebook on the Playbook: I could give you a whole bunch of evidence for what I have just put up but I don’t want to bother you and take up your time. Yah – because, as JR would have us believe– only people who are really “wound tight” [sic] bother with thinking and presenting supportive or corroborative information. Abuseniks care too much for the time and energy of readers to bother them with evidence or corroborative or identifying information, just as ‘LDB’ (so very much like “Dennis”) will give you what s/he wants you to ‘take away’ but doesn’t offer any further explication nor address the substantive issues further.

      The Anderson Strategies demonstrate their queasy, sleazy dynamics yet again.

      It will be very interesting to see if “Dennis” can actually proffer some corroborated information for whatever he will be putting up on “today’s hearings”. Or whether we will simply get – as always – just the manipulative declarations that we are supposed to credit forthwith and with no insensitive or ‘un-empathetic’ or ‘sociopathic’ or ‘wound-tight’ requests for evidence or corroboration.

      As for the rest of the bits in this comment from “Dennis”, we have absolutely no source information and there’s no way to treat whatever he chooses to put up as anything more than the calculated manipulations of his imagination.

      The Anderson Strategies demonstrate their queasy, sleazy dynamics yet again. 

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Here's a link to transcribed notes from the U.N hearing. SOS new day. I told you so!


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Blaine's spin is the entire hearing itself. Hearing? Who was heard about what? Not victims.

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      NO, I won't be the first to know and either will you. It will be the victim who will be the first to know. It will be to late by the time we find out.

      The thing I do know is you will pat the priest on the head and tell him it was not his fault. You will blame the victim or something else for an animals actions.

      Is that what you did in the past ? Did or do you still blame the incidents of the past on two innocent children ? If they came to you decades later and told you the hell they experienced would you blow it off only because years have gone by ?

      Oh wait, you already told us that is exactly what you did do. Would you like me to refresh your memory of what you said ?

      [edited by moderator]

    • Jim Robertson says:

      So P Continues to attack with ad hominems; such educated and well mannered behavior.

      And because he has behaved so beautifully towards us, i must finally confess the truth. His christian and learned reasoning has converted me.

      P you are completely correct. All victims are lying and you're not. I'll write you a check for all my compensation. You've sussed the scam. Just tell me who the hell you are; so I can send you the money.

      Praise the Lord!

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    "Barbra's later education."

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Blaine actually says " We should judge Pope Francis by what he does not his actions."

      23 years of "helping" survivors and millions of dollars in salary has give the world this. What sophistication! What erudition! What crap!. She must be a desendent of Blaine Fabin from "Waiting for Guffman".

    • Delphin says:

      Re: 16 Jan 4:42: Which is exactly why the bigoted pitchfork crowd needed to ignore the rule of law, with huge assists from the government, and the corrupt press as their cover, to persecute the Church.

      The persecutors of the Church are such dolts they could have never pulled their immoral game off legitimately or competitively.

      Pretty much the same rabid idiocy, illogic and insanity exhibited by their dunce supporters in the blogosphere.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      It takes one to know one,D.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      This statement of mine at 1:07 referenced an unpublished post of mine; so this statement makes no sense.

    • Delphin says:

      Your posts/comments never make sense.

      Are you just noticing that fact, now?

      Also of interest is that you repeatedly disparage women in your remarks, i.e. 'bitch' and 'nasty' 'girls' when criticizing (attempts at emasculation?) another commenter, and you're never really called out for that bigotry. Yours is the language of sexists, and as such, is bigotry, and, therefore, indefensible (as is your anti-Catholic bigotry).

      Are you a not-so-closeted misogynist? Was it your hatred of women that made you homosexual?


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Not women, you low I.Q'ed bovine, I hate you. And only If you are all women. Only then, I'm guilty as charged. Thank your imaginary friend that you are not all women. I do everyday. Women, save for the rabidly religious ones, are not stupid.

      Go pray at something.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I thought you'd gone into the afterlife in search of Ayn Rand. But she was an athiest so you'd have to go hades to catch her act. You can still catch her show. It's being played out daily. it's called the Republican party.

    • Delphin says:

      How can you hate something/someone of which you know nothing?

      How are we to take your claims of abuse and mistreatment of minors (or you?) by priests seriously when you you are so unreasonable/irrational about your hatred towards bloggers/commenters with whom you disagree?

      Why do you wish I was dead, or in hell, no Catholic commenter has ever wished that fate upon you? Why are you so full of hate? Catholics only pray for you.

      What do you know of my IQ, or my gender? How have you made these determinations about another human being based upon blog entries? Are you sure you're equipped psychologically, emotionally or intellectually to make such determinations?

      Your misogynist comments were not directed at me, so your response is insufficient - your bigoted comments were directed at another commenter- do you think we're not able to search your entries to easily observe and analyze your erratic, hateful and bigoted posts/comments? Do you think we're all as dishonest and ignorant as are you?

      What type of alternate/parallel universe do you inhabit ?

      You can't honestly answer even one of these questions- don't even bother to waste our time. You're an intellectual and moral wasteland.

      The problem you face here is that you are a fraud and a bigot, and we know it. And, when you are called out for what you are, you attack- it's your only defense. You attack commenters' religion, presumed gender (as if you know), politics, and any other tidbits you think you can fabricate and distort for your hateful purposes, from their posts.

      Commenters here run circles around you – intellectually, psychologically, factually, morally and emotionally, and the only response or defense you ever have is to resort to personal insults, and bigotry; but, the one thing you never do is respond to their comments.

       And, that is because you are incapable of defending your fraudulent claims or your bigoted position. 

    • Julie says:

      Well said, Delphine.

    • Julie says:

      Sorry. Delphin. And my apologies KenW

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      You still have not answered KenW question of why you grouped him in with Jim and myself.

    • KenW says:

      I know exactly why. If you digitally slap me in the face, I'm going to digitally slap you back. After so much back and forth slapping, the rhetoric looks the same and the lines of distinction start to blur. Add to this the fact that a lot of us skim through the posts, and >snap< (pun intended), instant misunderstanding. 


      Julie, no explanation is necessary. Matter of fact, I BEG you NOT to give ANY explanation. 

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      You do know who took on that exact way of thinking ? The catholic church.  And what do they now have to look at ? Bank accounts a few billion dollars lighter and counting. Pews that are being left open at an alarming rate, and the false image they tried so hard to protect  turned into something that would make the movie Exorcist look like a comedy.

      You go guys as Ken is down on his knees begging.

    • Delphin says:

      Isn't it interesting to note that the only two who ever introduce materialism into the debate, in the form of their own bling and how to get more of it, are the two magpies here?  Those of us who doubt their highly dubious claims only reference the illicit heist of Church monies by those of dubious intent within the context of how the monies should be contributed to the poor,  and not wasted on greedy, lying frauds. Witness, no challengers of these fraudulent claimants (heisters and sheisters), ever reference (brag, catalogue, gloat) their own 'worldy' goods. That's just one obvious difference between crass and class.

      Just an observation.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      lol, lol, if you are trying to make me feel guilty at the size of my bank accounts, you have a better chance of me believing we are cut from the same mold. I cannot speak for Jim.

      However, for you I will put it on record if you should ever need anything of what I have so you can pay your bills, putting food on the table. or paying for meds the only thing you have to do is ask. NO CATCHES.

      This blog and our differences then goes out the window.

      You think your catholic church would do the same ?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Didn't your parents teach you not to lie? You were the first to bring my money compensation into the debate. Don't double up on your lies and pretend you didn't. More proof of your inability to be moral. You're the one who brought sexual and racial and political issues into the conversation not us.

      Little liars like you need a big time out. You don't behave well.

    • Delphin says:

      Oh dear, looks like one half of the inimitable magpie duo stepped into it, again, as any quick review of dates/times of posted comments on this thread will easily reveal who the 'liar' here is.

      And, it is more than twisted to equate the rape of a child or minor with his/her "attractability/desirability". It is hard to believe that a 'scream it from the mountaintop' victim of abuse would be so callous, so immoral, to make such a disgusting statement. Since when does rape (especially of a minor) have anything to do with sexual desire or attractiveness? I do hope that, in addition to all your other claimed areas of expertise, you are not also a counselor to abused juveniles (or anybody).

      You may wish to enroll in the "Cuomo School of How to Remove Your Intolerant Left Foot from Your Mouth".


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Which of my 'wordly goods" have I referenced? My settlement?

      Sorry didn't mean to mention "money" around people who are pretending they have none; to pay the innocent people they've injured when they are, in fact, the wealthiest religion on the planet. I haven't seen one work of art leave the vatican in a moving van to be sold to help the victims your institution and you have created.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why do I wish those things for you? Because you deserve to have your beliefs come true. You believe there's a hell. You go there.

      You've called me everyname in the book and then pretend you haven't and you've done it all in your imaginary diety's name. All in defense of mumbo jumbo and dreams.

      You have mocked my sexuality; my politics and the truth of my claim of abuse.

      Fine, have it your own way. I lied about it all to get the money.   I'm just one lying s.o.b. (bastard not bitch). I committed fraud.  I hate women.( that will be news to my daughter and grand daughter).You are absolutely correct about everything you say about me..

      Now, what are you going to do about it? Yammer?

      Of course you are that's all you ever do. You are that powerless. You are a snipey old maid, (even if you are a man.) Working your self to death for the profit of others. And hoping you'll hit the lottery someday so you'll be able to retire.

      And I'm the idiot?

      But as soon as I find out who P is. I'll send him my compensation and jesus will love me again.

      You are the one's who've made this all about money and you and your god will love me IF I give it back.  It's all up to P.

    • Delphin says:

      Re: Jan 19 2:33 comment:  You manage to mock yourself, quite supremely, on your own personal "issues". And, you go way beyond mocking when you address your political, gender, sexual identity, and religious opposition here, so, cut the perennial victim schtick – you give it as good as you get it. Your comments live on in e-infamy here, along with all of ours.

      Whether or not you were abused personally is immaterial to the debate here regarding pervasiveness, extent and age of abuse cases and of unfounded claims of a Church-heirarchy approved and led coverup. You have no personal knowledge or experience regarding any of those elements of the abuse matter, so your views in these areas are subject to challenge, and as such they will be analyzed.

      I have accepted your claims of your personal abuse in past comments here at TMR (on record, for which you thanked me, on record) for the purpose of advancing debate/dialogue and not getting mired down in your personal muck. I will caveat my documented acceptance of your claims of abuse, again, by adding that since you settled your case it is not a legal determination or admission of guilt of/by the priest or of/by the Church (i.e. your claim of abuse did not result in a conviction). So, I accept that you settled an abuse case against a priest of the Catholic Church for an undetermined award (30 pieces of silver?). Who cares, really, can we move on from you, already?

      Can you explain why you still hound the Church for justice when you admit that you received it, as per your agreement for your settlement payout? No one is buying the 'it's for the other victims' claim since 'they' don't have to look too hard or long to find an antiCatholic ambulance chaser to get their booty. Why would they need you, by what expertise or authority do you set yourself up as their Church booty settlement broker/procurer?

      So, since we've determine that your claim of 'fighting' for 'other uncompensated victims' is a crock (where are these multitudes of victim ghosts?), the only logical reason you continue to attack the Church is that you are just another antiCatholic bigot (as is very well documented at TMR), and therefore, you are not a reliable (honest, objective) analyst of any claims, abuse or otherwise, against Catholic priests. Your hatred for Catholics, especially our clergy, is undeniable (again, it is well doumented).

      Of course there were actual victims of abuse by clergy – I've not seen one commenter here deny that fact. But, the debate here revolves around not you or your settlement (oh incredibly selfish one), but, around the prevalence and age of abuse claims and the response by the Church regarding all cases, and the medias reporting, thereof. It is incumbent upon us all to determine how many claimants are frauds (or not, so that they do experience due process/ justice) due to the blatant (admitted, observed, undeniable) antiCatholicism displayed and employed throughout this whole politically contrived spectacle.

      So, stop playing the double-downed victim, there won't be another settlement case for you here.

      And, since you were reportedly chased away from other sites where you might connect up with hoardes of victim-wannabe's (thankfully, only a few of them seem to troll here), perhaps it is your true calling to start a blog of your own - you can call it "Get Yer Free Church Booty Here". I think a carnival theme is appropriate.

      Have you thanked your bling gods, lately, that TMR, being cut from the same cloth as those faithful Catholics you despise so much, permits you to regularly submit your vile-bile here?

      You should.



    • Jim Robertson says:

      Can't I offer your booty for free at your carnival? You know to help with the retirement you don't have.

       You seem jealous of my compensation.( Dennis has not been compensated for his horrific rape which is an outrage).

      I'm sorry that, evidently you weren't attractive enough to pull a priest's sexual interest.  But I'm grateful that you didn't go through what we did. You wouldn't have survived. We barely did and we are much stronger in truth than you.

      What makes you think I put any energy into hating "faithful catholics"?

      I hate unfaithful catholics, sinners like you and P. Unfaithful to jesus's commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" for one. Why don't you go and sin no more?

    • Pat says:

      This should be deleted for incivilty.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Pat I reply to you about your Jan 22 7:37 post. and i get published 36 inches away from you. Please look for it above. How can anyone have a discussion with that 'technical' clitch?

    • Pat says:


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Was it your stupidity, that made you heterosexual?

    • Delphin says:


      The Lavendar Mafia lives.

      The Pope had better get a food taster, is right – truest statement that commenter ever made (probably has insider info).

      To think: they could have eventually turned the Curia into a Curio.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Here's a big secret, princess.

      Your clergy, from top to bottom, have always been largely gay. Since the get go. No gays. No clergy. UNLESS you let women become priests. Then you can "boy and girl" it; " Adam and Eve not, Adam and Steve" it  to death.

    • Delphin says:

      Gay is OK, we love our gay brethren; we do not ordain actively gay, as in practicing homosexuals, or sexually active heterosexuals into the priesthood, hence the celibacy vow.

      We know our theology, as expressed through the Magisterium (not distorted by bigots). It forbids all fornication - it is an equal opportunity morality.

      No one knows, historically, what percentage of the priesthood has consisted of homosexuals, and no one cares so long as they abided, per their Sacramental ordination, by their vows. The last 50 years has witnessed the opposite, but, especially of the obviously disobedient (sinful, criminal)  homosexual priests who have commited the majority of the minor abuse offenses, and probably most of/if any coverups (Lavendar gang?) that occurred. Absolutely shameful, indefensible. This matter also largely dates back to between 20 and 50 years ago, so let's stop wringing our hands over it as though minors today are at risk – we all know they aren't. Because if you can't be honest about then vs. now, then, you are just frauds undertaking a persecution of a particular religion, which makes you a bigot (see how we just used logic to draw that truthful conclusion?). Because, if we apply your 'logic' to prosecuting an entity, any entity, going back 20-50 years (why stop there, go back hundreds?), where would we begin, or end – perhaps with governments, other religions, or other public and private organizations – perhaps social or cultural organizations, movements? Do you see the insanity, and hatred, driving your 'logic'?  We do, it's plain as day.

      Thank God Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI initiated and completed much of the necessary housecleaning (400 down…and counting, and improved seminary admission screening), and Pope Francis has commited to follow through by continuing to purge the ranks of the clergy of both it's clericalism and filth. No doubt a lot of crap can build up after a couple millenia.

      I wish the same could be said for the current US Adminstration and most progressive states and cities, which currently function as safe havens for the very worst offenders among our society. I hope they are watching the Vatican, as well as the affected [Arch]Dioceses use their 2000 years of experience around the world, as they assume responsibility and undertake corrective action.

      If I'm not mistaken, you do possess some of that corrective action sitting in your own personal account, don't you?  That's enough proof for me that the Church is righting her wrongs-

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Yes its back. Although it would have been more fitting if it was Easter time, you know arising from the dead.

      TMR probably felt Publion needed to have a playmate again.

      What do you want to bet Jim we will most likely see Josie and her antics pop up next.

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      She must have been posting the same time as I was.

      Did I not tell you who else would pop up ? TMR calling in the calvary.

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Dennis – I don’t “call in” anybody.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Poof! and there she blows as if by magic. Dennis right on. Here she is, boys. Josie's back.

      Man the guns! The christian soldiers are all arrayed as bright as the sun. Ready to mount their offensive. An offensive against 2 or 3 victims that post here.

      School yard bullies don't die they go on to become god fearing christian paranoids and bully on. You DO SIN. You DO need help. Gird your loins girls. Kill someone for christ quick.

    • Delphin says:

      How do we know that you are victims; just because you say so? What else do you claim, with no evidence or proof, that we are expected to believe? Did you invent the internet or engineer the Mars rovers, too?

      Your hatred for all/anything Catholic undermines any credibility you may have [tried to] garnered for your "victim" claims.

      You undermined you're own credibility with your own well-documented/expressed hatreds. You have no one but yourselves to blame for your condition in life.

      Stop blaming the world, especially Catholics, for all of your problems, defects and deficiencies. You can blame only yourselves for your failed lives.

    • Delphin says:

      Appears to a crack in the resident homo-atheists' psycho-shell developing here on Jan 18 5:16pm – was someone 'bullied by god fearing christians in the schoolyard' as a minor?

      That could explain a lot of the hatred, and the insatiable appetite for vengeance against Catholics, on the part of at least this particular bigot.

      Sometimes the bullied show up in long, black ovdercoats harboring weapons with the intent of vengefully killing all their bullies. Others take a far easier road which is to restrict the exactance of their vengeance on the most obvious representative of his tormentors- the Priest.

      Interesting [exhibition of arrested] development. Do note the violent themes/images employed throughout that entire post/comment.

      Let's pray this very troubled bigot is not armed.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The answer to " was someone bullied by god fearing christians in the school yard?" is:

      YES! Who wasn't?

      christianity contrary to all of it's p.r. about love is really ALL about bullying. What else would you call it? "You're going to hell to burn FOREVER unless you obey us. Obey not god but you. Your diety, per usual, remains stum on any subject, the wimp.

      And again with the fashion? Dusters from Columbine?. Nice! The p.r. line is pretty obvious to me now. Compare activist victims to mass murderers.

      The same exact description word for word about long "overcoat"  was made about me to the press when I handcuffed myself to Mahoney's throne by the cardinal's press secretary. Only there was one small problem: I wore no overcoat. What I wore was a Brooks Brothers suit. But there was the lie. Connecting victims to mass murderers The exact same lie you've just made about me. How droll! How obvious! When you can't win on facts invent them. Make them up. Just like every stone age religion makes up all it's rules and all it's gods.

      Oh You're no bully,not much. You're worse your a lying bully. hiding behind a screen name. Only times have changed. Nobody sane buys any of your nonsense anymore.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      P.S. Get your committee's pr line spin doctor to come up with something new. You've outed  yourselves with "long overcoat" That's the corporate church for you; when they pay for a p.r. line the'll use it over and over. Mass murderer's wearing thin.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "exactance"? Say what?

      Must be all that smartyness of yours.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No one would ever call you homo anything, including Sapian.

      We've been walking upright for some years now maybe you'd care to join us?

      Just remember we share 97% of our genes with our cousins the chimps. And there's always those pesky recessive gene's you know.

      Don't hold back with the apes, dear. Step up. Up into the light.

  14. LDB says:

    Re: Publion January 15, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    In the spirit of just asking questions, what is 'plop'? You refer to 'plop' and 'tossing' it with frequency. 'Plop' does not get edited, so I assume that it is OK to talk about here at length. I would like to see you explain the term and your use of it. You did invent it, right? I see no attribution. If you will not be direct and explain, then I will assume that you are embarrassed. To get you started, I point out that Chimpanzees are known to throw their feces but they do not do their eliminations in toilets, thus no 'plopping' sound. Hmmmm. Dont' get me wrong, by the way. I am not against epithets. They are useful and often appropriate communication. Please, I invite you to continue to use them with me. Also, like you, I like onomatopoeia.

    You are not publicly endorsing vigilantism but you can see how predictable, appealing and justifiable acting in his way would be. "I don’t hold at all with attempting to bribe a person making a claim. [Disclaimer for what I am about to say] But I can easily imagine [predictable] why somebody dedicated to his religion [some noble person] might want to try a gambit [just a roll of the dice, minimizing] like that: having seen how the Stampede chews-through rationality and problems of evidence like a buzz-saw, [sympathy] and perhaps also figuring that the claim was made in order to get money (hardly an improbable possibility) [justification] then this fellow figured to cut to the bottom-line and offer the money.[ultimate justification: same result so no big deal]" [my comments/analysis in the preceding quote, obviously] So, that is how I arrived at my conclusion about your flirtations with and implied endorsement of vigilantism. I read your material. Sorry, Slick.

    Agnostic. I did not 'loose track of [my] thoughts.' Thanks for the fake concern. Or you would metaphor-it-up into wearing the Wig of Insincere Concern. 'Neat,' as you also say. I used this term 'agnostic' to characterize your approach to the material of others on this site generally and to the matter of clergy sex abuse in particular. Generically, agnosticism means a doubting or skeptical approach to questions. Then, I pointed out that you do not seem to apply the same approach to the churchmen or to your religion, properly called 'faith.' Simply put, you believe in the supernatural dimension for which you have no convincing proof. You have stated that, in fact stood on that, on TMR several times. Good for you. I hope it works out. I just wanted to point out this inconsistency in your approach. The inconsistency, I argue, is driven by or occurs because of your want to believe certain things. I'll come back to that thought.

    When you said that you ' won’t be taking responsibility for LDB’s mentation.' I would like to ask how you think that you could possibly take responsibility for my mental activity. I will be responsible for that. Thank you. I do not require your permission. I do not know what kind of authority you think that you have or what position you think that you hold in order to have such a 'responsibility.' Don't worry, no one will ask you to 'take responsibility' for my thoughts or thought patterns. Your hubris is unmatched.

    You concluded, "Thus, then, it isn’t about what I or Abuseniks “want to believe”; it is a matter of what the evidence will support and to what probabilities .  .  . that evidence will lead." Despite your agnostic conclusion, I argue that your 'want to believe' affects your questions and analysis and evaluation of any available evidence, including the amount of belief or disbelief you are willing to take onboard when the evidence is absent or lacking. If you want to believe in the existence of UFO’s, you can find evidence, exclude other contrary evidence, and believe. If you want to believe that clergy sex abuse is a trumped-up, mocked-up Andersonian conspiracy of loosely connected but amazingly syncronous and sequential parts, then . . . and off you go.

    PS Your point about the definition of 'intimidation' is misguided and trivial. The definition is for the law and the court, not for the reporter. She might even have the charge wrong. The court will sort it out and maybe the reporter will report on it. Your example, involving the juxtaposition of baseball bats and polite requests made in conversation is extreme and nonsensical. Battery (an unwanted touching) is never OK and really really bad. Beating with a bat goes way beyond interference or intimidation. Right? Polite requests, by contrast, are often OK .  .  . but not when you are not supposed to have any contact or unauthorized contact with someone. See things like, witness tampering and jury tampering and restraining order violations. I could go on and on. So what you outlined is not the intimidation '(a) to (z) spectrum', beatings to conversation. That is a ridiculous and uninformed characterization. That is not the 'range' and therefore there is no reason to think that the ‘definition’ is or could be so 'elastic.' You claim to be an 'apologist' for the law and for the rules of evidence? Your self-appointment is a fail. Take a mulligan and stick to analogies with WWII.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Rereading LDB this morning. Thank you for the truth and intelligence you bring to this debate. Thank you very much indeed.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Here, Watch SNAP for yourself. http://new.livestream.com/ccrjustice/VaticanBeforeTheUNJan2014. It should inform you about our brilliant leadership. S%#t passing for Shinola!

  16. Publion says:

    ‘LDB’ returns on the 16th at 254PM. What have we got?


    Suddenly s/he is merely “in the spirit of just asking questions” (so apparently we needn’t be distracted by epitheticals). But then immediately, in the spirit of Goody Two-Shoes: “what is plop?”. To the blackboard then: “plop” is material put up which is some combination of unsupported, unexplained, epithetical statements (or assertions, stories, claims, allegations and all the rest of the Playbook bits). I think that covers it nicely.


    Thus then the rest of that first paragraph can stay just where it was put up.


    Then in the second paragraph we get an admission that – come to think of it – I am “not publicly endorsing vigilantism”. Yes, that’s pretty much what I thought too.


    But I and the readership are then supposed to be able to “see how predictable, appealing and justifiable acting in his way would be”. First, who is being referred-to by “his” here? Second, I don’t a) see how “predictable, appealing, and justifiable acting in his way would be” and I certainly don’t see b) where what I wrote somehow contributes to whatever it is that ‘LDB’ is trying to get across here. Sorry for the vagueness, but I’m dealing with some rather vaguely-put material here.


    There is apparently some sort of stylistic riff going on with all the parenthetical inclusions, but I can’t follow quite how it functions here; as some sort of technique, it seems to be too much of a muchness, and confuses more than it illuminates. And having looked at this paragraph, then I certainly can’t see suddenly at its end the sense of “So that is how I arrived at my conclusion about your flirtations with and implied endorsement of vigilantism” because, s/he says, s/he “read [my] material”. Sorry, ‘Slick’, but while you may well have read my material, you don’t seem to have formulated any coherent thoughts about that material, or at least – if you did formulate them coherently – you haven’t expressed them coherently.


    And your arrival-at my “implied endorsement of vigilantism” isn’t accurate at all. And if there’s an accurate quotation from my material that contradicts that, please feel free to put it up. But it’s not in whatever is included here in the content of the second paragraph. Sorry – ummmm – ‘Slick’, but reading comprehension and expression are not demonstrably on display here in your assessment or your explanation.


    Nor did I say that ‘LDB’ doth “loose track” of his/her thoughts. Does the grammar-school difference between ‘lose’ and ‘loose’ (I used the former in my actual material) ring any bells?


    We are then given – in nice Playbook form – a definition of “agnostic” which actually makes it seem synonymous with “skeptical” – which isn’t quite so (‘agnostic’ has strong theological or religious connections). I did ‘LDB’ the favor of presuming that s/he wouldn’t put up two words intended to be synonymous – but perhaps I was overgenerous in that presumption.


    At any rate, grammar and vocabulary, on top of reading comprehension, formulation of thoughts, and expression of thoughts … perhaps some homework is in order, if it’s not altogether too late.


    But then – marvelously – in this same paragraph ‘LDB’ then goes and does indeed take ‘agnostic’ into the theological and religious dimension after all: we are treated to his/her equation of “religion” and “faith” which isn’t quite the case (formally, they are not synonymous; although colloquially they are often conflated … so we are dealing with somebody here who would like to be taken-for doing serious thought-work while preferring colloquial rather than the more careful formal definitional usages … I would advise against that conflation if it is at all possible for ‘LDB’ to avoid it, but then I won’t make any presumptions in that regard).


    We are then informed that I “believe in the supernatural dimension for which you have no convincing proof”. Let us leave aside the irrelevant formal theological eructating here and cut to the chase: on the basis of whatever religious or theological ‘beliefs’ I may personally hold (with or without “convincing proof”), I am not demanding the deployment of the Sovereign Coercive Authority of the government in the judicial forum to be deployed against whomever I have chosen to accuse in a civil or criminal case. And that constitutes a profound difference here, and is a point I addressed at length in recent comments about the conflation-of-forums. What we see ‘LDB’ trying to do here is precisely the conflation of the personal and judicial/juridical forums, which – as I have said in prior comments – is a key element in the Abusenik Playbook.


    Thus (alas, ‘Slick’) there is no “inconsistency” in my approach, because I have always carefully avoided the conflation of the personal and the public and the  judicial/juridical forums. I haven’t tried to insist that my beliefs are legitimate instruments for making demands on other people, especially demands that can be legitimately enforced by the Sovereign Coercive Authority of the government. Which is precisely what the Stampede and the Abuseniks have done with their stories and claims and allegations and assertions.


    But you “will come back to that thought” and I just can’t wait to see how that works out. Let’s keep moving forward here and see.


    When I said I wouldn’t be taking responsibility for ‘LDB’s mentation, it meant that I won’t be accepting that whatever I have written constitutes grounds for a logical connection to Fox Mulder and The X-Files show, which is a connection that ‘LDB’ has made all on his/her own. Whatever circuits clicked inside ‘LDB’ to reach that connection are not something I am going to get involved-with. Let the readership decide if the connection makes sense.


    And thus – since I specifically said that I would not be taking responsibility for LDB’s mentation – then his/her thought that I imagined myself to have any authority over LDB’s mentation doesn’t follow at all, and raises yet another question about reading-comprehension. So – alas, ‘Slick’ – no “hubris” here.


    Evidence is evidence – and it is precisely the genius of classical Western law that what one wants-to or doesn’t want-to “believe” is irrelevant to the demonstrated facts. And as I have often said, it is precisely the thrust of Victimist law ‘reforms’ that this classical Western principle be weakened, such that whatever one ‘feels’ is considered sufficient justification for what one chooses to conclude about the facts. (Which, nicely, is also precisely the lubricant that enables “vigilantism”: we don’t need evidence, we have our strong feelings and we will act merely on the basis of those feelings. Which also – nicely – describes the Stampede and Abusenik Playbook approach.)


    Sidestepping the UFO bit (although it does raise some interesting possible similarities with various Abusenik stories, claims, assertions and claims) I don’t “want-to” believe “that clergy sex abuse is a trumped-up, mocked-up Andersonian conspiracy of loosely connected but amazingly synchronous  [correction supplied] and sequential parts”. Rather, I have gone to great length in comments on this site to explain how a) the stories and claims and assertions and accusations that we have managed to look-at on this site do not hold up to basic rational and coherent analysis and that b) the probability that all of the conjunctive elements involved in the Anderson Strategies is merely a “synchronous” coincidence is very very low, whereas c) the probability that all of those conjunctive elements rationally and coherently connect to provide a comprehensive explanatory theory of what is going on in the Stampede turns out to be rather high.


    And thus that my analysis of the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede is neither driven-by nor grounded-on some pre-existing “belief”, but rather by the bald and clear reality that the evidence we have doesn’t support the Abusenik explanatory theory and does support the “Andersonian” (if you wish) explanatory theory of the Stampede.


    And we are then informed that my point about the definition of “intimidation” is “misguided and trivial”. Oh my – I very much want to see how that characterization and assertion is grounded; so let’s see here what ‘LDB’ proffers to back it up.


    We are told that a) “the definition is for the law and the court, not for the reporter”. We see here again – whether intentionally or otherwise deployed – the Conflation Problem: if a reporter is supposed to be informing the public (in the ‘public’ forum, according to my schematic) accurately and adequately about what has happened, then ‘definitions’ of vital elements are utterly indispensable and necessary. Otherwise, what is the use of ‘reporting’ at all in the first place? (Time-saver here: in the Anderson Strategies, which incorporate so much of the manipulation-of-public-opinion techniques we have seen demonstrated since the beginning of the 20th century if not also before, the purpose of ‘reporting’ is not to inform but rather to inflame; then – as was realized even a century ago – the manipulatively inflamed public opinion will itself create a gravitational-pull that will derange the careful and rational working of Law and the judicial/juridical forum. Which is precisely what, I have been saying, we have seen all along in the Stampede.)


    So while it’s true enough to say – for the purposes of the juridical/judicial forum – that “the court will sort it out” (and maybe – ! – “the reporter will report on it”), yet for the purposes of the public forum the reporter will have failed utterly if s/he does not give the public adequate and accurate information in that pre-court period when the matter primarily lies in the public forum.


    Then b) that my example “involving the juxtaposition of baseball bats and polite requests made in conversation” is “extreme and nonsensical”. But i) I did not “juxtapose” those two possibilities; I placed them on a spectrum from the very-violent to the normally-conversational. And I did that to give a clear sense of how wide a definitional range could be involved here, and thus that until we had a clearer idea of just what was being defined as “intimidation” then we really couldn’t have accurate or adequate information to formulate a picture of just what happened. Thus ii) it remains for ‘LDB’ to explain precisely how that effort of mine is in any way “extreme or nonsensical”.


    Thus too c) ‘LDB’s going-on about “battery” is not at all to the point. And if the definition of “intimidation” here actually turns out to have been more toward the ‘conversational’ end of that spectrum (i.e. that perhaps a number of persons individually spoke with the accuser in order to dissuade her from her lodging of a claim), then “intimidation” – a rather inflammatory word, and freighted with some sort of deployment of improper force, physical or otherwise – is seriously inappropriate and misleading, especially in a putatively professional ‘report’. Readers need to know that in the public forum, and thus this is not an issue that can wait for the judicial/juridical forum. And – as I said above here – the public forum (where public opinion is formed) has to be the site of accurate and adequate information precisely a) in order to enable the public to form well-informed opinion because otherwise b) an ill-informed public opinion can create its own deranging pull on the performance of the juridical/judicial forum later on. And we have seen that in the Stampede’s history and dynamics.


    Thus the presumed schematic to the effect that it’s OK for the media to inaccurately or inadequately inform the public because the courts can sort it all out later is profoundly wrong. There was a reason why the Framers insisted on a competent and independent “press” in order to keep the public well-informed so that the public could formulate an accurately-grounded opinion. But – as I have said – the Stampede approach to journalism is hell-and-gone from the Framers’ vision. And the Anderson Strategies built on that, as D’Antonio’s book reveals and as we have seen demonstrated time and again in events examined on this site.


    Then d) that the persons who did the ‘intimidating’ were “not supposed to have any contact or unauthorized contact with someone” – where does this come from? It wasn’t in the news report we examined here. Are we to accept now from ‘LDB’ that somehow the entire congregation was put under a court order to avoid talking to the accuser? Because only a court could say what “contact” was or was not prohibited. Does ‘LDB’ claim to have further information on this case? Or is this just some bit tossed in from far left field?


    Thus too e) the ‘LDB’ lecture on “jury-tampering” and “witness-tampering” are not relevant to the case as we know it from the report we have seen. There was no reported “jury-tampering” and it remains to be seen who was involved in “witness-tampering” and how that “witness-tampering” was accomplished. Also, those two quoted actions each constitute the gravamen of a criminal charge and yet the news report does not mention any such charges being lodged. So what is going on here?


    We also see ‘LDB’ rather puffily declaiming that s/he “could go on and on” … which may well be true, but not in the sense that ‘LDB’ could go on relevantly and accurately about the legalities and actual elements in this case as we know it.


    And thus also then the characterization of my “spectrum” point as “ridiculous and uninformed” fails as well. And actually leads me to think that that phrase is actually not so bad a characterization of what ‘LDB’ has put up here in this comment.


    Thus too his concluding assertion that my claiming “to be an ‘apologist’ for the law and for the rules of evidence … is a fail” (not a proper grammatical deployment of the term in legal usage) itself fails as well.


    So – there it is then. I would say that ‘LDB’ has a lot of homework to do, in things legal, in reading-comprehension and conceptual formation and expression, and in even more elementary basics of language. His/her cocky self-assurance is demonstrably misplaced. Ummmm – sorry, ‘Slick’.


    And where have we seen this teen-agey diary “P.S.” usage before?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Pub, if you aint gay neither am I. You are one wound tight person. And nasty? girl I didn't know the word bitch was spelled with a P; but I know now.

    • Delphin says:

      Publion- we've seen that teenage-y PS thing from BostonSurvivor/LearnedCounsel, aka LDB.

      The resident victim-wannabe's here use it in their equally obnoxious submittals, as well.

  17. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~"Catholic Church Slammed At UN Over Sex-Abuse Handling"

          "No more Excuses"

    I can spend the night cut and plastering headlines from across the world from today's U.N. hearings but I do not wish to take up as much space as Publion.

    I can paste every story but what it comes down to is the U.N. saying to the Catholic Church is "We got your number" and it is not acceptable.

    It will be very interesting to see how TMR responds to today's hearings, it will also be interesting to see how Billy Donahue responds as once again he and others are put into damage control defense mode.

    I think it is very safe to say his (Billy) preemptive strike the other day against the U.N. by mentioning the crimes of others to minimize the wrong-doings of the catholic church missed it target

    • Delphin says:

      Um, yeah, because the UN is the be-all, end-all of ethics, morality and justice.

      Tell that to the women and children openly brutalized, for generations in Asia and Africa, as the UN [an actual enabler and supporter of these crimes] looks the other way.

      The Church has done more to address the crimes committed against women and children in One Day than the UN has done in 50 years. The UN have been [willingly] used as a tool for the worst of the worlds despots.

      You'll have to live into eternity [literally] to outsmart the Vatican. They could not care less about the UN, or world opinion – they answer to a higher authority. They've seen secular [mostly corrupt] governments come and go for two thousand years.

      And, SNAP did an excellent job of fairly representing themselves and their fabricated victims, once again.

      What's lost in all the political theatrics by the UN and SNAP is the fate of real victims of abuse, such as those kids anywhere but the Church, and innocent priests.

      The UN is SNAP on a global scale. It is thoroughly fitting that a fraudulent crisis (eg. Catholic Church abuse crisis) be persecuted by a fraudulent abuse victims organization (eg. SNAP) at a fraudulent intergovernmental organization 'created to promote international cooperation' and peace (eg. UN). All three intersect as one of the greatest farces, over the past fifty years, ever perpetrated on the worlds citizens.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Delphin. Just because you IMAGINE there's a life after death doesn't make it so.

      Just because someone TOLD you there's an after life doesn't make it so.

      The greatest and saddest farce of all is that there is zero proof for any and all religious dogma world wide.

      Now that's just plain sad.

  18. LDB says:

    Slick, your criticisms of my writing are superficial. Your misunderstandings are purposeful avoidances of issues. Actually, I knew what I was in for as soon as I read your 'clinical' definition of plop. The explanation that you offered is deceitful by omission. That's all you mean when you use that term? Please. No reasonable person of sound mind would, could or should believe you. Stop lying.

  19. Julie says:

    SNAP is a bunch of liars pretending they care about child abuse. Just like Jim Robertson, Dennis Ecker and KenW. It's all the same mindset. They try to bully people wanting to look further into the matters by telling them they're pedophile enablers.

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      [edited by moderator]

      However, you did get it right calling Msgr. Lynn and others like him pedophile enablers instead of homosexual enablers.

      Yeah, its getting through.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Look to your hearts content Julie. You pay the cardinals and priests salaries. you don't hold them resposible for their criminal actions. Of course you are enablers. Accessories after the fact. Telling the truth isn't bullying. And KenW , dear, is on your side.

    • Julie says:

      OK. Sorry I mean calling us pedophile enablers. Which we are not. But like I said, it is the same mindset.I think that is why the ridiculous comments by Dennis et al are allowed on here. So we can see the mindset.

  20. Publion says:

    I have come across several more articles online dealing with the Geneva panel’s interview of the Vatican representative.


    On the National Catholic Register site is an article dated the 16th, by Edward Pentino, entitled “Holy See Presents Sex-Abuse Assessment to U.N. Panel”. From it I think the following points are useful.


    First, this interview in Geneva is a standard provision for signatories to an international treaty in regard to the general welfare of children around the world. The Vatican has been a signatory to the treaty since 1990.


    I think there is, secondly, a bit of a confusion here since while the Vatican is formally an independent State, yet it is actually an international organization, and further, one in which the ‘government’ of the Member State (the Vatican) does not control its ‘agents’ in the same as, say, the British government controls and is responsible for the members of the British armed forces or MI-6 or even the Inland Revenue bureaucracy. So while it is formally a State Signatory yet it isn’t a ‘government’ in the sense that the rest of the U.N.’s Member States are governments.


    Third, the schedule for this day’s interview included not only the Vatican, but also the Member States of Russia, Germany, Portugal, the Congo, and Yemen. Thus when the session is described as “very long” in the article it shouldn’t be too hard to see why.


    Fourth, the panel was actually looking for information on individual cases, although the Vatican reminded the panel that the treaty does not include individual cases as the proper focus of the U.N. oversight. This point arose when one panel member apparently inquired as to individual cases.


    My thought is that somehow the panel was trying to initiate a standard American Abusenik tactic of trying to bring up specific cases (thus stories, allegations, claims and assertions) rather than sticking to a general overview of the subject Member State’s handling of its responsibilities under the treaty.


    Fifth, the Vatican representative pointed out that the Vatican does not exercise direct control over priests in various countries, but rather the Bishops in the various countries are expected to put together procedures and protocols for dealing with violations of their respective country’s national laws. However, for those personnel directly under the Vatican’s control and jurisdiction, the Vatican has acted directly – most recently in the case of a Papal Nuncio accused of abuse.


    Then there is an article on the McClatchy site, dated the 16th, by their correspondent John Zaracostas, entitled “U.N panel uses treaty on children’s rights to grill Vatican on sex abuse”.


    It refers to “hundreds of cases documented” – which is an accurate phrasing, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go as far as Abuseniks would like it to. Specifically, you can creatae a “case” and get it “documented” simply by filing a claim (as we have seen in the various Stampede-era lawsuits in this country). A ‘documented case’ does not actually indicate anything further than that, and certainly does not of itself demonstrate anything about the veracity of the case or its outcome. (Think, for example, of the many false-claims for police and firefighter disability that are now the substance of the current criminal case in Manhattan: all of those claims are validly characterizable as ‘documented cases’ but – as is now coming to light through operation of law – that status does not and did not of itself establish their veracity.) In fact, there isn’t even a distinction made here between a ‘case’ in the sense of an allegation made to a Chancery, a criminal case brought by a DA, or a lawsuit brought by a tortie.


    Thus, too, then, the point that “no figures on how many cases” were presented by the Vatican (apparently as requested by the panel): Since a ‘documented case’ does not establish any demonstrable indicator of how much actual abuse (however defined) took place, then such “figures” would do little if anything to inform the panel about the Vatican’s performance as a State Signatory to the treaty here.


    Then the vice-chairperson of the panel opined that such information (waitttt for itttttt) would “encourage victims who haven’t come forward to speak up” – which is a clear giveaway that the panel here is not trying to perform its tasks under the authority of the treaty but instead is working toward supporting the long-established Anderson Strategies tactic of trying to infer that there are still numerous victims still out there who haven’t yet come forward with an allegation and a claim. The vice-chairperson then removed all doubt by saying that “there could be many thousands who are suffering in silence”. Note the subjunctive – the vice-chairperson doesn’t know and nobody else knows either. For all anybody actually knows, there aren’t many out there.


    The article then goes on to report that the AP had come into possession of a transcript of comments by Archbishop Levada in 2012, saying that in the years 1950-2001 the Vatican laicized 400 priests for sex-abuse (we recall that only the Vatican has the authority to laicize a priest).


    The article then quotes Bishop-Accountability as saying that "the Vatican files likely contain detailed records of more than 10,000 cases of sexual abuse of children." I can’t figure out where BA got such a number. There are between 11,000 and 12,000 cases of allegations simply in the United States according to the second and most recent John Jay Report. Or is BA trying to go for the idea that there are somehow 10,000 ‘cases’ (recall the ambiguity of the term) on file in the Vatican (meaning, perhaps, that that many cases reached the Vatican as potential candidates for laicization in the half-century between 1950 and 2012, or perhaps stretching back to whatever year BA might choose to surmise).


    Barbara Blaine of SNAP is quoted, although it is not clear from the article whether she spoke formally within the panel-session or simply gave a sound-bite to the media afterwards; although she is described in the article as having “told reporters” so I imagine this was a sound-bite. Her comment covers all the usual SNAP bases: "church officials support, and cover up sexual pedophiles to this day”. Thus we see the enabling (“support”), the cover-up, and – nicely – the inflammatory but inaccurate deployment of the formal clinical term “pedophiles”, which if I recall correctly does not legitimately apply to more than five percent at most of the claims considered by the most recent Jay Report.


    The article concludes with the notice that the panel’s recommendations will be forthcoming on the 5th of February.


    And there is, lastly, an article on the Huffington Post site, dated the 17th, by John Heilprin and Nicole Winfield, entitled “Pope Benedict Defrocked” (and the lengthy title continues).


    This article reports that the AP obtained a document revealing that Pope Benedict “defrocked nearly 400 priests over just two years for molesting children”. As you can see, this article seems oddly angular to the McClatchy report of Archbishop Levada’s reported comments about the Vatican having laicized (popularly known as ‘defrocking’) 400 priests in the half-century 1950-2001. So I don’t know whether we have two different sets of accurate figures or some sort of reporting mix-up. This article goes on then to note that Pope Benedict’s (putative) laicization of 400 priests in the two years 2011-2012 represents an increase over the 171 (putatively) laicized according to the report between 2008-2009.


    But the AP notes “a remarkable evolution” in the Holy See’s procedures to “discipline pedophiles” (and there we go again) since 2001, “when the Vatican ordered bishops to send cases of all credibly accused priests to Rome for review”. Once again, the numbers and other aspects of the reports are not in sync here but the year 2001 pre-dates the 2002 Sue-the-Bishops and Cover-up phase launched in January of that year by the Boston Globe.


    This article then goes on to note that laicization does “nothing to prevent an offender from raping again” – and we quickly see once again the deployment of that vivid verb that does not correspond to the vast majority of allegations reviewed by the Jay Report researchers. (Unless, of course, ‘abuse’, ‘molestation’, ‘statutory rape’ as formally legally defined – whether as misdemeanor or felony, and ‘sexual assault’ are all presumed to be synonymous with actual ‘rape’ as formally legally defined.)

  21. Dennis Ecker says:

    With the numbers of defrocked priests in two years coming out of the Vatican is shocking, something else that is also important to see is the amount of new sexual abuse cases that have been reported for the year of 2012-2013. There has been reports written here by people who would like us to believe the numbers are in the single digits when the Vatican has reported the amount to be 428 new cases a steady increase each year since 2009.

    While this a developing story and I am sure we will see and hear from those who again will be in damage control mode it gives us a chance to see the "mindset" of such people like Julia, Publion and KenW.

    Now, while this story continues to unfold I have recently been informed that another Roman Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has been arrested today and charged with harassment and indecent assault. Father John Roebuck, Vicar of Saint Stanislaus Church is in police custody.

    The Lansdale police said they would not release any information about the case until Monday.

    • Delphin says:

      What's your mindset, guilty until proven innocent?

      Does that mindset also apply to anyone outside of Catholic clergy?

      Should it apply to you?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Holy See"?

      More like, "Unholy No see Nothin"' unless it's imaginary. Then they see nothing but what isn't there.

      Grow up.

  22. Dennis Ecker says:

    I understand there is a television show called Orange is the new Black. If anyone does a show about catholic clergy it would be safe to say Black with a White Collar is the new Orange would be its title.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      SHE"S BAAAAACK!!! I'd hoped she'd gone to her just rewards in the hell she so deeply believes in. [edited by moderator] The return of the prodigal reactionary.

    • josie says:


      I don't believe that you have any kind of a life outside of your leaving comments on various blogs all day and night. In addition, you must feel that you have to do that to leave the impression everywhere that you are actually maligned in every way possible. Phoney as they come. Overinflated ego. Delutional drama. Conflicting stories. Incorrect information. Bad jokes. Meanspirited (you let go of some of the violent comments you used to make), threatening jibes. You definitely are damaged mentally but the jury is still out on the abuse you claim.

      You have always seemed that you are entitled, as well. All kinds of ways to use the system-collect disability from everywhere you can instead of work. Well, I guess at your age (50?) if you enjoy posting news all day long and making these dopey attempts at importance, you are disabled. Pathetic.

  23. Julie says:

    I suppose I do help pay their salaries. Dennis Ecker, Jim Robertson, KenW et all do inspire me to add more to the collection plate. I see what is out there, and it is not pretty. We are under persecution from people who want to see us gone. And we suffer it all for Jesus. I do, anyway.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! Ah Julie, self victimization is the worst kind. You remind me of Charles Manson. I'm sorry but you do. Everybody's doing everything to you and you're just poor put upon Charlie.

      The lying media; the lying victims; the lying U.N. You are constantly being harmed. How? Really How? The whole worlds "plopping" on you; and for "lies" to boot just because your corporation is finally being held to account for it's actions?

      When in the name of the god you believe in will you accept responsibility for what you've done?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When did poor Ken W  get on Julie's plop list?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      And then up plops Josie to add her ad hominems to the mix. You guys are like cockroaches. The church is barely put on the spot at the ONE DAY, ONE F'ING DAY, hearing at the U.N.and out from the catacombs of your own minds you trudge. Onward Delph; P; Julie; Josie. Onward christian soldiers going as to WAR. LOL! You wouldn't know jesus if she bit you. You've got nothing so you just make it up. How religious of you. LOL!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hell Julie, don't stop at the little old collection plate. Give the church everything you own believe me they will take it. They always have.

      But they usually get the really big donations at the givers death bed.  Don't wait. Give now Julie.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Do you know that if every catholic taxed themselves $15, you could compensate all your victims? Wow what a huge burden to bear, Fifteen whole dollars! Cheap deadbeats!

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      Besides the obvious.

      What else did you do to be hated by your own kind ?

    • Julie says:

      OK Jim, per your request, I will give the church more money.

    • KenW says:

      Julie, what have I said that makes you lump me with Dennis and Jim?

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      One day you will get it.

      DEDICATED 24/7  365 DAYS of the YEAR.

      No life outside ? Maybe.

      But I know you are listening and you are reading or you would not comment on anything I, Jim or anyone else has to say.

      Am I a thorn in your side, or how about the AOP, or how about Chaput himself ? I know you "don't like to be pressured" we know were that quote came from.

      Soon as you face the facts your comments mean nothing to me, and I am not going anywhere the sooner you will stop pulling out your hair.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Great Julie, the more you give, the more victims will get. Give till it hurts.

  24. Publion says:

    As I had noted in my immediately previous comment, there is a substantial question raised in the reports I mentioned: there is supposed to have been a transcript of comments (its veracity legally sworn-to by various interested persons) to the effect that in 2012 Archbishop Levada is supposed to have said at some conference that there were 400 priests laicized by the Vatican in the period 1950-2001. Yet there is also reported to be a document obtained by the AP that claims 400 priests were laicized by Pope Benedict in the period 2011-2012. The significance of that same number of laicized priests (400) opens up the possibility that either a) there has been some reportorial confusion or else b) that by some large coincidence there have been both 400 priests laicized in the half century or so between 1950 and 2001 and 400 priests laicized in the period 2011-2012.


    We recall how the December 2011 popularly-named Dutch Abuse Report was handled by the media: there was a worldwide online blizzard of reporting about the contents of the Report, but there was no text of the Report and nothing to which anyone could refer for corroboration. Thus the media functioned as a giant echo-chamber, amplifying the initial vague reports (and the conclusions and assertions presented by various media sources as they ‘improved’ upon the original reports) but no publication of the actual text.


    And we will no doubt see that in this instance of the U.N. panel as well: some – perhaps many – media sources will pick and choose one or the other possibility of what numbers and what time-frame seems most congenial to their slant but there will be no careful consideration of the oddness in that ‘400’ number and the time-frame involved.


    In any case, from what I have seen in scanning various American media sources today, the whole bit seems to be handled as evidence of yet more ‘revelations’ of abuse, which actually is not the case. And actually, it would indicate – especially if one goes with the 400/two-year timeframe – that the Vatican has certainly ramped-up its processing of laicization cases. Even the Boston Globe – initial propagator of the 2002 phase – has an article today that accentuates the changes that have been made, although it has accepted without question that two-year timeframe. (The article is entitled “Benedict defrocked 400 priests in 2 years”, appearing on page one of the print edition for Saturday, January 18 and also available online.)


    Thus we come to the comment by “Dennis” (the 17th, 813PM).


    He finds that “the numbers of defrocked priests coming out of the Vatican is shocking”. Would that be in a good sense or otherwise? If the number and time-frame is accurate, would this not be a sign that the Vatican under Benedict ramped-up its processes substantially? Is this not what Abuseniks had wanted to see?


    Then we are given – without any identifying information for corroboration purposes – the declaration that “the amount of new sexual abuse cases that have been reported for the year of 2012-2013” … but nothing else. Have they increased? I had mentioned quite a while back in comments on this site that if the economy continued to function poorly (down at the level of the little people) it would hardly be surprising if some enterprising individuals saw a possible solution by trying a whack at the piñata. Has this happened?


    There is no way to know from the information “Dennis” has (not) given us here. On top of which must be added “Dennis”’s characteristically infelicitous incapacity for clear expression: have there been 428 new cases per year “for each year since 2009”? Or is there some other parsing of that figure? Who can tell? But perhaps that is the objective in the first place. Or perhaps he is simply doing his own bit of amplifying some bit he came across in the more rabid precincts of the Abusenik webverse.


    I would also point out some bits for those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook: to inquire and assess the quality and validity of information is considered by Abuseniks to be merely going-into “damage control mode”. This reflects the abiding Abusenik presumption that to do anything with ‘numbers’ except accept them as valid, true, brave and courageous and utterly accurate is to be somehow ‘in denial’, or ‘enabling’, or being an ‘apologist’ or demonstrating  some form of ‘un-empathic’ or ‘sociopathic’ or ‘belief-ridden’ mindset and heart-set.


    He is correct that this is all still “a developing story”, yet we will need to watch the nature of that ‘development’ to see if we get from the media reports some further-refined accuracy and explanation or whether we will simply continue to get the old amplification and parroting of initially inaccurate or insufficient ‘reports’. But I would certainly like to see the source-material for the assertion of increased numbers of new claims (‘new’ in the sense, no doubt, of newly-lodged, although they may still be ‘historical’ as opposed to claims of recent instances of abuse; I seem to recall that the single-digit numbers applied to ‘recent’ as opposed to ‘historical’ claims).


    As to the very recent arrest of another Philadelphia priest on charges of “harassment” and “indecent assault”, is this – assuming its accuracy – a ‘historical’ case or a ‘recent’ case? Involving  an adult or a minor or a child? And I have discussed at length the various legal expansions of the definition of “indecent assault” (as seen so vividly in the evolution of the military’s UCMJ Article 120, as I indicated in prior comments and discussion on this site). These are the type of questions that constitute the stuff of further inquiry – to an inquiring mind.


    Which brings me generally to the difference between an inquiring mind and an inflaming mind: the former seeks to find more information from initial bits of information; the latter simply picks congenial factoids or claims and embraces them as the end-point, rather than the starting-point, of whatever consideration is deemed useful. The processes of such ‘inflaming’ minds have played a great part in the fomenting of the Stampede, especially since the expansion of the internet in the past two or so decades.


    We also see in comments here variously-keyed demonstrations of the tendency to consider ‘claims’ and ‘assertions’ to be more than sufficient, accompanied by an aversion to actual analysis of the claims. In this mode one simply makes one’s preferred claims about ‘X’, and if complications or questions or presented, one simply either a) repeats the original claims or b) derides the questions and complications (and perhaps also the questioner). Or all of the foregoing. To a certain type of mentality this apparently constitutes ‘exchange’ or ‘debate’ or ‘assessment’ but – as I have said in prior comments – that is a result of a conflation or equation of assertion with assessment, as if the two were synonymous. Which they are not at all.


    Let us all continue to follow all developments closely.

  25. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~In Pennsylvania18 Pa.C.S. § 3126 defines Indecent assault as follows:

    § 3126. Indecent assault

    (a) OFFENSE DEFINED.– A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant.

    ….and what do we see. The definition of yet another sicking crime that another Archdiocese of Philadelphia priest has been arrested and charged with.


  26. Jim Robertson says:

    They are all here Dennis. Another fr. Tom Doyle committee come to do their filthy work without a doubt. Did cardinal Boy George pull your chains to come and do battle? You all ways seem to show up in an attempt to contervene the truth of your crimes by attacking the victims of your crimes. You have NO morality what so ever. None of you believe in god or truth or anything really but fear and obedience.

    Well then, you can obey me and shut up.

  27. Julie says:

    Sorry, KenW. Did I get a good person mixed up with the haters?

    • KenW says:

      Apology accepted. I am the elephant in the corner that is here to remind EVERYONE of where molestation currently is and where it currently is not. The devil LOVES diversion, and we have people here that are diverting attention AWAY from where molestation is happening in our current time. 

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      I don't know how you will accept this apology from Julie, will it be before you take that knife out of your back or after ? When you are told in church to offer each other the sign of peace she could be standing right next to you sticking it in your spine.

      What is funny, Jim and I both told her you were not part of our group of heathens and she stuck it to you again. She even now questions if you are a good person or not. I guess she ignores what you have to say.

      I do like her saying that she is going to give more money to the church. From her pocketbook, to the collection basket at the church, to survivors pockets. Its only ashame that we can't cut out the middle man. Boat and RV show is coming up.


    • KenW says:


      You are not able to work for a boat or RV on your own? Those last 2 sentences of yours are very revealing. 

      Julie has actually proven that, despite her mistake that she owned up to, she is a much more careful reader then you or Jim could ever hope to be. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dennis according to Julie you and I and LDB are not "good person(s) sic". I did not know I wasn't good.  Did you?

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    What failed life? I have had real problems thanks to my rape but my life a failure? Not on your tintype Tulip.  You don't know me and what's even worse, you don't know you.

    Your Church believed me. Your insurance company believed me. And the compensation is sitting in the bank. You had better believe that.

    Hating you personally is exactly what you deserve. What's to love? You've shown no kindness to me or any victims here. You are very worth hating. You are the exact nadir of my existence. You are not a nice person.

    I don't blame catholics for my problems. I blame catholics for their problems.  You aren't even real catholics. The ones I've met are miles better than you. You're just corporate stooges.

    Man up, princess.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! KenW. Why is it you think Dennis's ironic statement made to upset you reveals something? Isn't it his choice of what he spends his money on? Compensation he deserves for crimes committed against him as a child? Compensation he is due but not yet received.

      Your the ones worried more about protecting THE MONEY. More than you are about doing the right thing morally.

      Victims should be compensated for our injuries. It's the right, the decent, the moral thing to do. You're not worried about anything but THE MONEY. All that "Save the Children" nonsense is a ruse. You should call your NEW safety program "Save the Money" because that's what your NEW safety programs were put in place for: to make sure the money you have doesn't go out and that the donations your church is used to getting from the fleeced keeps pouring in.

      Your not here to protect falsely acussed priests or a defamed church. your here to protect the moola. Quit pretending anything else.

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      Jim, How can Julie know if we are good people or not ?

      She still questions if someone on her side with the same demented thinking is a good person. I refer you sir to one of her comments dated 1/18 at 2139 hrs

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    What I wrote at 12:43 a.m. on the 18th was in answer to D's post at 6:42 p.m. How it wound up above her post is beyond me.

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    P.S. I never wished you dead. You came to me that way. Dead On Arrival. Dead between the ears.

  31. malcolm harris says:

    Am I the only one who has noticed that the Abuseniks have recently intensived both the quantity of their mud throwing and it's obnoxious odor. Is this a sign of something going on beneath the surface, perhaps. Has the Superior Court decision, re Mon. Lynn, made them fearful that the entire house of cards might collapse into a putrid ruin of hatred and bigotry?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No Malcolm, the only thing new is we are handing a couple of your committee back the plop they have thrown. We are doing that in kind and better and Dave's printing it.
      The only bigots around here are those who scream bigotry loudest.

    • Dennis Ecker says:


      My dog has more freedom then Lynn, and he does not have to wear a shock collar that would be similar to Lynn's ankle bracelet. In addition, Thor has more morals then your priest who pretends to be a human being. Thor also protects our family unlike Lynn did for children.

      What is sad about your comment and what we are witnessing today is Lynn could be set free but there will always be someone to take his place. Ask the Lansdale police department. If Engelhardt and Shero are set free who replaces them ? McCormick and Brennan. If the archdiocese of Philadelphia gets their act in order who replaces them ? The archdiocese of St. Paul.

      You guys are so predictable in your thinking. If your latest pride and joy Fr. Roebuck goes to trial and is convicted we will most likely hear from people like you this time around it will be the Montgomery County DA is corrupt, the Lansdale police department is corrupt and the judge and jury are corrupt. Let us not forget the attacks on the victim and media.

      It is your group Sir who is always in defense mode.


  32. Publion says:

    “Dennis” comes to us (the 18th, 429PM) with an actual definition (from PA statute law). I want to encourage more such attention to accurate definitions; it’s always very helpful when people are trying to get as complete and accurate as possible a grasp on some matter.


    I would only add that there is a “b” section in addition to the “a” section that he selected. This “b” section itself has three sub-sections and they all grade the offense as a misdemeanor, with the exception of 4 possibilities that would raise the offense to the level of third-degree felony (the least serious of the three levels of felony in PA law’s schematizing of offenses).


    Whether the priest was arrested on a misdemeanor charge or a third-degree felony charge has not been reported; whether he will be found guilty and how the trial might be conducted … all such questions remain to be answered and I certainly would look forward to how this all develops.


    I am pleased to see that “Dennis” has not “made this stuff up” in regard to the PA statutes. As for his concluding assertion enjoying a more universal applicability to this material generally, however, I would have to say – as I have said before in regard to his previous deployment of this phrase – that, alas, it seems that for some folks so very much of “this stuff” can indeed be ‘made-up’. It appears to be a vital causal factor, as I have often said here,  in explaining how the Stampede has gone on as long as it has.


    In regard to JR’s (the 19th, 1243AM), I simply repeat the observation as to what the compilers of the Dutch Abuse Report stated (in the English language summary of the Report) as a general principle: that since it is scientifically impossible to definitively establish the causal link between claimed experiences and specific claimed sequelae, the Report’s authors are not going to engage in the practice nor draw substantive conclusions on the basis of any such claimed causal connections. Which was also a point I discussed at length in comments on this site very recently.


    But it also important to repeat again, occasioned by further examples here, of the Playbook and the Anderson Strategies: that as a result of Insurers’ deciding to settle a lawsuit rather than try each of its allegations or claims, some persons would attempt to then insist as a valid conclusion that their claims had thereby been somehow proven or accepted-as valid, accurate, and true. And such a conclusion is not justified nor does it follow-from the simple legal fact of the decision to settle, which in the Anderson ‘bundled lawsuit’ tactics was designed to force a settlement as being less onerous an option than trying to conduct several hundred separate trials (for each of the allegations in the ‘bundled lawsuit’).


    And as I have said before, it is thus hardly improbable that Church defense counsel, as well as the Insurers’ counsel (for their own reasons), would have advised the settlement route, simply as a matter of legal economics and logistics. Nor would I imagine that any State court system would have welcomed the addition to its dockets of hundreds of separate trials or some sort of monster trial comprising hundreds of sub-trials, so to speak.


    Nor – to repeat a point that also came up last summer in comments – would any standard apology-letters demanded by the tortie as part of the settlement in and of themselves constitute much more than a demonstration of how far Insurers were willing to go in order to avoid the huge costs of the many multiple trials that would have flowed from the ‘bundled lawsuit’ if settlement were not made out of court.


    Indeed, what would be of much more interest and relevance in any instance of this type of ‘bundled lawsuit’ would be the fact that the tortie demanded the ‘secrecy’ protocol which served to effectively seal away (one might perhaps wish to say ‘hide’ or ‘shield’) the settled and compensated allegations and claims from any further analysis and examination and assessment. This is, I would say, one of the profoundly and widely ignored aspects of ‘secrecy’ in the Catholic Abuse Matter – if demanded not by the parties-defendant but rather by the Plaintiffs or their counsel, as federal judge Schiltz has since revealed.


    Lastly, I would more clearly draw a connection between the dynamics involved in the current Manhattan (NY) criminal case against alleged falsified-claims of injury and disability: the monies so far collected by the accused in this case have been for quite a while ‘banked’ or already spent – and yet, depending on the outcome of the case, may be ultimately subject to an order for restitution. Which opens up some thought-provoking possibilities in regard to various elements in the Catholic Abuse Matter and the Stampede.

  33. Delphin says:

    There apears to be a 'mental breakdown'/psychological event unfolding on Jan 19 between 2:33pm amd 10:01pm. Will leave that all well enough alone – it is no one's (sane) intention to exacerbate obvious mental health problems. Suffice it to say- no antiCatholicism going on there!

    Malcome is correct. The vitriol being expressed by the few usual suspects that claim to have been victimized by clergy is definitely worsening. It is very easy to conclude that when these types of personalities don't get their way, as was the case in their youth or currently (since no corrective intervention occurred), they make sure there is hell to pay for their 'tormenters'.

    False claims of abuse, not at the time of the claimed offense because an assessment of the environment would have concluded that there isnt a political will to persecute innocent priests (or any Catholics, like those 'bullies in the schoolyard', for example), but much later in your life when you've imagined you've been 'screwed over' by Catholics all your life, are a real (financially and politically productive) option. You see the tide being turned against Catholics in the political arena, and you pounce out of the darkness with your 30-40-50 year old lie. No evidence required – just any wild-eyed story your sick brain can imagine will do.

    These types are not used to being challenged. Their experience in life is to get their own way by throwing fits and tantrums, and when that doesn't work, they go on the attack. So, when they are seriously challenged, with logic and facts, as they are here, they resort to their usual tactics. Their very lifestyles, which they themselves have introduced into this debate, are a reflection of their sinful lives, as expressed by selfishness, sense of entitlement, lust, envy, wrath, dishonesty, materialism, bigotry/hatred, slothfulness, anger, pride and greed.

    These highly suspect claimants could not possibly be more distant from the majority of TMR commenters, either morally or ethically. And, that is a tough mirror to have stuck in your face on a regular basis here. You have to conclude that they are also masochists.

    Yet, they continue to participate here, a site dedicated to exposing and tracking the antiCatholic media and calling out those frauds and bigots. You have to wonder why these types insist on participating here and demanding that we jump on their bigoted bandwagon rather than go haunt a site dedicated to attacking and persecuting Catholics (which is their only goal)- God knows, there are enough of those around. It isn't like any of us goes on a  search and destroy mission to locate or attack real abuse victims, we just take it as it comes here to TMR.

    Real/actual abuse victims have participated here with no trouble from the faithful Catholic TMR contributors, but, interestingly, the resident antiCatholic bigots attack those real victims (and even their children!). Is it because they are real/actual victims (as oppossed to what they are themselves, frauds) or is it because they won't drink the antiCatholic kool-aid? Yes to both is my guess.

    These resident bigots, so full of hate, simply thrive and survive on their hatred of anything good, whether it's a forgiving real victim or a faithful Catholic (often one in the same), which is in opposition to everything they are – which is pure hate.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! "Real abuse victims have had no trouble here from faithful catholics"  LOL!!!!!

      You missed your calling. You should be writing comedy.  Oh that's right! You are writing comedy. My mistake.

      D are you Billie Donahue in drag? Come on out Bill.  Turn over that lux rock you live under .Let your followers see you in the bright light.

      Bill Donahue, the catholic Rush Limbaugh.

      How are you resolving the contradictions between your worshiping Ayn Rand and pope Francis's attacks on unleashed capitalism?

      Didn't  your jesus do a little "pure hating" himself when he kicked THE MONEY CHANGERS OUT of the temple?

      Didn't pope Frank just do a similar thing firing all but one of the vatican bank people?

      Watch out Frank! Remember how long poor JP1 lasted when he started changing things. For god's sake get a food taster.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What tide is being turned against catholics? 

      There are two very different brands of catholics. There's your right wing brand and then there's the vast majority of catholics who like and are supportive of and proud of their gay neighbors and family members. The same majority that use birth control all the time. The same majority that support women's leadership abilities. The same catholic majority that is outraged by the rape of a child no matter when it happened, today; yesterday or 1000 years ago.

      Then there's the money grubbers, you lot. Get the f%#@ out of the temple.

  34. Delphin says:

    From First Things:

    Saint Augustine’s Advice on How to Handle Trolls

    Monday, January 20, 2014, 8:37 AM

    Collin Garbarino | @cgarbarino

    "I’m reading through Augustine’s City of God

    Augustine wrote the book about 1,600 years ago, but I’m continually struck by how applicable his insights can be.

    One of my new favorite bits might be this passage from the beginning of book two:

    And yet, will we ever come to an end of discussion and talk if we think we must always reply to replies? For replies come from those who either cannot understand what is said to them, or are so stubborn and contentious that they refuse to give in even if they do understand.

    I immediately thought of the comment sections on various sites and the trolls who dwell there (….).

    Augustine shows us that even though technology changes, human nature remains the same. There have always been trolls among us, and there always will be."

    Words of wisdom dating back 1600 years. Hopefully, TMRs trolls will recognize their trolling behavior and be converted to honest dialogue.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LMFAO! It's called having a dialog. genius. It's a debate. Using free speech as the tool to find the truth. Augustine was a shmuck and a fascist. His way or silence. Silence re-enforced by death. Augustine was sighted (sited?) by the Inquisition as a rational for torture. He said torture was o.k. Opposition to his and the church's POV (point of view) enevitably brought the death penalty.

      Don't reply to us PLEASE. You only bring vitriol and dictate. Who needs you? You are always wrong. Always angry. Always a poor put upon victim of the real victims who've done nothing to you or your church but ask, just ASK, for their just compensation. We real victims spent way to much time asking and waiting for you to become responsible,IMHO. When we really should should have been demanding it.


    • Delphin says:

      Interpretation of 'magpie' speak per the Jan 21 10:08am 'contribution':

      "Sure, just give us more of your money (redistributionist much?) and we'll go away- well, until we flame it all on those material things of which we constantly brag and from which we garner our very identity, then, being the blackmailers/extorters that we are, we'll be back to water ourselves at your trough in short time. You see, it really isnt about anything you did or didn't do, we all know we've hyped up a witch-hunt just to get at your money, but, be nice, dont fight back, just keep giving us all of your money".

      Perhaps we might elevate the 'dialogue' such that one side of the 'dialoguers', who also make claims of personal experience and 'secret' knowledge (gnostics?) to support their positions, which are highly dubious, commit to offering known truths, only, to support their 'dialogue'; and please, please abandon the sophomoric P.S., LOL, LMFAO, ALL CAPS and other banal outbursts and inappropriate punctuation behind, way behind – back to high school- to where these 'dialoguers' most likely concluded their intellectual and emotional development.

      And, oops, 'thar she blows' some more of that antiCatholic bigotry, again. You don't have to scrape the surface too much to get at it, it's always right there ready to bubble/gurgle up every time.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your pope Frank says that the wealth needs to be redistrubuted. Delphinius. How do you reconcile that to your dog eat dog brand of capitalism, oh perfect catholic?

  35. Delphin says:

    Julie- no need to apologize to me.

    KenW is a true (actual, real, authentic) victim of abuse, from what I recall, so, mixing him in with the other two cartoon characters (Heckle and Jeckel) here that clearly are fraudulent 'posers' is just an honest mistake, and nothing more, regardless of what the two resident magpies imply.

    A well-placed scarecrow should take care of those two…


    • Jim Robertson says:

      And what exactly, Bill Donahue ,D, would your "well placed scarecrow" look like? How would it scare us "cartoon characters" ( To dehumanize your opposition is an old fascist scam) away?

    • Dennis Ecker says:

      ….and what scared you away ? Was it that well placed scarecrow ?

      After today the wind is gone from all your sails. You are sitting dead in the water with no land insight.

  36. Publion says:

    Readers have noted and commented-upon the quality and form and direction that so much Abusenik commenting takes when allowed to seek its natural level, as so vividly demonstrated in very recent comments on this thread.


    I have just noticed that as part of all that, I am mentioned at the bottom of the JR comment of the 19th at 233PM.


    It is, I presume, a result of my connecting some possible dots with the Manhattan (NY) criminal case now under way.


    Apropos of absolutely nothing, JR tries to distract with the matter of my identity yet and yet again, and stitches it into the present thread of discourse by saying that once he finds out who I am, he will “send me” his “compensation” and (apparently in consequence) “Jesus will love [JR] again”.


    At no point did I ever state or imply either a) that I wanted JR to send me any of his money or b) that JR’s money and his relationship to Jesus are, in any way that I have asserted, connected.


    Nor have I “made this all about money”: the Stampede, as I have gone at great length to explain and demonstrate, involves a number of dynamics. Anderson – a tortie before he is a very competent and successful legal strategist – was the source of the overall plan to link alleged Catholic clerical abuse to “the money” in such a way as to invite all manner of mischief and chicanery (similar to what we see being exposed now in the Manhattan trial). I have merely examined those combined Anderson Strategies and it was they – through Anderson’s skills – that introduced so powerfully the factor of “money”.


    Nor is JR accurate in his assertion that I will “love” him if he gives the money back. (God can speak for Himself in His own inimitable ways, if He wishes to do so.) Once again, the Abusenik ‘personalizing’ of commenting here reveals itself. I have not engaged in commenting here on the level of either ‘love’ or ‘hate’ for commenters, since my primary concern is and always has been not with commenters personally but rather with comments (the quality and coherence and rationality and probability of their expressed material) and not with the so-often-seen internet gambits of trying to create or presume ‘personal relationship’ virtually.


    Lastly, I point out that in the Manhattan trial’s possible outcome, it will not be a matter of “if” [exaggerated formatting omitted] any of those who might be found guilty will merely want-to make restitution for their ill-gotten monies; it will be – as I indicated in a prior comment on this thread – a matter of a court order or through the legal mechanism of a monetary fine as part of the sentencing.

  37. Dennis Ecker says:
  38. Dennis Ecker says:

    I thought today with the release of over 6000 pages of documents to the public from the archdiocese of Chicago showing the wrong doings and criminal acts by their clergy, such people like Publion, Delphin, Josie, Julie and even the newest member to their clan KenW would be burning up this site in defense once again. I am sure by now we would of have read some of the old EXCUSES.

    Although one reporter can be quoted as saying these documents are pages of tears, I am so proud of the victims/survivors who with their continued pressure FORCED the archdiocese to face and admit their crimes. 

    I would say to other archdioceses, and their clergy members who have committed crimes in the past, present or are thinking about doing so in the future  don't only fear the police knocking on your door, or a DA's office filing charges, or even and attorney filing suit but fear what the efforts of victims/survivors and their families are capable of doing.

    Separating fact from fiction is not something someone can do as he chooses.

  39. Publion says:

    I have made it a practice not to relate personal experiences since on the internet there is no way of providing sufficient corroboration for them. In this comment I am going to relate a very recent personal experience but in doing so I am fully cognizant of the fact that I can offer no corroboration for it and readers may make of it what they will.


    I stopped for fuel at a gas station, and accidentally pulled alongside the ‘full service’ rather than the ‘self-service’ island. A man quickly came over to handle the tasks. It being a warm day, I stood outside the car. He called me ‘sir’ several times and seemed to know his business.


    I opined pleasantly that he had a military-type style to his work. He told me affably that he was retired military. He then continued that it was the Navy – which seemed to me a little curious because he was not much older than fifty – if that – and seemed a bit paunchy to me (a thought I did not mention to him). He had been a cook, he said, and I thought that perhaps the paunch might be a little more understandable.


    Had he served on a ship or at a base of some sort? He was on the USS Cole, he said – which readers will recall as the warship attacked by terrorists while docked in The Yemen in 2000. He had lost shipmates in that attack, he said.


    He was working, he went on, to prepare for his child’s college. How old was the child, I asked. Three, he replied.


    He also had a son now in the military and “in Iraq”. I replied that it was very commendable and I wished the lad well.


    He was over there, the gentleman continued, because this gas-pumper was a widower – and I offered my condolences.


    She was killed in 9-11, he then went on, and that’s why his son joined up and went overseas.


    It was at this point that I began to wonder (to myself): this man, like a Zelig in reverse, seems to have had many of the currently popular (so to speak) disasters of contemporary American life happen to him.


    I paid for the gas and off I went with a pleasant good-bye and good-luck.


    What came to me, driving away, was that while it was possible that this gentleman had indeed experienced all the events he claimed, yet it seemed – overall – rather improbable. Yet he told the story for his own reasons and I had no reason to express my doubts and hesitations in believing him. It’s not a rare thing for people to tell stories that somehow enhance their status, and no real harm was done by his telling me what he told me. And that was that.


    But there was a relevance, it also appears to me, to the Catholic Abuse Matter. The Anderson Strategies – building upon that 1985 legal change (I won’t call it ‘reform’) adopted by Congress – created a legal vehicle by which such garden-variety human tendencies as this could be erected into ‘cases’ and large remuneration achieved.


    I don’t know if this gas-pumper gentleman had actually experienced all of the events he claimed, but my own assessment is that it is highly improbable. That’s also how I approach material regarding claims, stories, assertions, and allegations in the Catholic Abuse Matter, even if they are ‘reported’ in the media and even if they are termed ‘cases’ or even ‘documented cases’ – as we have often seen.


    But while the gas-pumper’s stories do not create any demand upon me or anybody else, the Anderson ‘cases’ most certainly do.


    And that has made all the difference.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Didn't Delphin say how she/ he/ it had been at the subway stop at the world trade center when the first plane hit on 9/11?.

      Zelig became the people he was with. His claim to fame was total physical identification with the people he was physically near. He did not appear present at different relevent moments in history as your analagy would infer.. I'll explain the atheistic inferences in the Wizard of Oz to you later when your old enough to understand.

    • Publion says:

      JR (the 21st, 624PM) neatly avoids the primary points I made in my comment about the gas-pumper (the 21st, 425PM).


      First: the point about people claiming experiences at which they have been present isn’t the problem. It’s people claiming to have experienced some event(s) for which demands, they insist, can be made upon others (other people, organizations, and so forth).


      Second: my reference to Zelig was meant to demonstrate that some people not only claim to have been present-at (as in, say, in the vicinity of) some event, but also then seek to incorporate that event into their own lives in their identities; thus, in effect, ‘taking on’ the experience as part of themselves by then claiming that the experience created life-changing or self-changing effects in them. (On the basis of which incorporation/identification, then, they insist that demands can be made on others.)


      Thus then also that the question of probability becomes vital if one is to assess the credibility of the story upon which the demand is based. Which brings it all rather close to home for the purposes of this site.


      Need we be detained by a JR excursus on a fairy-tale? Although then – come to think of it – there is something apropos in his proposal.

  40. Dennis Ecker says:

    ~~Ski? iba

    July 16, 1970

    Reverend Raymond F. Slcriba
    St. Joseph Rectory

    114 North Lincoln Avenue
    liound Lake, Illinois 60073
    Dear Father Skriba:

    I wish to thank you for your letter of July 5, 1970, with the
    enclosed letter which I am retu1*ni11g to you herewith.

    As I indicated in our pleasant conversation, I feel that this
    whole matter should be by you as it has been forgotten by me. No
    good can come of to prove or disprove the allegations, and I think that
    you will understand this.

    With all good wishes, lam, dear Eatlien: ifikriha,

    Very truly yours in Christ,

    Archbisllop of Chicago

  41. Delphin says:

    Of course, there is a major difference between most of us and both of you – you two either alreadt did or want to [maybe again?] benefit, financially, from the continued persecution of the Church.

    Only you two discuss, at length, your money and other belongings (even a suit, for Gods sake?), and only victim claimants have any potental financial gains by continuing this very lucrative persecution – not Josie, not Publion, not KenW, not Mark or Malcom, not Julie, not me, only you two either already have, or wish to gain financially.

    Only you two repeatedly reference 'collection plate' and other charitable giving to the Church by your opposition here (note- we don't line our own pockets/accounts, we give to the poor) and only you beg for your 15.00 per Catholic 'head' to pay retribution to claimed victims (not proven victims, incidentally).

    If "Dennis" was raped, and can prove it, or has any semblance of a case, he should seek and get justice. No one here would deny real victims their justice.

    Too bad you and/or your parents did such a lousy job of protecting yourselves/you (age dependent), and by not doing your/their job, your perpetrators were possibly permitted to prey on other victims. In some sectors/neighborhoods, one might be tempted to think that the original 'payoffs' might have occured back when the offenses happened – it's a fair observation, it's happened, and is still happening in Hollywood with child actors.

    There certainly is enough blame for child and minor abuse going unpunished to go around, and it doesn't start and stop with the Church, not even for those rare strictly Church-related cases.

    The rest of your babbling is just that, babble by rabble.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      When did human beings become "rabble"?" RABBLE"??????

      Jesus never mentioned "RABBLE"in his sermon on the mount. Did he?

      Or Did he say in his commandments, to "Love your neighbor as yourself unless they are called rabble by a catholic"? Did I miss something in my 12 years of catholic schooling?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      If you and P are any kind of example of christian dogma in action you're doing quite a job of demonstrating them. Quite a job indeed.

      You obviously know nothing about the faith you pretend to be defending.

      Maybe you could talk to a few priests about the basic tenents of christ's teachings.

      May I also recomend the film The Gospel according to Matthew by the murdered gay communist Pasollini. Murdered by the right in Italy. It won the Palm D'Or along with filmic prizes from your dearly loved vatican. The film's music is the extrodinary Missa Luba. It might enlighten you. Might. It's just the gospel of Mathew verbatum played by amatuers.

      If you want to see mythology and real church history juxtaposed extraordinarily, see Luis Bunel's The Milky Way about two hobo's traveling the pilgrimage to the tomb of st. James in Spain from France. Tre jollie!

      There's some real moral education lacking with you two. Let's help you fix that.

      Both films are sub titled.

  42. Publion says:

    On the 21st at 346PM “Dennis” tries to combine catty and scholarly (only the latter would require his donning a Wig for the occasion).


    The fact that 6000 pages of anything are released indicates nothing until the 6000 pages have been examined. We have seen before (the Los Angeles cache comes to mind) examples from document cache-dumps on this site and looked at them and they have invariably carried far fewer bombs or smoking-guns than Abuseniks would have had us believe.


    But “Dennis” demonstrates for us either an incompetence or an unwillingness to do all that work. Rather he will cherry-pick what he likes that serves his purposes. (The odd comment of the 21st at 465PM contains … what? The actual text of a letter? Something he has put together himself? Something he found on one of his favorite sites?)


    Whatever the case may be in that regard, the text dates from 44 years ago. Which was – given the subsequent passage of time and the developments of history – another era indeed.


    Was the letter written after the psychological skill of the era had approved the priest’s return to ministry?


    What was the ‘stream of exchange’ between the Chancery and the priest, of which this letter’s text would (putatively) be only a part?


    And, as always, why was there no police report made by any of the other (non-clerical) persons who might have known of some offense or allegation?


    And would the prelate (or his secretary) really misspell ‘Archbishop’ like that in the 456PM posting? In addition to the other misspellings?


    Documentary material is always the first step in historical analysis – not the last. That’s not “damage control” – that’s just the reality of accurate assessment of documentary material.


    But such assessment, of course, requires care and caution and that isn’t how to Get or Keep A Stampede Going. And the Anderson Strategies realized that. Which, I think, is also why we have rarely if ever seen careful assessors putting up their thoughts in the service of the Stampede: there is too much danger of the material – if it is fully examined – going in a direction not congenial or conducive to the Stampede’s objectives.


    And, presuming for the moment that this 456PM ‘text’ actually and accurately gives the gist of this Skiba case, is it also representative of the rest – or even most or much of the rest – of the 6000 pages? One would have to have examined the entire cache with some care and competence.


    At any rate, does the cache material reflect current or recent AOChi handling of cases, or are these mostly ‘historical’, stretching back decades? Or at least stretching back before the 2002? Are we thus looking, once again, at an effort to make decades-old material from another era look like it’s fresh, recent, and current? (To Keep The Ball Rolling, of course.)


    I certainly hold no brief for any case in which there was clear and indubitable and overt and demonstrable abusive activity involved. And – conceptually speaking – I would be surprised if there were not some actual offenders involved, as would be the case in any organization, especially when examined by the lights of a later era. For example, the airline industry has made numerous changes in its procedures in the past 45 years, based – unhappily – on experience gleaned from the causes of crashes. In the case of conflicting instructions, pilots today, for example, are now required to obey the orders from their onboard crash-avoidance computers rather than the verbal instructions of the relevant air-traffic controller, which is precisely the opposite of the pilots’ long-standing ‘prime directive’ in the previous era).


    So while conceptually I have little doubt that there was some mishandling of questionable cases in – to use the example here – 1970, I would reserve judgment on any claims or inferences that we have today 6000 pages of spot-on, smoking gun ‘proof’ of this, that, or another thing.


    And I will most certainly be skeptical of any claims that presume that we have 6000 pages that uniformly and conclusively back-up the Stampede vision of an utterly duplicitous and corrupt and sex-besotted Church that, like an organized crime outfit, operated – or even had as its primary institutional objective and purpose – merely the ‘enabling’ of a largely sex-crazed and rapist clergy.


    I hadn’t posted on this subject earlier today since I hadn’t (and still haven’t) reviewed the 6000 pages – which clearly hasn’t stopped “Dennis” but that’s how “Dennis” rolls (as some like to say).


    He is welcome to declaim about what he would “say” to this, that, and another group, but readers can do with those declamations what they will.


    And – in a marvelous display of projection – he pronounces that “separating fact from fiction is not something someone can do as he chooses”. Which, I can only agree, is so very very very true: separating fact from fiction is a demanding task requiring competence and the discipline to follow evidence to such conclusions as the evidence supports. And thus perhaps “Dennis” would like to post that excellent thought on his mirror so he can see it when trying on various Wigs.

  43. Delphin says:


    Gov. Cuomo's intolerant/bigoted outburst led to his attorney threatening the NY Post with legal action (Gov't retaliation, anyone?) if they didn't back off (translation: stop pursuing/printing the story). This is the usual/typical retort of/by leftists/progressives, which is "you're either down with us, or we'll sue you" (also see USDOJ vs. Standard and Poor's; IRS vs. any Conservative 501(c)(4)).

    The reason this is relevent here is because this is also the same retort we have see from the two magpies, here at TMR, and elsewhere. These two are the only two commenters that have threatened to pursue lawsuits against both the site owner/operator and commenters (as documented here and elsewhere several times).

    Winning lawsuits is, after all, a form/source of 'income' for some. Others simply work for their income. It is this same mentality that persecutes the Church, which isn't to punish her for clergy abuse of minors (red herring), but is designed to punish her for her moral, ethical and social teachings and to shut her up on these matters - as noted in their rerun diatribes that inevitably and invariably deteriorate into your typical antiCatholic (nativist/know-nothing)rants.

    First Amendment protections are for leftist/progressives, only, apparently.

    Never doubt that this witch hunt against our priests is all about the politics.


  44. Jim Robertson says:

    Pat, "incivility" doesn't touch it. Delpinius brings nothing but angry dehumanization to this discussion (most likely the job she was sent to do).

    She/ he/ it/ they bring nothing but anger and mendacity to the subject at hand. D lies about everything. Do honest people lie and obfuscate as much as she/he/it/them?

    [edited by moderator]

    Every attempt we victims have made at reconciliation of our issues and yours, those still catholic. Has been shreded by their name calling vitriol.

    P and D only use ad hominems, personal attacks to dehumanize the people they've selected to be dubbed enemies of their religion. Not jesus's religion but theirs. They have stolen your faith and like Mr. Toad on his wild ride they have driven your religion off the road. destroying all of christ's teachings in their mayhem. They've wrecked your faith every time they print their plop. Don't let these unfaithful, money changers rule your temple.

  45. LDB says:

    I trust that Publion is working on his catholic math and apologetics for Chicago's file release. When you read the files (I hope that people read them and do not just read what people have written about them.) from Boston, LA, Piladephia, Chicago or anywhere in the US or in the world, the stories of abuse are terrible and disgusting. And the men of the church in authority handled everything with such focused concern for the reputation and well-being of the priests and the institution. It is stiking how catholicly (uniformly and universally) little they cared for the childen and young people and preventing abuse. What a waste.

  46. Publion says:

    JR has shifted back to the Wig of Outraged Decency (the 22nd, 1046AM). As always, it works out to the fact that he has been somehow victimized.


    Specifically, that he has been ‘dehumanized’ and that everyone who doesn’t buy his story and so forth are simply telling “lies about everything”. No examples, of course, provided – just the declamation.


    So he is faced with nothing but “anger and mendacity” (once again, one can only marvel at the accuracy of the clinical concept of projection).


    Then, warming to the task, JR bleats that “every attempt we victims have made at reconciliation of our issues and yours … has been shredded by their name-calling vitriol” [corrections supplied]. But again and again and again: a) we haven’t actually established the probable credibility of “we victims” so thus b) there is not yet a basis of “reconciliation of our issues and yours” (unless it is taken as a given that for Abuseniks, “reconciliation” is synonymous with giving them everything they want and demand).


    Then, reinforcing the thought about clinical projection, he declaims that I and others “only use ad hominems, personal attacks to dehumanize people they’ve selected to be dubbed enemies of their religion”. Speaking for myself, I have never called anybody “fool”, “idiot”, or “sociopath”. Nor have I “selected” anybody; JR selected himself to comment, and to put up the comments and tell the stories he has told in comments, and were it not for that I – for one – would never have heard of him nor taken an interest in his activities. But he chose to put-up his material here and commenting on that material goes with the territory when you put your material out there.


    And perhaps it must also be entered into the Notebook on the Playbook that disagreeing with Abuseniks ‘dehumanizes’ them; as apparently, does the ‘sociopathic’ focus on assessing what they put up rather than simply accepting it right off the bat as credible and probable and accurate and true.


    What – if anything – has been “shredded” [correction supplied] is the credibility of their material. But that lies primarily in the fact that their material has not performed well at all in terms of rationality, coherence, and verifiability or even probability. And they are the ones that have composed and put-up that material.


    He then asserts that those who have done so, the ‘non-believers’ in the Abusenik vision and stories, have “stolen” the “faith” of … whomever. Because, apparently, whatever religion we believe in (which is not an issue on this thread) is “not Jesus’s religion but theirs” [correction supplied]. And that those who question the Abusenik material are “destroying all of Christ’s teachings in their mayhem”. (That “mayhem” is a nice touch, although a bit over the top, and I presume it is not meant in the formal legal sense here.)


    No examples supporting any of those characterizations and assertions is provided, but of course.


    Readers may consider that theological discourse as they may.


    However “money-changers” – applied to the doubters and non-believers in the Abusenik gambit – gives yet a third example in a single comment of that clinical projection.


     Then ‘LDB’ returns (the 22nd, 1142AM). Am I working on my “catholic math and apologetics for Chicago’s file release”?  I’m not sure where “math” is relevant here, unless he means a reference to the dates of the material so far discussed. And I’m not sure where “apologetics” is relevant, unless ‘assessment’ and ‘analysis’ are – in LDB’s dictionary – synonymous with “apologetics”.


    And since LDB has not thought to provide any examples of either my “math” or my “apologetics” then that’s about as far as I can go with these bits.


    And then – very much in a style similar to “Dennis” – we are simply told what to believe in regard to not simply the Chicago cache but “the files”, those “from Boston, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago or anywhere in the US or in the world” … Let’s leave unasked the question as to whether LDB has read all of them; we have considered published material from LA and it didn’t perform well at all; the Philadelphia case – over its entire history – ditto.


    Additionally, we are given the curiously vague and ambivalent characterization of “stories of abuse”, which LDB, apparently crediting them all with no further examination, finds “terrible and disgusting”. The possibility – perhaps probability, given the Anderson Strategies and the Stampede  – that that they were prepared to be publicized in order to achieve precisely that effect, does not seem to have occurred to LDB. Or does not seem to LDB, for his/her purposes, a worthwhile or congenial task.


    The organizational dynamics of a bygone era (hardly restricted to the Church) are, as the PA Superior Court notes, plain to see. I, for one, am happy that the era of prelates modeled after the old big-city political bosses or more ‘modern’ CEO’s has passed. But balanced against that we must also consider a) that in that bygone era the approach to ‘abuse’ was very different; b) the psychological capacity and best-practices for assessing alleged abusers was not as developed as it may be today; c) the credibility of the stories was not established (and in some of the cases the police themselves had declined to pursue the matter); d) in a great number of instances no other persons with sufficient information went to the police on their own to make a report. All of these elements were in play in that bygone era, above and beyond the organizational-dynamics.


    How would LDB factor those into his/her analysis?


    All of which has been discussed at length on this site. Has LDB – in addition to any putative review of the entire corpus of “stories” s/he mentions – reviewed the material on this site? Just to inform him/herself of the status of the question as it has developed here and to save us all the repetition?


    “What a waste” is a conclusion that may indeed be relevant here, but not perhaps the way LDB would care to imagine it.

  47. LDB says:

    I love the Robert Frost reference to end your post of Publion January 21, 2014 at 2:29-er pm. It reminds me of so many college admissions essays that anyone ever wrote. You seem to feel so good about yourself, having taken the road less traveled by. That's super.

    Publion is so skeptical and/or agnostic about gas pumper's stories and experiences and information, but not about his religion/faith. That is strange because his religion/faith is very important and informs so much of his world-view. In this way, one's own religion/faith should be hard for the truly skeptical mind to miss in applying the questions and analysis that come so naturally. A skeptic, one would think, would be skeptical about everything, and especially big important things. Not so with Publion.

    Convenient meeting with that gas pumper though. Boy, he played right into your hands by making claims about just the sort of stuff that you are really keen on and well informed about. Who else but you could doubt so quickly, in an outdoor moment at the gas station, the man's claim to be ex-Navy. With a paunch! What a fraud! Obvious.

    Then again, the story did start with you not even being aware of what fuel pump you are pulling up to and even getting out of your car at. Maybe it was an off day for you all around. No worries. I will just take the alleged anecdote as an allegory, as you went to great trouble in the begining of your post to explain that it might/could be. As you so often say, 'Neat.'

    I wonder who I will meet today? Awaaaaay!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Now LDB, the highest priced pr firms in the world worked hard to come up with that paunchy gas pumper. Don't pop their balloon. It's the same bunch that created the paint activist victims to be comparable to mass murderers like Columbine line.

      You and I only have our own wits (you more than I) to try and keep the truth somewhere in sight for the readers. But between the whirlpool (D) and the rocks (P)  The truth get's hammered pretty hard here.

    • Publion says:

      LDB posts on the 22nd at 247PM.


      A curiously stilted style: “to end your post of Publion” … which recalls, yet again, some of the stylistic tics we have seen in material from “Dennis”. Also the hardly-surprising failure in accuracy: the comment I made concluding with the Frost reference was 4:29 PM, not 2:29 PM. And then the feeble attempt to mimic airline-pilot usage (that odd “-er”) also suggests something a bit off, but in a curiously familiar way.


      Is LDB of the opinion that the gas-pumper’s overall presentation is credible and probable? If so, then it is not so difficult to see why the Abusenik position is so congenial to him.


      But then he seeks to avoid the issues and points I raised, and decides to go for my (putative) lack of skepticism about my “religion/faith”. Which is not at issue in the material here or on this site, which is not  a general theological site but instead focused rather tightly on the Catholic Abuse Matter. But – then – LDB apparently realizes that he hasn’t got anything substantive to say about the difficulties of the Catholic Abuse Matter, and will try instead to distract and derail the discourse by trying to move things farther afield.


      Thus his ruminations as to how much my “religion/faith” is “very important and informs so much of [my] world-view” can be left where they were put-up. He is apparently trying to go for the idea that if I am so skeptical of the “gas pumper” then that is a disconnect with my lack of skepticism about my “religion/faith” – except that he has merely asserted but has not established the actual extent and nature of my embrace of my “religion/faith”, so the whole bit here simply hangs unsupported. Insinuation or innuendo, but no actual demonstration – also a familiar tic.


      Nor – it appears that I have to point out – is skepticism in the theologico-religious forum quite the same thing as skepticism as to material that a) has been submitted before the court of public opinion and the law-courts as evidence, in the this-worldly rather than the other-worldly realm, and b) has been submitted for as basis for demands and assertions with the nature of which we all familiar.


      One would think somebody seeking to impress him/herself upon us as a thinker of some capacity would have already realized all that, but not so with LDB.


      As for the material about the gas pumper, LDB seems to agree with the complexities and difficulties I noted in regard to submitting such material online. I noted all that, but I also note here that the ‘story’ about the gas pumper and his stories do not substantively impact our considerations nor did I submit them for any such purpose – which is a different thing altogether from the Abusenik stories that were precisely put to us (and so many others) for the purpose of substantively manipulating our considerations.


      As for LDB’s skepticism about my skepticism, it is what it is and let the readership decide.


      But then there is then that epithetical (and un-supported) “fraud” – with a curiously familiar exclamation point to boot. And the almost-excessive addition of the self-congratulatory “Obvious” – also a curiously familiar tic.


      I am not sure “allegory” is the proper term to deploy here, but why try to fathom LDB’s mentation? I did not, however, go “to great trouble in the beginning of [my] post to explain that it might/could be” – I simply pointed out that online stories are always going to be deficient in corroboration. As are the Abusenik stories as well.


      We are then treated to another oddly-familiar tic: the concluding comment that has no relevance to the material preceding it but seems to be going-for a snappy exit. And topped with the exclamation point.


      And at the end of it all, none of the points and questions I have raised as to LDB’s own material addressed.


      Very neat. Very familiar. But at this point, rather obvious.


      Then we get the usual sidekick sideshow from JR (the 22nd, 745PM). This episode’s self-justifying bit is that while he and poor LDB “have only our own wits” by which they “try and keep the truth somewhere in sight for readers”, yet I (via my gas pump story) benefit from “the highest prices pr firms in the world” [sic]. Readers are welcome to consider that pastiche in all of its elements for exactly what it is.


      Any reader who can grasp the connection between the material under consideration here and “mass murderers like Columbine” is welcome to share that insight.


      But who – after all the material we have seen from the Abuseniks – can deny that “the truth get’s hammered pretty hard here” [sic]?

  48. Delphin says:

    From NAMBLA (no friends of the Catholic Church) paper on Pederasty, see excerpt (link provided below, for full context):

    "Of course, money plays a role in this too. This is very clear, for example, in the many scandals in the United States over sex between priests and youths, in which the Catholic church has paid out millions of dollars in an effort to resolve them. If, as has happened frequently in these scandals, (1) the boy came back regularly over a period of years in order to have sex with the priest, and (2) the "victim" waited twenty to thirty years before denouncing the priest, one is entitled to wonder whether his motive was not financial above all; and if there is a sense of guilt, it results mainly from the medieval and hypocritical attitude of the church, and not automatically, nor necessarily, from the sexual relationship itself."


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Unbelievable! nambla! you quote from nambla You quote child abusers about how victims "really feel" about being raped. You quote from the rapists point of view. If I hadn't seen it I wouldn't have believed this low possible. I'm in complete schock!

  49. Jim Robertson says:

    So now Gay's ok but not if we do it. You know "IT".

    Thanks none of us need your approval we've earned our own approval. you are not needed.

    Why don't you quote from nambla again. You seem to know an awful lot about nambla. Shameless!

  50. Jim Robertson says:

    Gay's O.K. as long as the pope you obey. Is that what you mean when you say: gay is o.k.?