SNAP Wins Its Appeal To Harass and Intimidate Parishioners at Sunday Mass

David Clohessy

Professional harasser: SNAP National Director David Clohessy

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the anti-Catholic group SNAP so that members of SNAP can resume harassing and intimidating prayerful Catholics as they attend Mass on Sunday.

In the past, SNAP members have provoked Sunday Mass goers to such an extent that judges have been forced to issue restraining orders, and SNAP leaders have been subsequently arrested for violating such orders.

As we reported last year, SNAP tried to argue that Missouri's House of Worship Protection Act, which sought to protect worshipers from angry disruptions such as those instigated by SNAP, was unconstitutional. But Senior United States District Judge E. Richard Webber ruled against SNAP, deciding that SNAP's argument was baloney and that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of its citizens to worship without fear of threats and intimidation.

But the ruling by the Eighth Circuit overturned Webber's ruling, meaning that parishioners can soon expect regular disruptions at Catholic parishes on Sunday in Missouri. Wonderful.

[Click here to read the Eighth Circuit Court's ruling]



  1. Kathly says:

    Dear Mr. Pierrre,

    Please dencourage the media to educate the public about "The Detection Zone."

    Assuming the cable companies and the media have protecting the privacy of children

    central to their ultimate mission; it would be helpful for parents to be educated about

    the joint venture between Comcas and Verizon.  There are pages and pages in the

    patent application that detail listening to "customers" by television and telephones.

    What ever happened with that project?  Were they able to get a judge to sign it????????????


  2. Publion says:

    This development is a fine opportunity for readers who are not familiar with its possibilities to review the legally-trained mind as it reasons its way to a conclusion. Decisions and Opinions of courts are always worth a look (even though one might well not agree with the particular reasoning that informs any particular Decision or Opinion).

    The text of this Court’s Decision is available in the link below; it is only 15 pages long and relatively free of excessive in-house jargon or complications.

    The Court’s basic objection to the ban on SNAP is that the law upon which the ban is based is not one that merely seeks to prevent a particular action (e.g. the Fred Phelps’ group demonstrating against the US military at the funerals of deceased service-members) but rather the law improperly and unacceptably focuses on the content of the (broadly) prohibited speech.

    And once laws start to proscribe the content of speech, then the Constitutional principle of Free Speech is endangered.

    It is no doubt very true that – under the Playbook compiled by Saul Alinsky (himself working from Gramsci) – SNAP will make use of all sorts of agitprop maneuvers to try to Keep The Ball Rolling. Indeed, one of the very topics which SNAP mentions in its case pleadings is that it seeks to stand outside churches in order to encourage those ‘victims’ who have not yet reported their ‘abuse’ to (finally) come forward. Which, I would say, is a crystal-clear indication that The Ball Is Not Rolling at this point and the Stampede-niks have to do something to keep up the numbers or – at least – to keep in front of interested cameras (since the Vatican Abuse Commission and the papal visit will be topics of media interest).

    We also recall from a recent TMR article that the J-School media mavens are trying to encourage at least some aspiring journalists to help Keep The Ball Rolling by holding forth the possibility of professional awards that are still available to be handed out for journalists who stick to the Stampede.

    So I would say that the Court’s concern here is not to validate the Stampede but rather to indicate that the particular law in this case is poorly written and runs afoul of Constitutional principles.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    And again P you pose as what you are not, an authority; Exactly as does SNAP.

    SNAP's demo's would have no power if the church deigned to talk to victims. Why doesn't the church do that?????? But that's not what SNAP's at churches for.

    It's there to feign another needless war created by the status quo, one between victims and catholics by handing out leaflets that talk about clerical sex abuse at family mass.

    Why wouldn't catholics see SNAP as an attack engine when priest sexual abuse is brought up in front of their children? Sex being brought up in front of kids and parents and at mass yet! And fr Shmuck tells the parisheners to be patient with us (victims) which really means: Be patient with the sufferings placed upon the church by the children the church raped. I only wish I was kidding. How is that behavior good publicity for victims?  It is certainly not great PR for us amongst catholics. How would that behavior benefit victims exactly? Do you think we see ourselves as tools to bring clients to Jeff Anderson? And that that's all SNAP's trying to do get new clients for Jeff. That's exactly what it's supposed to look like wrapped up in the illusion of helping other "survivors" to come forward. It's beyond sleazy. And thanks to SNAP it appears to be just what victims want. Why? because SNAP is all u see. So what SNAP says victims want, goes. There's nobody else talking.

    I grew up in L.A. the home of  the soft sell. Don't you think we know here how to approch public opinion? That's what this town does for a living.  But little David Clohessy in St Louis knows exactly what to do PR wise in the very best interest of victims. Sure he does.

    • Miguel Prats says:

      Mr. Robertson,

                              You said "SNAP is all you see" and "There's nobody else talking". This is precisely why the Maria Goretti Network was formed over ten years ago. There needs to be a safe, Catholic, place where victims can gather, tell their stories, be believed and be encouraged to find healing through the examples of the saints and the grace of Christ. Not through lawyers like Jeff Anderson, lawsuits and bad publicity.
                              We're a self-help support group for ALL survivors of abuse no matter what type of abuse it was or who did it. It's a bit sad to us that after almost eleven years of existence we only have thre chapters of MGN. They are all in Texas. MGN needs to be in every diocese and especially in every archdiocese. If victims knew there was a place to turn to they might not turn to what they incorrectly believe is the only place for survivors to voice their pain and seek help in healing. I was Regional director of SNAP for two years 2002-2004. It was because of the problems with SNAP that I was led to form MGN. If people truly want to help ALL survivors of abuse including victims of public school teachers and domestic violence victims we have a well established, Catholic lay apostolate that has proven it can help ALL victims. We would love to hear from you or anyone interested in helping the thousands of victims of domestic violence, incest and abuse in all it's forms.

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    P, the fraud who supports every fraudster he sees. Is P a victim of childhood clerical sex abuse? if not then shut up. You know nothing about the subject but what you make up.

  5. Publion says:

    On the 16th at 824PM we get:

    An epithet: JR accuses that I “pose as what [I am] not”, which is “an authority”. And how did I do that? I have recommended reading the court’s Decision and I have provided an explanation why and I have provided a link to the Decision. Readers may do with it as they wish.

    But again we see this ‘posing’ and ‘pretending’ trope, which seems to be JR’s new plop-toy for the moment. And again: the dynamics of projection yield an analysis of this gambit that recoils rather nicely.

    But this trope also provides a handy handle on which to hang the usual cartoon that connects SNAP and anybody who doesn’t go along with the Abusenik agitprop.

    Then the second paragraph simply gives us a regurgitation of the usual Abusenik talking-points about SNAP. And in what way would the Church at this point “talk to victims”? They have cashed their checks and – aside from JR himself – I haven’t seen any groundswell of demand from “victims” to have further converse with the Church. And as I have often noted at length here, there are plenty of good reasons why “victims” (with the money now banked) are thus not interested in drawing any further attention to themselves: they went to the Anderson Strategies to make a score, they did so – precisely by avoiding any significant analysis and assessment of their claims, so why would they now want to re-ignite the possibility for that analysis and assessment which they have already neatly and successfully avoided?

    These are talking-points from decades ago (and they were dubious even then).

    The third paragraph is open to any of those readers who might be inclined  to try and make sense of it.

    The fourth paragraph merely continues those talking-points from decades ago, including the “raped” trope (at very best, there were instances of ‘statutory rape’ as we have discussed at length here).

    And whether “victims” see themselves as “tools” of Jeff Anderson to “bring clients to Jeff Anderson” is neither here nor there. Although that was, in my assessment, the purpose of the front-organizations, but the allegants were certainly made useful in drumming-up more allegants. It is regrettable that “victims” didn’t see how they were being used, but then again perhaps the allegants didn’t really care since they were looking to score.

    And if JR wishes to see himself as “talking” on behalf of “victims” so that SNAP doesn’t hog the ‘dialog’, well that’s his choice to make. But then he says “there’s nobody else talking”.

    Then some cartoonish effort to characterize all L.A. residents and denizens as ‘knowing’ “how to approach public opinion” (correction supplied). I’ll leave that for anybody who likes to indulge in such generalizations, but certainly those inclined toward Alinsky would ‘know’ “how to approach public opinion” (ditto): you manipulate it by putting forward as ‘truth’ whatever you think has to be said to further your plan and your objectives.

    And then at 828PM we are given yet again the trope about my being a “fraud”, bolstered this time by the charming effort to speculate and insinuate about my childhood.

    That seems more than a bit outré, but then we quickly see in the next sentence where it’s trying to go: the old Abusenik effort to squelch assessment of their stuff: if you weren’t abused then you can’t talk about the subject (and thus, neatly, you can’t assess or examine the allegations and the stories). Neato.

    And the whole thing topped-off with the epithet that it is I who “make up” stuff.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    Mr Prats, Why are all catholic victims' groups run by catholics? Why would victims so betrayed by the church as children trust the church to give a shit now? I'm glad you feel you must do something for those injured by your church.  I'm not a catholic anymore. I've met very few victims but of those I've met very few are still catholic. So making help a catholic faith based experience is at best insensitve. imho.

    I stupidly have to ask you if you are helping victims get compensation for their injuries? I say stupidly because every catholic led "survivors'" group I've seen, never does. Is your Maria Goretti group different? If it's no different than the rest; then it's the same as the rest.

    More pie in the sky when u die nonsense. Victims have major damages that will not go away without justice being done to them.

    I don't know you but your description of the MG group says it's a self help group. There in lies your problem. If we could have helped ourselves we would have helped ourselves.

    "Self help" what a crock of poop! "Self help" the catholic euphemism for paying victims nothing.

    P, you never ask victims questions about anything let alone our rapes you just smear us. Pretending we don't answer questions you never ask.

    That is one of the main reasons you are a fake.

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    Mr Prats if you were a regional director for SNAP for 2 whole years. Why did you leave them? How did they fail a good catholic victim (If you are a victim) like you?

    Please don't spare any details. It's important imho that all info regarding SNAP gets out.

    How did you like the fact that SNAP had no elections for it's leadership? Were you a selected SNAP leader and if so why? Ever ask that question of yourself?

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    See how often P has asked victims questions at this site. I can count them on both hands and when we victims answer him he says we're not telling the truth; or smears by saying: " How is the readership to know we are telling the truth?" Over and over and over again. We tell our truth and P. says, how do we know it's the truth? He only asks us questions to discredit never to inform.

    The turd's a fraud.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    And for the readership:

    See how SNAP chooses an active catholic to head SNAP in Texas? So many active catholics speaking for so few active catholic victims.  Evidently, miracles do happen after all! (Sarcasm) Give me the odds for such an occurance happening naturally. A million to one? 2 million to one?

  10. Publion says:

    On the 18th at 241PM JR now informs us that I “never ask victims questions about anything”. Long-time regular readers of this site can perhaps tote up the number of questions asked of this or that Abusenik for which no answers have been forthcoming. However, on the ‘Lily Fowler’ thread I have put up (the 19th at 408AM) a series of questions which may move the discourse toward serious thinking-through.

    Further we get the characteristic giveaway of an assertion being made in such a way as to be nonsensical: I “never ask victims questions about anything let alone our rapes” … and readers are welcome to try to suss out the meaning of that bit.

    And – for the umpteenth time – I have asked numerous questions about the stories of “rapes” and gotten only the usual Playbook distractions in return.

    And I have to ask “over and over again” because we keep getting the same Playbook dodges over and over again.

    And I have to ask the questions because the core issue for any third-party assessor is to establish probability or obtain corroboration, and that apparently is precisely what the Abuseniks seek to avoid.

    And we also see here just how little “dialog” the Abuseniks are really prepared to conduct. When their ‘come-backs’ are questioned, they simply resort to the Playbook’s many gambits to squelch or distract.

    JR also apparently presumes that the usual Playbook distractions constitute “answers”, when actually they are more akin to cafeteria-level ‘come-backs’ – which are not at all the same thing.

    Thus his ‘logical’ conclusion that I am “a fake” fails.

    And fails as well since it is impossible to follow the reasoning in his epithet: in what am I “a fake”? A fake what? (This question itself may open up the floodgates for more cafeteria-level epithet, but the question has to be asked here nonetheless.)

    Then on the 19th at 307PM we get a further riff on the whole shebang:

    JR also apparently would like us to accept that by Abusenik material being questioned – including the rather substantive point that third-party assessors must have corroborating evidence or rationally coherent explication – then the questioning constitutes Abusenik material being ‘smeared’. Once again we see the effort to waltz us by assessment by claiming that questioning-is-smearing.

    And we also see the sly conflation of the truth and “our” truth. The two need not at all be the same.

    And – JR apparently has to be advised – the purpose of a question is not to “inform” but rather to get information so that one might become better informed.

    Nor are questions able to “discredit” the person being questioned; it is only the response to the question that can “discredit”.

    And the sound we hear is that of his concluding double-epithet recoiling back on him.

    While simultaneously renewing the question: in what way am I a “fraud”? I am certainly a genuine questioner – and questions are the key to the matter here.

    But of course, there’s the rub. The Playbook only recognizes questions that already presume the veracity of that which is being questioned, i.e. the allegations and stories.

    Thus: the only Abusenik-approved questions are those such as ‘Can you tell us more of what it felt like to be raped?’. What is not approved is a question such as ‘Can you explain the following dubious bits in your story?’. And that makes all the difference.

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    Liar!  I answered your abusive questions about the worst experience of my life; but why would you start telling the truth, when you never have?

    "Third party assessor"! My ass! You are a big fat nobody.

    Your lawyers asked questions for you and asked them with respect.

    My compensation exists and is as real as my rape.

    And P, personally, you are a low life scumbag. That should be your epitaph. "Here lies Publion, a low life scum bag". I'll pay for it to be carved on your headstone if you'd only die and make it snappy. You, allready, smell bad.

    Why would anyone play into your negative crap? When what happened to a child, the realities of which I've written here, is referred to as "dubious bits in your story".  "Dubious bits"? What's left to say?

    You wouldn't believe me, even if you'd been there and seen it happen.

    But really, on some level, you were there. You are there at every rape of every child ever.

    You are the rapist saying "If you tell, they'll never believe you" That was you, there in the obliterating energy that left me shattered.

      Congratulations! That probably makes you feel good. Exactly the same way my perpetrator probably felt "good" after doing what he did. If you can destroy, or at least attempt to destroy, another that makes you more powerful?

    Remember what I've said, You are a rapist, not because you ask questions of victims , but because you believe none of us. Not one.

    You aren't here to find the truth. You are here and posting to obliterate and discount the truth. That's why your religion sucks. It produced and encourages, on some deeply pathetic level, you, to behave as badly as you do here.

    If TMR were a real gathering of decent people; you'd be asked to leave.

    But no, TMR was built for your dirty "work". Catholics working together to make their own raped children out to be liars; even when they are telling the truth Good work. How many lying raped catholic kids have you found here at TMR? Zero?

    No one has ever had the bad taste to ever ask me " What it felt like to be raped". Till there was you.

    You should be banned from this site but you are the only reason this site exists. It ain't Dave Pierre's articles TMR was built for. You are the reason this site was built. Your sad lies are to calm the moronic and keep the cash rolling in. How's that working for you?

    I don't think this site's much of a hit though so that leaves you where exactly?.

    Nowhere that's where. Exactly where you belong.

    • Publion says:

      Well, what now? I have to strike a balance here in dealing with JR’s material: on the one hand regular readers have already seen most of his gambits and I don’t want to go over material already gone-over; on the other hand, new readers may not be familiar with the archive of comments here and his material would appear new and fresh to them, thus requiring a response.

      So to the 20th at 1208AM, and I’ll go down the comment paragraph by paragraph. 

      In the first paragraph: an overt epithet (“Liar!”) and an implied epithet (i.e. that my questions are “abusive”). But in the Playbook schema, all questioning is “abusive” unless the questions already presume the utter veracity of the stories, claims and allegations. 

      Thus also: JR simply told his story. When questions were then raised about the story, we got nothing but Playbook dodges in response to those further questions. 

      In the second paragraph: apparently one has to be a ‘somebody’ and not a “big fat nobody” (such a charmingly juvenile usage) in order to be a “third party assessor”. But “third party assessor” is precisely what everybody and anybody is who wasn’t actually present for the events claimed in the story or allegation. It goes with the territory of not being a first-hand observer. This is precisely the conflation that the Playbook scam seeks to impart: in the Playbook schema, by accepting the story/allegation you know as much and as truly as if you were actually there as a first-hand witness. And that is not so at all.

      In the third paragraph: we are informed (and are supposed to accept) that “your lawyers” asked JR “questions” and “asked them with respect”. As I have often said, once the decision was made that settlement was to be the route rather than adversarial trial, then the only task of questioning would be a pro forma asking of questions in order to get the allegations down on paper so that an appropriate (as it were) cash figure could be assigned to the claim. 

      And thus the Church/Insurer attorneys would simply ask the questions that would evoke the stories and no adversarial examination would take place.  The questions would not necessarily have been of the type previously mentioned: sympathetic clucking such as “Tell us what it felt like to be raped” or some such. But they may have been presented in that mode for the simple purpose of assessing ‘damages’ created by the alleged tort. 

      In the fourth paragraph: we get a truism (his “compensation is real”) that then functions simply as a launch-platform for the implied assertion that his “rape” was “real”. 

      In the fifth paragraph: we get a reversion to overt epithet (in a charmingly juvenile style) in order to move matters away from questioning and assessment and onto far more congenial Abusenik ground. (The assertion that I “smell bad” is so vividly juvenile as to merit specific notice.)

      In the sixth paragraph: ditto. But we also get the effort to start the play at first or second (rather than with an at-bat at home plate) with the manipulative ploy about “what happened to a child” about which “realities” JR takes umbrage at my characterizations about “dubious bits” in the stories. 

      He then asks: “What’s left to say?”. To which I would respond: what’s left is response that would clarify the complications so often seen in the stories proffered to us here. 

      In the seventh paragraph: an assertion that tries to sidestep the problems in the proffered material by means of the usual Playbook gambit of personalizing the issue: I wouldn’t believe JR even if I had been there to see it all personally. But that is an impossible counterfactual scenario; all I have to go on are JR’s proffered stories and material, which demonstrate the problems as I have so often and at such great length assessed them. 

      Then in the eighth paragraph: we get a quick shift to a romanticized riff on the fact that I (as a Catholic, apparently) was “there” … “at the rape of every child ever”. Ovvvvvv courssssse. 

      Nor – yet again – have many allegations formally lodged against priests actually involved “rape” classically defined. 

      Which romanticized riff is continued in the ninth paragraph with another revealing Playbook twist added-on: I won’t “believe” it so why should anybody tell the stories anyway? No parent would fail to recognize this dodge as one of the oldest in the book: Since you won’t believe me anyway, why should I tell you? This gambit, of course, seeks to manipulate the hearer of the story preemptively so that the hearer is almost shamed into buying the story with no further assessment. 

      And thus – in a vivid example of JR’s “logic” – I am “the rapist”. Ovvvvv coursssse. 

      And additionally: a self-dramatizing if not also manipulatively histrionic bit about the “obliterating energy” that “left [JR] shattered”. Speaking generally, this gambit – as I have pointed out several times previously in comments – presumes what has yet to be demonstrated: a direct causal link that establishes that any notable psychological or characterological defects presently observable in an allegant are the complete result of the alleged abuse and not of some pre-existing issues (that might then also very possibly themselves become an explanation for the allegation being lodged in the first place).

      Which then in the tenth paragraph provides a lead-in for some further snark and as manipulative insinuation that questioning “makes [me] feel good”. And – marvelously continuing the connective riff – that I am thus behaving – waittttt for ittttttttttt! – “exactly the same way” JR’s alleged abuser behaved, i.e. that I get my jollies by ‘destroying’, or at least ‘attempting to destroy’, somebody else. Charming. And ever so logical. 

      Then in the eleventh paragraph, apparently in an attempt to strengthen the grossly obvious illogic of the accusation that I too am a “rapist”, JR gives us a further bit: I am a “rapist” because I “believe none of” the allegants. But I have never said I “believe none of the allegants”; I have simply pointed out bits from proffered stories that I find not-credible. And drawn from the material and the overall circumstances of the Stampede and the Anderson Strategies the probability that a substantial number of the stories and allegations, being unexamined, may very well be highly dubious. And will remain so until demonstrable information constituting sufficient evidence for rational third-party assessors is provided. 

      Which then leads to the twelfth paragraph in which we get another epithetical, although masquerading as a ‘logical’ conclusion from the prior paragraphs: I am “not here to find the truth”. Which – by amazing coincidence – is precisely what I am trying to find here, and is precisely what the Playbook must somehow seek to derail. 

      And he takes the opportunity at this juncture to also generalize (by whatever ‘logic’ one might be able to determine) about Catholicism (“your religion”) – and we also get that charming bit of juvenile scatology. 

      And further – the Wig of Diagnosis and The Doctor Is In – “on some deeply pathetic level” I am caused to “behave as badly as [I] do here”. And once again, one cannot but wonder about the wonders of projection. 
      Then in the thirteenth paragraph, the prior bits are used to platform a whack at TMR as well as me: were TMR really “a gathering of decent people” then I would be “asked to leave” the site. And, of course, “decent” in the Playbook is code for accepting-everything-proffered-to-you with no questions asked. Marvelous.

      And of course, one must also wonder at the results of considering the dynamics of projection in all this.
      And in the fourteenth paragraph, the classic Playbook gambit of trying to blame the non-credibility of the proffered stories and material on “Catholics” who are “working together to make their own raped children out to be liars”. But it is only the material that can give rise to that possibility of non-credibility, not the person assessing the material. 

      And we also get the sly gambit that tries to evade the Probability issue by asking how it might be that we have found “zero” “lying raped catholic kids here”. Of course – to repeat yet again – we have not demonstrably found any to be lying; this is an internet site and we are all third-party assessors with no access to necessary corroborative evidence. But the Probability of the non-credibility of the stories we have seen here remains high and there’s no wishing-away that uncongenial fact. 

      In the fifteenth paragraph we then get the plaint that I have never asked JR “what if felt like to be raped”. Of course I haven’t; because I am still trying to establish at least the Probability that he was “raped” – and nothing he has put up here has increased that Probability. 

      Oh, and we are then informed that to ask such a question is in “bad taste”. Yet JR himself has here proffered ‘shattering’ and something about ‘obliterating’. So apparently nobody can ask, but if the allegant wishes to lard some descriptive stuff on to the presentation, then that has to be accepted without further question. 

      In the sixteenth paragraph I am then informed that I “should be banned from this site”. Naturally, if it cannot manipulate somebody, the Playbook’s next move is to try to get them squelched. 
      But then this bit also platforms another whack at TMR: I am “the only reason this site exists”. The site was here well before I came to it or had ever heard of it. 

      And then – by the wonders of projection – we are shown that it is my “sad lies [that] are here to calm the moronic” and – marvelously – “keep the cash rolling in”. As if it were not the Stampede that was set up precisely to do such a thing and has – to the tune of almost 3 billion dollars – done precisely that. 

      And that surely is “working for” the Abuseniks and surely has worked for those 12,000 or so allegants who split the proceeds (yes, with the outrageous chunks taken out by the torties for fees, percentages, and expenses). 

      Then in the seventeenth paragraph, working up to a conclusion that will of course require some one-line zingers: JR doesn’t “think this site’s much of a hit”. Really? For all the stuff he’s put up here in the record? 
      But of course the purpose of his revelation here is to take a swipe at anybody else who comments here: since the site isn’t “much” then it’s a waste of time because … what? Nobody reads it? 

      And then in the eighteenth and concluding paragraph, the heading-for-the-curtains zinger: thus this site leaves me – and other commenters presumably – “nowhere that’s where” (sic). 

      And that’s it for the late-night show, folks. 

      Then, on the 20th at 1246AM:

      JR toys with a newly-added Wig, the Wig of Exasperated-Not-Being-Answered-ness: He is still awaiting some of his usual questions in regard to SNAP from somebody identifying himself as a SNAP member. 
      Well, now JR knows what it’s like not to get questions answered. 

      And we must add the questions JR posed to the commenter ‘Thomas Doyle’, as if that commenter were the actual Fr. Thomas Doyle, the still-Father of note. 

      If anybody actually thinks that SNAP ever was designed in the Anderson Strategies to “care about victims” (I would use the term ‘allegants’) then I haven’t seen evidence of that in any commentary on this site. 
      But then: having cashed the checks, I still wonder why anybody with “compensation” would want to risk the assessment the Anderson Strategies so marvelously helped them to avoid the first time around.

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Still waiting for Mr. Pratts answers about SNAP…………… I'm guessing they'll never come. Tom Doyle doesn't answer. Mary Grant doesn't answer. And now Mr. Pratt deigns not to answer this victims questions. Does anyone still think they care about us?

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    Please let me know when P/inocchio stops lying.

  14. Publion says:

    All of the material on the table is again dodged on the 21st at 1236PM.

    This time it’s a one-liner epithet that’s supposed to be cutesy and snarky.

    And we see – as ever – that no example of the “lying” is provided.

    The Playbook requires this sort of thing since there are no answers the Stampede can provide.

    In fact, the entire Stampede has been based on the juvenile and the primitive but manipulative effort to simply toss-up a characterization or ‘spin’ and hope that enough people will simply accept it without any further assessment.

    That’s how the game is played and how it has been played from Day One.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    Stop playing the innocent. You know why you post here and I know why you post here. You fool no one.

  16. Publion says:

    And on the 24th at 318PM, having utterly nothing else, JR will simply put up his assertion about why (he thinks) I post here as if it were a fact that BOTH he and I know.

    Notice also that in claiming that he is not fooled, he presumes that nobody is fooled. Since – clearly – the distinction between his own mentation and the rest of humanity’s thoughts is not at all clear to him.

    We are in the realm of the day-room as well as the cafeteria.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    Since you keep saying we are all in a day room and or a high school cafe'. And that somehow my thought keep putting you there.

    I say walk away from me if I so nuts or so juvenile. Why engage such a lesser type?

    Where oh where are your equals to be found, P? Rome?

    Why not go there and offer your insights. I'm sure they'll be readilly taken. You are so profound. So deep. So the right thinker to stem the "stampede" you've invented.

    I know how you can stop the "stampede".

    Die; and your "abusenik" "stampede" thinking will die with you.

    You should go to where you so want to be. Just a suggestion. :^)

  18. Julie says:

    Jim Robertson, I am happy to see you are posting so many comments. I'm giving the church $5 for every comment you make. The church is growing, gives so much for charity in my community and once upon a time, saved my life, and I am happy to turn viciousness into good in order to make my Lord happy and help my community. God bless. :)

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    Julie, please compare my so called, by you, "viciousness" to the actions of your church's devotees here and it's leadership. Example: P in every word he excretes and popes who refused to allow condom usage to protect catholic Africans, in particular, against the transmission of the HIV virus. Now that's what I call a vicious disregard for real peoples' very lives.

    I do think you should send me a cheque for 10% of your $5 donations; since I'm the primogenitor of your fount of funding. Of course I'm kidding.

    I'm very glad the church was helpful in saving your life. I only wish it had done the same for others like it's own victims. In our cases the church never gave a damn; and still doesn't. Maciel and saint JP2's love fest being a  horrificly sobering example.

    If you have children Julie give the $5 to their education fund. The church has trillions. They don't need your hard earned bucks.

  20. Publion says:

    On the 25th at 422PM in the first paragraph, JR apparently cawn’t think why his “thought” keeps evoking images of a day-room (and perhaps the high-school cafeteria as well). In the light of such a difficulty, I am happy to let the readers draw their own conclusions as they will.

    But in the second paragraph he again constructs a point on a substantively inaccurate characterization: as I have said before, his material is useful  here because a) he trawls precincts of the Web that readers here might otherwise not know about and brings that material here; b) since he puts it up, it provides a dandy opportunity for readers to consider the material and assess it; and c) he himself provides a rather vivid example of the types of mentation and expression and the types of distracting gambits that are essential to the Stampede Playbook. (Although in regard to (c) there is also the strong possibility that we are seeing the mind of not just JR in action, about which see immediately below).

    Thus it is – to use his phrasing – useful to “engage such a lesser type” (or types).

    As for the third paragraph: in the matter of analysis and assessment I have no doubt that my equals and my betters are legion. But I do what I can with the material provided here, such as it may be.

    The fourth paragraph is simply epithet, and of a juvenile type anybody who went to high-school might easily recognize.

    But then but then but then: in the remaining three one-liner paragraphs we get – yet again – a smarmily phrased suggestion regarding my death.

    Although that queasy bit (not out of place in either a cafeteria or a day-room) is quickly self-excused as being “just a suggestion”.

    There was another commenter here – although no longer (at least under his own name) – whose signature violence was to deliver a smarmily-phrased bit about the death of somebody whose comments he didn’t like, and often as an exit line, while heading off the stage for the curtains.

    While the Playbook wouldn’t recommend this gambit (it is – to almost anyone except those who deploy it – rather disturbing and indicative of a number of unpleasant things, and doesn’t cast ‘victims’ in a very favorable light at all) yet there are some Abuseniks for whom this might seem an acceptable gambit and possibly even an enjoyable one.

    Which brings us right back to the type of mentalities attracted to the Stampede.

  21. Publion says:

    What options are there for assessing the JR comment of the 29th at 1126AM?

    Either a) he is simply tossing ploppy comebacks with no awareness and/or concern for any larger comprehension of his material than the immediate tactical tunnel-vision need to make a comeback or b) he genuinely is under the impression that his material as it exists in the record here cannot compare in “viciousness” to “your church’s devotees here and its leadership” (correction supplied) and – but of course – my material.

    Readers are welcome to Go Figure and come to their own conclusions.

    I would say that the problem lies precisely in that area of definitions and clarity-of-assessment included in his phrase “that’s what I would call” … what i) JR ‘calls’ and what ii) is rationally and actually the case are two different things indeed.

    Then a bit of the usual distractive larding: the deployment of the Brit usage of “cheque” (JR’s such a cosmopolitan – doncha know? – and his mother, we were once told, was a Brit, as if that explained anything). But it does evoke a wispy image of a mature urbane man of the world; we are supposed to stick with that gauzy image rather than actually examine his statements and claims.

    Then the usual bits about how the Church has not done much for “its own victims” – who, we recall, whether genuine or otherwise, having gone home with a collective 3 billion dollars or so, have evinced no such concerns – leaving us with only JR and the bom-bom drum strapped to his back and the tootling fife blared into a little megaphone while the little pair of cymbals clashed-together provide tinny punctuation. In some precincts of the Web it’s taken for entertainment and even for information.

    Nor need ‘Julie’ send any money to the Church because “the church has trillions”. Ovvv coursssse. A fine rationalization burbled suggestively by torties to prospective allegants: the church has trillions, so a) you don’t have to worry about taking some and b) you could walk home with a chunk of those trillions. What was not to like?

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    If death is what it takes to rid the world of your bullshit; then death is what I wish for you. Hurry it up please.

    Who made you the judge and jury at this site? You did. Did I agree that you should be in that position? I did not.

    You have mocked me since I first posted here and any other pov than your own.( Over 2 years now.) You were placed here do do your lying by a church built on lies. Hell! TMR was so obviously created for you. You write more here than they do. (Dave Pierre has told me he does not write this blog on his own. )

    If only once or twice you would have spoken either to me or about me in a less negative way. I would have supported your freedom of speech. You never have and that says what exactly about you and your abilities to a) discern and b) to be a seeker of truth?

    You aren't here for truth. Your here to lie. I know this because that's all you do: lie and smear.

    So why don't you hang up your wig of authority and good judgement when you have neither.

    If I were you I'd also hang myself along with the wig. People like you do not deserve to live. Honestly! The planet would be better off without you; because you so easily enable the deaths of others. That's what you live for after all to die isn't it; and then go to candyland? I'm only wishing you gain your final judgement as quickly as possible. I can say I've never wished for a human being's death before in my life. You've opened that door for me. Thanks as usual for nothing.

    Why don't you shut the fuck up about me? Ignore me. Pretend I'm not posting here. We all get it. I'm wrong and you're right (according to you). Write like I'm not here. Pretend I'm dead, please. You are obsessed with attacking your opposition. Without us you have nothing to say.

    "Type of mentalities attracted to the Stampede"  Snobbery meets invention = the catholic church. Lying liars and the liars that believe them; that's you.

    I was raped by bro James McGloin, marianist in 1963 in my junior year of highschool. That's what happened. I was there you were not (save in spirit). That's just the facts.

    So I will ask you to die in every post from here on in from me. That's all you deserve; because you are a lying piece of shit. I'd watch  out for cancer if I were you. People who lie as much as you do; and who know they are lying; as you do. Screw with themselves more than they hurt anyone else. I would not want the load of bad karma you have engendered falling on me.

    And when you do die could your executor inform TMR? I'd like to dance on your coffin.


  23. Jim Robertson says:

    Now can anyone, serious, explain why SNAP's agreeing with both the catholic and anglican church in Australia regarding $65,000 settlements? And agreeing from the hour that low number was suggested? Now that's a substantive issue.

    Signed, Waiting 4 P 2 Croak.

    • Publion says:

      On the 30th at 225PM we get largely a recitation of mostly familiar epithets.

      And JR continues on his “death” riffing – about the only interesting aspect of which is that he doesn’t seem to think it puts him rather squarely in the “viciousness” category. Which is not my problem.

      A quick review of the remaining Playbook bits then:

      In regard to the second paragraph: if you can’t answer the objections to your material, then claim you are being ‘judged’ (therefore oppressed and therefore victimized or – what the hey? – re-victimized). JR chooses to put material up on a site that allows commenting. What does he expect? Here’s what he expects: that nobody will assess his material but instead that readers will completely accept whatever he puts up and – if they are true Christians, of course – shower him with sympathetic oohs and ahhhs and clucks and thus demonstrate – to his liking – ‘respect’ and ‘charity’.

      In regard to the third paragraph: always head for the victimist high-ground (here: he has been “mocked”). This is a misch of self-pity and manipulation, seeking to position himself as the aggrieved party. Oh, and the unjustifiably aggrieved party.

      Also: TMR – to repeat – existed before I ever became aware of it.

      And the alleged reference to Dave Pierre is irrelevant. My comments are completely and always my own material and I do not in any way corroborate on the selection of the actual articles that base the threads of commentary.

      In regard to the fourth paragraph: readers who have been on the site for a while will recall that when, a few years back, I first began commenting here I did deal with JR as just another commenter who put up material. It was only after a number of exchanges that I came to the conclusion that JR was not just another commenter; I specifically used the term “sleazy whackjob” back then and readers may consider the ensuing years’ of material to judge whether I was wrong.

      Also: “freedom of speech” means precisely that. What it does not mean is that one has the “freedom” not to be assessed as to material one proffers. Thus the Playbook lunge for the Constitutional high-ground here also fails.

      Also: what are my “abilities to a) discern and b) to be a seeker of truth?”. The question itself is nonsensical: such “abilities” as I have would be evident in my material and do not require any further ‘creds’; they can be judged on their merits as they are revealed in my material.

      What JR was actually going for, perhaps, was not my “abilities” but rather my “credentials” or “authority” to question his material and other Abusenik material. In other words: what we have here is simply a repetition of the familiar distracting bit about ‘what authority do I have to assess his material?’.

      Because, of course, he doesn’t like his material being assessed and he didn’t expect his material being assessed and he can’t really deal with his material being assessed. And this brings us right back to the Anderson Strategies: they slyly took into account the weakness of both Abusenik material and the Abuseniks themselves and devised a way to create multiple-plaintiff lawsuits that would strongly move Church and Insurer attorneys toward settlement such that Abuseniks and their stories and claims would not face adversarial questioning and analysis and assessment in actual trial-process.

      In regard to the fifth paragraph: I would again say that in claiming that I am not “here for truth” and that I am “here to lie” JR actually and unintentionally describes – through the wonders of clinical projection – himself and his performance here.

      And then we get the following bit: JR doth “know this” (i.e. that I am not here for the truth and that I am only here to lie) because – waitttt for itttttt – “that’s all [i] do”. In other words: JR seeks to prove his assertion by presuming his assertion to be true. And that’s the Abusenik idea of ‘logic’; it is a circular hall of mirrors and nothing more.

      In regard to the sixth paragraph: thus and merely on the basis of his flawed ‘logic’ in the fifth paragraph, JR wants me to just go-away and stop assessing Abusenik material. I shall do neither.

      In regard to the seventh paragraph: on the basis of his imagery in the sixth paragraph (i.e. why don’t I just “hang up” my commenting here) he has provided the cutesy lead-in to the suggestion that I “hang myself” while I’m hanging-up … and so on. Neat rhetorical bit but the whole thing is built on the originally flawed premise and logic.

      And the rest of that paragraph trails off with a misch of epithetical bits.

      Although we are also informed that JR has never before wished for anybody’s death in his whole life. To which one might observe that if something as non-violent as having one’s material assessed is enough to move him to thoughts of death, then his bar is set mighty low and it’s hardly likely that nothing else has so moved him in the prior decades of his life.

      But he will then excuse himself by blaming me for his queasy and sustained death-bits. Nothing new there either.

      In regard to the eighth paragraph: we yet again merely get his whine that I should just “shut up about him”. (Juvenile scatology, a JR if not also a Playbook standard, omitted.) In other words: JR wants to have the “freedom of speech” to simply toss his material up here and not be gainsaid or assessed. TMR, thus, should be his personal playpen. (Nor, as some long-time readers might recall, will he agree to simply start up his own blog where he could do precisely that to his heart’s content.)
      But he will also try – yet again – that curiously nuanced bit of conceptual and psychological-sounding jiu-jitsu: I should realize that without the Abuseniks I would have nothing to say since I am merely “obsessed with attacking your opposition”. In other words: opposing and assessing (Abusenik) material is simply a sign of ‘obsession’. In response to that, and repeating: this is the equivalent of a doctor being “obsessed with” disease or a fire-chief “obsessed with” putting out fires or a flight-school instructor “obsessed with” preventing airline accidents.

      Abuseniks, of course, are not “obsessed with” anything when they ply their stories and claims here; they are merely truth-telling in their inimitably truth-y ways. One might allow oneself a bit of psychologizing thus: Abuseniks are “obsessed with” getting their stories accepted because – in a classic form of ‘reaction formation’ – they see untruth everywhere except in their own material and claims and stories and allegations. (Memo to Abuseniks: you shouldn’t go the psychology route if you don’t know enough about psychology and the dynamics involved.)

      In regard to the ninth paragraph: going for the high-ground of Victimhood again, JR will now plaint that the term “type[s] of mentalities” is nothing but “snobbery”. Thus Abuseniks whose material is problematic are merely the victims of elitist “snobbery” that presumes to assess that material. What do Abuseniks think a discussion-site is for? (Answer: a discussion site is only for ‘discussion’ if that ‘discussion’ agrees with them; otherwise they are simply being victimized and/or re-victimized by elitist snobs and everybody who disagrees with their material should just shut-up and go-away.)

      And that paragraph also includes a lead-in to taking a whack at the Church as well: “snobbery meets invention”. And that bit trails off into a juvenile repetitive riff on ‘lying’.

      In regard to the tenth paragraph: we merely get another repetition of his original claim of being (whatever’ed) by the cleric half a century ago. But the problems with his proffered material in that regard have been discussed at length here on many occasions.

      However we are no closer in any way to his concluding assertion (“that’s just the facts”) being credible or probable.

      And it has to be noted yet again that by the very fact that I (or anybody else) was “not there” precisely and immediately and unavoidably activates the Third-Party Observer Problem that so profoundly afflicts this type of claim and allegation.

      In regard to the eleventh paragraph: JR apparently has – to his own satisfaction anyway – provided enough ‘logical’ grounds to assert in conclusion that he will continue to “ask [me] to die” in every subsequent post he makes. Clearly unable to grasp the psychological sequelae of such a tactic, he can – in my opinion – put up whatever he wants. It is, after all, his “freedom of speech”. However, he cannot claim immunity-from-assessment for any of it.

      And isn’t that what Victimism and Abuseniks claim, for all practical purposes? They want exactly and fully such an immunity-from-assessment; they expect it; and they are going to get mighty riled-up if they don’t get it. But their consequent tantrums are not going to stop me (and hopefully anybody else) from assessing their material.

      And that paragraph riffs on in that mode. Apparently having convinced himself of the ‘logic’ of his position, JR’s flood-gates open up and he’s on about cancer (connecting it – the Doctor Is In – with ‘lying’). And – as a cherry on top of his heaped-up sundae he has confected here – I not only lie but I “know” that I am “lying” … JR knows that through his personal tea-leaves or the tin-foil hat, perhaps.

      And the concluding paragraph continues on that roll, set up as a free-standing paragraph merely to provide his idea of a snappy one-liner exit bit.
      As for the comment at 233PM on the 30th: we still don’t have any link to anything that might provide corroboration for JR’s assertions about the specifics of the Australian matter (such as it may or may-not be). So then there’s nothing “substantive” here at all since everything is based merely on his unsupported assertion.

  24. Julie says:

    Jim, Nah. The churches have their own budgets and mine needs all the help it can get. We have a food pantry and give help to people who have utility bills, rent, etc., that they can't pay. What you are wanting to put out there is the idea that the church is insanely rich and insanely evil so, as Publion pointed out, is part of the playbook strategy – Come on, sue! Don't feel bad, and let's all pretend the church deserves it because it has done NOTHING! NOTHING! I tell ya! to help victims. Only rolling over and giving large payouts because dioceses were put in the position of having to pay victims without the victims having to have a shred of truth to their claims, because going to trial on each of the bundled claims would have depleted the churches, which by the way belong to US. I love Publionn's analyses, BTW. He takes you to the woodshed Jim and analyzes what you put out there. I for one am with Publion; I'm not going to march in lockstep with the ridiculous accusations you post on here.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Gee Julie! Maybe your life wasn't worth saving after all.

      If you want to be stupid feel free (so far you're doing a good job); give the catholic church every spare dime you have.

      Why don't you up it to $10.00 per my post?

      You owe the church $75 bucks from my posting on this thread alone.

      I shall work to bankrupt you. And when you are penniless, from all you've given to the church, I'll be happy to see you attempt to get some of that "love" back from the church. You'll starve.

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    The "bom-bom drum"? Will the "bom-bom drum" be played at your funeral? Is the bom-bom drum another of your inventions like the "stampede" and "Abuseniks"?

    Ships pool for P's D day anyone? Name the hour and day of "it's" "departure". I will accept cheques written on gauze if I win. Then I'll use the gauze to wrap the body.

    P must be the antidote to st. Teresa of Avilla. she smelled like flowers after she'd been in the grave for centuries.(sure she did) P stinks like hell and he, supposedly, isn't dead yet.

    What no discussion of Australia and SNAP and Tommy Doyle O.P.? Quel suprise!

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey Julie! The catholic church is worth trillion's. Figure it out for yourself,( if you can add), Take the loot of 7 empires + the loot of all the pagan faiths it superceeded + add to that the idiocy of people like yourself hoping to buy their way into heaven and you get the sum of TRILLIONS. You are idiot!

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    I'm sorry. You are "AN" idiot!

  28. Julie says:

    God bless you, Jim. BTW, I'm sorry, I have to post this. I thought of you Jim and a lot of others when I saw this quote from Mark Shea: "Sexually abused minors are, for many in our Chattering Classes, not subjects of concern, but objects of utility."


  29. Julie says:

    Sorry, I'll quit after this. Jim, what is wrong with the idea of giving $$ just to help people? I love helping people. I and all other Catholics do not believe in buying your way into heaven. We are not taught that. Anti-Catholics want to believe we do, although the Church rejected the pelagian heresy centuries ago. If I AM buying my way into heaven, you're helping me. :) lol. Have a good day.

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    Mark Shea is a "Chattering" idiot.

    "Chattering Classes"! Does he mean the people, the electorate; the citizenery, who despise child rape and the people who help make those rapes happen?

    There's nothing wrong in helping people Julie.  But helping people who are already the richest religion on earth seems a little stupid to me. You know exactly where your money goes?


    Why is it the people who benefit greatly money wise from telling you there is a heaven; just happen to be the same people who get life long support for telling you how to get to this imagined place?  What an incredable coincidense!

  31. Julie says:

    Whatever. Jim, You're helping me help the church. :) God bless you.


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Swell! Now if I could only get you to help the church's victims who they refuse to help.