Show Me the Money! After Philly Accuser Testified Under Oath Priest Abuse Claim Was Not About Money, He Later Files Lawsuit Against Catholic Church Seeking … Money


Yes, Virginia … It's all about the money.

The old expression goes: "Whenever anybody says, 'It's not about the money,' it's about the money."

No other aphorism is more fitting to the case of the Philadelphia accuser who is now suing the Catholic Church even though he swore repeatedly at two criminal trials that he was not seeking money in claiming that a priest abused him many years ago.

Yet another crock revealed


Pinocchio – again

A criminal jury twice rejected the accuser's claim that Philadelphia priest Rev. Andrew McCormick abused him back in the 1990s as a 10-year-old altar boy.

And at the first trial, in February 2014, the accuser specifically answered the question whether he was making an abuse claim in order to score cash. "I have a full-time job," the accuser said at the time. "I don't need money. I have a very successful career."

Indeed, during closing arguments Philly Assistant D.A. Kristen Kemp then emphatically told the jury, "This was never about money."

Then, in the second trial, in February 2015, the accuser repeated, "I don't need to [sue for money], I have a pretty successful career."

And once again, ADA Kemp angrily claimed during closing arguments, "He (the accuser) wants nothing from this man (Rev. McCormick)."

Now, only six months after the end of the second trial, the accuser – who has enjoyed anonymity in the media – has filed a major lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia seeking big cash.

And yet another lie

Not only does it appear that the accuser misled two juries and the public about his intention to seek money, it appears that he also lied in his lawsuit as well.

In his lawsuit against the Church, the accuser claims that Rev. McCormick failed a polygraph test relating to questions whether or not he had ever abused anyone in his life.

In fact, as McCormick's lawyer asserts, the retired FBI agent who administered the test concluded "the exact opposite."

"I had Father McCormick take a polygraph exam prior to trial at his request," McCormick lawyer Trevan Borum has said. "He passed with flying colors."

And the lies just keep comin'.

[HT: Ralph Cipriano,]


  1. Jim Robertson says:

    Ralph just keeps those "lies commin'  The plaintif was asked: If he was fraudulently charging a crime in order to get money. That's a very different question than asking if he intended to sue for damages. And Cipriano pretends to be a reporter???????

    So what? He sued. Why shouldn't he? If he wasn't damaged he couldn't sue. Unless he's a fraud. Which is what all this nonsense is about.

    When did the plaintiff ever say he "wouldn't sue"?

    This is the bottom of the barrel. An injured person has a right to compensation. Duh!

    You are the one's sweating over money. That's all you are worried about. Look at the picture you've posted to head this article. Not a picture of the jailed monsignor but a picture of money.

    COMPENSATION IS NOT A CRIME! Prove John Doe a fraud and guess what? You'll have ONE fraudster. ONE! (And also if he's proven a fraud then the entire justice system will appear fraudulent). How fucking convenient! So many ducks and so lined up!

    Why has Cipriano been doing this little dance? Why to "prove" John Doe a fraud.

    A privately paid, former reporter (Cipriano) is paid  to "report" on a mob lawyer's blog about how a Philly police captain's son, a heroin addict, just happens to have landed the only American hierarch in jail; and that he has done it fraudulently; and with the help of the D.A.'s office; a jury; and a judge. There are a lot of ducks in that row. Were they placed there? This has all the smell of a set up. Not against the church; but,rather if this rather odd case is proven fraudulent, in favor of the church.

    Ralph feels an injustice has occured. That is now moral superiority? Where's the proof an injustice has occurred? Is it coming in September along with the pope's visit to Philly?


  2. Jim Robertson says:

    A retired FBI agent, working for the church, administors an inadmissable lie detector test and that's proof to you? But a jury and court proceeding and guilty verdict matter not at all?

    Don't worry the pope's forthcoming presence in Philly will "magically" bring the real truth to light.

    What a fucking set up!

    • Publion says:

      On the 28th at 957AM – again with a level of observation not characteristic of JR”s material – notes that while the lie-detector test (which the defendant priest in this case requested and passed) is “inadmissable” (sic) in court (which is true) yet the “jury and court proceeding and guilty verdict matter not at all”.

      Nice try – whoever came up with this (and I am not addressing JR here). But it doesn’t work.

      It’s comparing apples and oranges:

      The lie-detector test is indeed inadmissible in court, but it remains a credible basis for forming an opinion and in this case the fact that an accused asked for a properly-administered test and passed it (twice, if I recall correctly) certainly does not lead toward the opinion that the accused has something to hide or is attempting to avoid examination and analysis.

      While the “jury and court proceeding and guilty verdict matter not at all” a) refers to a different case (the Lynn case, I imagine) where b) there are clearly established and reasonable grounds (which certainly were enough to convince the Superior Court) for doubting the integrity of the trial process that guided the jury and resulted in the conviction.

      And while the toy-block approach can then simply state that the State Supreme Court overturned the the State Superior Court, that is hardly sufficient for genuinely comprehending this matter: if the State Superior Court saw enough problems to make its notable and unusually forthright Decision and Order, then regardless of the fact that the State Supreme Court then managed to reverse the Superior Court, those who are looking for truth must weigh the reality that the Superior Court judges – presumably competent and hardly anti-system types – took so unusually forthright a step.

      Was the Superior Court completely and utterly wrong? If so, how could it be so wrong in its legal assessment? And if it was only partially wrong, then in what ways was it wrong?

      But for those who read the State Supreme Court reversal (as was discussed here when it was issued) it becomes instantly clear that the Supreme Court didn’t really come to grips with the issues presented at all, but simply sought – for whatever purposes or reasons – to overturn the Superior Court by whatever window-dressing means necessary.

      That some element of ‘politics’ had something to do with the Supreme Court’s reversal cannot but appear possible; that the Supreme Court found very little problematic with the Superior Court’s assessment of the law and jurispraxis of the Lynn case at the trial level … renders the possibility of ‘politics’ a probability.

      And then the comment again goes off into the fever-swamp with the tea-leaf assurances about the Papal visit and the ‘magic’ “that will bring the real truth to light”. Just what any of this is supposed to mean is anybody’s guess, but if you want to follow the trail of breadcrumbs JR has been leaving on the forest floor, you should be heading toward: Everyone in authority in cahoots with Pope who has set up all these trials and their failures in order to make Abuseniks look bad just in time for his arrival but it will all blow up in his face … somehow and then the Abuseniks will suddenly be acknowledged and recognized by one and all as right and very clever all along and all their questioners and doubters will be reeely reeely sorry.

      And on that basis the comment then concludes by attempting to appear gruffly macho and acutely insightful … about its magical tea-leaves.

    • Publion says:

      On the 28th at 948AM JR (no doubt with the help of a muse; see below) will take a stab at Ralph Cipriano’s reporting and judges it as mere ‘pretend’. (Abuseniks – doncha know? – have no problem being judgmental themselves, but – doncha see? – that’s just because they are authorized to be judgmental on the basis of their heroic truthiness (which, not often being demonstrated, simply has to be believed).


      And indeed – in yet another repetition of a classic JR give-away bit – Ralph Cipriano (hereinafter: ‘RC’) “lies”. Had you been waitttttttting forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt?


      Now, in a bit of analytical and legal distinction-making far beyond any demonstrated capacity ever seen in JR’s material, we are given this distinction: a) the “plaintif” (sic) being asked “if he was fraudulently charging a crime in order to get money” and b) that plaintiff being asked “if he intended to sue for damages”.


      There is such a distinction there. But – again – the Probability of the plaintiff’s being truthful in answering No to (a) while not ever intending (b) as ‘the other shoe’ to be dropped … that Probability is certainly high enough to be considered in a RC’s reporting of the situation.


      And on that basis, we have a situation where this plaintiff (the alleged victim in the two failed criminal cases), with the criminal cases now being over (and having been decided not in favor of the alleged victim), now brings a civil lawsuit. It is certainly a plausible, and even probable, legal strategy that the (b) lawsuit would have been ever so much more fortified if (a) the criminal case had gone in favor of the alleged victim. But while the criminal cases have failed, the decision was made by the alleged-victim and now-plaintiff to pursue the second phase, the civil lawsuit, nonetheless.


      Fair enough. And I doubt many people with even basic knowledge of law and human psychology would be surprised at this civil lawsuit being filed.


      On to the second paragraph:


      Here we see revealed (courtesy of JR) some of the blocks used in the construction of the Abuseniks’ justification of their lawsuits (and monies gained thereby).


      First, the illogical and horse-before-the-cart presumption that if a person weren’t “damaged” then he “couldn’t sue”. Not quite.


      Because (i) it’s not simply a matter of a) a person merely being “damaged” as it a matter of b) whether the case can be rationally and plausibly and persuasively made that whatever ‘damage’ the plaintiff demonstrates was caused by the alleged tort as perpetrated by the Party-Defendant.


      And because (ii)  as any tortie will assure a prospective plaintiff: in the actual dynamics of tort law and process,  it’s not a matter of c) whether the damage was indeed caused by the Party-Defendant but rather a matter of d) whether a jury can be convinced that the perhaps obvious damage was caused by the Party-Defendant. The key focus, therefore, is on (d), not on (c); in other words, it’s not so much a matter of proving the actual truth of the allegations but only getting the jury to accept your claim based on the allegations. That’s the swampy under-ground of the tort system and it is what it is.


      But there is actually no functional block to anybody having a run at the tort system and few torties will spend their careers talking prospective clients/plaintiffs out of pursuing a lawsuit. Thus JR’s picture-book presumption that x) only honest and truthy people make the allegations that constitute the basis of lawsuits, and therefore y) if a person files a lawsuit then s/he is ‘prima facie’, ‘ipso facto’, and ‘ab initio’ telling the truth … fails, and rather fundamentally and spectacularly.


      But it’s a handy bit of illogic for the Abuseniks: I filed a lawsuit and got a bunch of money, therefore I am thereby proven to have been a truthy truth-teller and damaged (or wrecked or shattered or fill-in-the-blank) victim.


      Perhaps this plaintiff (and his tortie) are gambling on the Anderson/Stampede Strategy working at least one more time: wrecked but truthy hero-victim makes allegation, therefore deserves cash, and if the Church tries to defend itself then the reigning Victimist milieu will do more damage to the Church than coughing up the dough, so a settlement it will be. It has worked rather well before.


      And second, we are informed that the question of whether or not the plaintiff is “a fraud” is simply more “nonsense”. Actually, it is the heart of the matter. Which is precisely why the Anderson Strategies have invariably sought to prevent analysis of it.


      (In which case JR’s grand mistake all along here has been to create a forum for his issues, stories and claims while still imagining and presuming that he would do so without that ‘heart of the matter’ ever being analyzed.)


      Thus JR’s effort here to epithetically scare-away the frightening possibility of such analysis of possible or probable “fraud” by merely tagging it as “nonsense” illuminates JR far more than JR illuminates the issue here.


      On to the third paragraph:


      Did the plaintiff “ever say he ‘wouldn’t sue’”? In the BigTrial article entitled “This Time It’s About the Money”, RC writes: “At both … criminal trials the alleged victim in this case, as well as the prosecutor, made a point of saying that the victim … wasn’t in it for the money” and that “that’s why he hadn’t filed a civil suit, the victim said on the witness stand at both trials”. (The first quote is taken from that article’s first paragraph, and the second quote is taken from that article’s second paragraph.)


      That seems to be rather forthright and not simply because of the allegant’s own statements. Consider this: in criminal trials victims don’t get money awards anyway – it’s only in civil trials (thus lawsuits) that monetary awards to an allegant are possible. Thus if this ‘in it for the money’ question came up – as it did in the criminal trial – then it could not possibly have been referring to the alleged victim’s participation in the criminal trial and could only have been referring to any possible future civil lawsuit that the alleged victim might plan to bring at a later date (i.e. after the hoped-for successful prosecution of the priest, which would have made the prospect for winning in a civil lawsuit – via trial or settlement – much more of a sure thing).


      So much for the third paragraph.


      On to the fourth:


      On the basis of his demonstrably failed third-paragraph, JR will don the Wig of Exasperated Truthiness and toss an epithet that in light of the failed third-paragraph simply makes him ‘look bad’.


      And then he tosses in a truism that yet manages to be inapt here: “an injured person has a right to compensation”. But that is only provided, of course, that it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the injury was caused by the alleged tort”. Thus – again – a pre-existing ‘injury’ (or “wreckage” of a life) does not entitle an individual to allegate a tort and accuse an alleged tort-feasor/defendant, and then claim – if successful by one means or  another – that the ill-gotten monies were just “compensation” for that (pre-existing) “injury” or “wreckage” or what-have-you.


      The Stampede made lodging an allegation by troubled and cash-needy (but enterprising) individuals appear in their own minds as simply a sort of legal-process variant of filing for disability or social-security. (And disability fraud is certainly something that exists, as we have seen, even among such heroic civic servants as FDNY fire-fighters and police.)


      So to JR a hearty “Duh!” backatcha.


      The fifth paragraph tries to make it seem as if only the Church (or whatever conglomerate “you” appears in his mind here) is concerned “over money”. Readers may consider this stab at spin as they will.


      Then the rather witlessly uncomprehending reading of the illustration accompanying the TMR article here as being about “money”. Of course it’s a picture of money since the article is about a civil lawsuit that is looking for money from a person whose victimization has been twice-rejected at criminal trial and who had previously said he wasn’t in it for the money and now appears very much to be in it for the money.


      The sixth paragraph – aside from being cast in the ever-suspicious scare-caps – is a distraction: nobody denies here that “compensation in not a crime”. But then that’s not the key point: the key point is whether the monies are actually justified compensation, or are instead simply the fruits of non-veracious allegations. And – conceptually speaking – compensation gained by perjurious allegations and statements is indeed criminal.


      And the rest of the paragraph trials off into incoherence, despite the scatology.


      The seventh paragraph – for those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook – is useful: in an effort to avoid the issue, the play here is to question the ‘motives’ of the questioner. (We saw this same thing not long ago when, as the pretend-black-but-really-white female Rachel Dolezal matter grew in the press, Al Sharpton simply questioned Why her parents would publicly give out the information that they were white and she was born white.)


      Thus here the game is to try to distract readers from the substance by trying to inveigle them into the motives: “Why has Cipriano been doing this little dance?”. What “little dance”? His reporting on the Abuse trials in Philadelphia? And “Why to ‘prove’ John Doe a fraud” (that set of quotes around ‘prove’ is – again – far too rhetorically sly and subtle for JR’s demonstrated capacities; another mind and hand is at work here).


      Building on the seventh paragraph’s set-up, the eighth launched whole-hog into its task, trying to somehow plop-toss on the basis of assorted aspects of RC’s professional work.


      But as you read the eighth’s text you find yourself simply descending – conceptually as well as grammatically – into a fever-swamp of babble that apparently is trying to put “the D.A.’s office” and “a jury” and “a judge” all on RC’s side, who is – of course  – “in favor of the church” (sic).


      And then bits about “ducks” and “smells” … and – had you been waittttttttting forrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – the pooh-poohing of “this rather odd case” (Victimist dogma would call this gambit ‘minimization’). This is a sly but alas rather obvious move: the Abuseniks are trying to distance themselves from this case (as perhaps from all the Philadelphia cases) since these cases aren’t making the Stampede and ‘victims’ and the Abuseniks themselves (as if they needed any help) ‘look baaaaaaaaad’.


      And the whole thing trails off in the ninth paragraph as if RC’s conclusions based on his extensive analysis is simply a result of what he “feels”, which (if it were true) casts his position and conclusions as some form of posed “moral superiority” (as if RC had given no exposition or analysis to demonstrate his position and his conclusions).


      But that bit actually and rather acutely describes precisely the Victimist/Abusenik gambit: on the basis of nothing but “feelings” and unsupported allaegations and efforts to distract and spin, the Abuseniks merely ‘self-identify’ as ‘victims’, and once having donned the mantle of that status, do indeed attempt to squelch any analysis of their material through a posed “moral superiority” (e.g. JR, with gay (in the classic sense) abandon ,uttering dark theological imprecations and moral denunciations and psychological diagnoses against all those who don’t buy his material).


      And a lame effort to cap this little confection with a cherry in the form of a snarky reference – yet again – to the upcoming papal visit to Philadelphia. 

    • TrueCatholic says:

      What a joke. You bypass all the dozens of incriminating factors, on the defendant. And choose one or two factors, to smear the victim. A inadmissable lie detector result. From a  person, working for the Church. How can a so-called "Catholic"  organization, defend a man, proven to be a peodiphile ?

  3. Trew says:

    Can he be prosecuted for pejury?  

    As I understand it, he testified to this repeatedly under oath.

  4. Michael Skiendzielewski says:

    And this is an important issue?   the victim allegedly changed his mind about a civil suit and now has initiated one?

    • Vince says:


    • Publion says:

      On the 28th at 928PM ‘Michael Skiendzielewski’ asks whether this is “an important issue”; “this” refers to the fact that the present allegant has filed a civil suit after insisting that he wasn’t “in it for the money”.

      Since this is a site dedicated to examining aspects and elements of the Catholic Abuse Matter, then it is certainly within the site’s purview.

      And I would say that this issue is of importance in that it illuminates a) the monetary (or – if you wish – “compensation”) dynamics that are never far from the heart of the Abuse Matter and b) the veracity problem that is also never far from the heart of the Abuse Matter.

      In light of those elements, the proposal (i) that he merely changed his mind (after the two criminal cases failed?) must be considered in light of the possibility of (ii) that I outlined in a prior comment on this thread: there was a two-stage plan:  first, to let the criminal case proceed to a success, which would then form the basis for a far stronger civil lawsuit and a far clearer path to the cash.

      If my suggestion as outlined in (ii) is correct, then the allegant did not ‘change his mind’ but instead precisely did not change it, even though the first phase (success in the criminal trial) had failed (and failed twice).

      And in a larger sense, are there really any ‘unimportant’ issues in the examination and assessment of the Catholic Abuse Matter? At this point it is in the record here that Abuseniks decry:  objectivity; being taken “verbatum” in their stories, claims and assertions; focusing on establishing facts rather than merely accepting assertions and allegations and stories as presumptive facts;  questioning aspects that are incoherent or irrational or implausible; and various other elements that they consider ‘nit-picking’ or ‘quibbling’ or ‘attacks’ and ‘personal attacks’.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    My nine inchs as compared to P's 3 feet. If size of bullshit matters. Dipshit wins. He keeps showing me his. Ugh! Freud would have a field day.

    Did I say all authority was corrupt in Philly? I don't think I did.  Perhaps just enough are. Just enough to do a job.

    God knows the church; the Philly police; the Philly justice system; and Philly heroin dealers  have all been proven at times to be mob connected. Why wouldn't I call all that into question?

    Particular when this issue has such a low matrix. So low it's unseen. Beware the unseen!

    Are we to pretend that it's impossible to corrupt public officials? Have you looked at the Congress lately?

    I wrote all of the above that was posted under my name. Oh ye of little faith!

    Hey I could be wrong about Philly. But it's just too easy for you to question the flaws in Doe's testimony according to you. Way too easy. Too too easy! So very like a set up.

    if your side can speculate about the plaintiff, Why can't my side question the whole scandal as presented ?

    SNAP's taught me one thing for certain. Distrust everything as presented particularly when authority over the story line is granted, sans questioning.

    • Publion says:

      On the 28th at 942PM JR will once again try to rely on his oft-claimed ‘fact’ that “victims has been questioned by everyone including our own lawyers”(sic), from which hugely dubious bit (see below) JR will then puff up his pinfeathers and – the Wig of Implacable Truthiness and Integrity – warn me not to “dare pretend we haven’t been questioned”.

      We have been all over this before but in short: one’s own tortie is not likely to be ‘questioning’ adversarially and is much more likely to be ‘questioning’ simply to select and burnish the best elements of the allegated story. So to be “questioned” by one’s own lawyers doesn’t carry much weight.

      And the Anderson Strategies had already built upon the fact that if you can create a sufficiently numerous multiple-plaintiff case, then Insurers – regardless of the viability of the allegations and claims – are going to be strongly moved toward a settlement and aren’t really going to be interested in adversarial examination for the purpose of establishing actual veracity and validity of the (many) claims.

      And once that (very predictable) decision was made by the Insurers, then the Church (which would have risked losing its insurance coverage altogether if it rejected the Insurers’ decision) had little choice but to settle – and settlement, precisely, sidesteps adversarial questioning and examination. Instead, such questions as Church and Insurer attorneys then would have asked the allegants would simply have been for the purpose of getting a picture of how much money each specific allegant would get for that allegant’s specific story and claims and allegations.

      Thus – again – the settlement procedure, especially in a multiple-plaintiff case, would precisely have precluded any substantive and sustained adversarial questioning whatsoever.

      And we have seen demonstrated here so many times how shrewd the Anderson template was in avoiding having to put Abuseniks and their stories and claims and allegations up on the stand to face actual adversarial examination.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    What happened to victims has been questioned by everyone including our own lawyers. So don't you dare pretend we haven't been questioned.

  7. Jim Robertson says:

    The possibility of corruption is just as obvious from our pov as is the corruption you claim exists from yours, regarding us.

    The difference is you've no proof of fraud on our part only hearsay from a church paid none witness.;

    But you are waiting for Philly to go "off" in your favor. 

    Which would be the one and only fraud ever produced to back your argument. If it is fraud.

    By the way you've presented corrupt police as an example not I, So one can have corrupt police when it comes to personal gain but never for clerical gain which might also include, a payout?

    All speculation on my part, it's true; but that's still doesn't rule out the possibility of corruption in Philly around this case and around this issue… Too easy a target is simply that: Too easy a target.

    • Publion says:

      On the 29th at 1218AM, JR will now try another track: “The possibility of corruption is just as obvious from our pov as the corruption you claim exists from yours, regarding us”.

      Not quite at all.

      The simple fact of “possibility” is grossly insufficient; almost anything and everything is ‘possible’ when considering phenomena.

      Instead, what one has to do (as the Scientific Method requires) is to establish – at the very least – the probability of this or that outcome or explanation.

      Thus here, we have tried to conduct substantive and sustained analysis precisely to get a better grasp on the probability of a certain explanation, demonstrated by evidence and rationality and plausibility. While the Abuseniks, when finally pushed to it, rely on nothing more than bare assertion and innuendo, and deploy those gambits merely to establish ‘possibility’ rather than plausible probability.

      So there is no ‘equivalence’ here at all.

      And that is – contrary to the second paragraph – “the difference”. And it is a very big difference.

      And the second paragraph once again tries to change the subject by going on about “proof of fraud”. As I have said before, given the lack of evidence, the best that can be done is to establish Plausibility and  Probability, and in that regard I think that Plausible Probability has more than sufficiently been established as to the fraudulent potentials in the Stampede.

      The third paragraph simply returns to that whacky bit about “Philly” ‘going off’ in favor of the Church. No explanation of this obscure metaphor has been proffered by the Abuseniks, although they have been asked for one. What is going to explode? Against whom? In whose interests? Set off by whom?

      And the fourth paragraph, seeking to draw a conclusion on the basis of the third, collapses into incoherence.

      As to the fifth paragraph: what “gain” can police have for corrupting themselves in the service of the Church? Especially in this day and age and especially given the clearly-demonstrated anti-Church proclivities of the D.A. there? Why would corrupt public officials, presumably shrewd, put themselves in such a position? What can the Church offer them?

      There is an answer provided (by innuendo, as so often) by JR: they will get “a payout”. So now we are to introduce into this Abusenik scenario the possibility that the Church is paying-off the police? All of them? Which of them? The only police involved are either family relations or friends of the family of Billy Doe (whose father and perhaps other relatives are members of the police fraternity). And was the D.A. paid off to carry on this remarkable sequence of prosecutions? Does any of this make any sense at all?

      The sixth paragraph then admits that this is “all speculation” by JR. But – doncha see? – he has already (to his own cognitive satisfaction, anyway) cleared the path for his “speculation” by a) ignoring the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’ and by b) implying that Abuseniks and anti-Stampede types are ‘equivalent’ in all ‘speculating’ together. But it is only the Abuseniks who proffer “speculation” (when they are not simply tossing off unsupported assertion and allegation) while the anti-Stampede position has been conducting sustained and substantive assessment and inquiry.

      And the whole bit concludes then with that rhetorically ominous repetition of the “too easy a target” bit. Of course it’s “too easy”, but only if you have limited yourself conveniently to suggesting ‘possibility’ rather than the far more difficult task of establishing probability.

    • Publion says:

      As to the JR comment of the 28th at 937PM:

      In the first paragraph, more mere epithet, having something to do with “inchs” (let’s not even try) and “bullshit”, and the rest. And the whole bit being capped (and marvelously so) with the Wig of Psychological Knowledge and Competence declaiming that “Freud would have a field day” – although if Dr. Freud’s methods  were to be applied here, the focus  would most surely be on JR’s purely gratuitous introduction of a metaphor based on the length of the male organ. And back to the high-school cafeteria we go. 

      In the second paragraph: I did not say that JR said “all authority in Philly”; I quoted JR in writing that his bit “apparently is trying to put “the D.A.’s office” and “a jury” and “a judge” all on RC’s side, who is – of course  - “in favor of the church” (sic)”. So once again JR creates something that wasn’t said in order to a) create for himself a more congenial target and b) avoid the point that was actually made. 

      But while he rejects his own characterization – i.e. that “all authority in Philly” is aligned in the service of the Church – of my point,  he now goes down the same road by claiming that “perhaps just enough [authorities in Philly] are [in cahoots with the Church]”, and then tries to rhetorically bolster that bit by riffing on it ominously (“Just enough to do the job”). 

      And perhaps none are in cahoots in the service of the Church. And perhaps many authorities (political, media) are in cahoots against the Church – that seems more probable than JR’s attempt to ‘refine’ his assertive allegation by limiting the number of those authorities to “just enough to do the job”. Which would include the D.A., judge, jury (and perhaps plural here). But one way or the other, JR has simply relied upon innuendo to do his heavy-lifting for him here. 

      The third paragraph tries then to bolster all that in the second paragraph by further innuendo: “God knows” that major public authorities in Philly are “mob connected”. While even the BigTrial site has demonstrated quite extensively that a number of public authorities in that city are to some extent “mob connected”, I can recall no instance of it being demonstrated that “the church” (sic) is included. But then, JR doesn’t rely on actual demonstrated sources of information for his assertion here; instead, he purports to tell us what “God knows”. And JR knows what “God knows” – perhaps because he had a revelation from “John 23” during his little séance behind the papal throne on the main altar of St. Peter’s. 

      The fourth paragraph goes on somehow about “such a low matrix” and readers so inclined can try to suss out the meaning as they may. If, indeed, meaning there be. 

      Then the fifth paragraph conveniently derails the discussion at issue by riffing on the general possibility of ‘corrupting’ “public officials”. Who denied such a possibility? But is this supposed to be further innuendo to the effect that the Church might have ‘corrupted’ “public officials”? In what way? To what purpose? 

      (Short Abusenik come-back here: to make victims look bad. Thus the jaw-dropping problems with the Billy Doe stories, the multiple prosecutions and efforts at prosecution leading to the various convictions, the failures of jurispraxis and all the other problems noted by the Superior Court … were all done at the behest of the Church. Readers may consider the possibility or probability of this as they may. “Are we to pretend” … all of that?)

      The sixth paragraph – yet again – slyly tries to slide over JR’s muse-problem by claiming that JR “wrote all of the above that was posted under my name”. Neat and sly but there is a gaping gap in his statement: surely he typed up the words in the comments posted under his name, but the ideas and the phrasings aren’t at all ruled out as coming from … elsewhere. 

      The seventh paragraph then tacks in the opposite direction to most of JR’s assertions and allegations on this “Philly” material: chummily, he now tosses off that “Hey I could be wrong about Philly”. Indeed. 
      But he then – as ever – implicitly rejects that possibility by claiming that “it’s just too easy for [me] to question the flaws in Doe’s testimony” (this bit then riffed-upon repetitiously for further oomph). 

      In the Billy Doe testimony it is “easy” and “too easy” to question the “flaws” because – not to put too fine a point on it – the testimony is so very flawed to begin with: multiple stories, contradictory elements, implausible if not also impossible scenarios, contradictory testimony and evidence provided by others … and all of this on top of the fact that we are dealing with an allegant demonstrated to be a frequent drug-user (and one of the characteristic sequelae of such drug abuse is a marked tendency to not-tell the truth).
      Thus JR’s effort here to assert by innuendo that the Billy Doe testimony is a “set up” fails, not least because it would require the willing cooperation of Billy Doe and his family in making so incoherent a presentation (and initiating the case in the first place, as well).

      (But JR is apparently taken with his “set up” scenario and we’ll probably be seeing it again here.)

      Then a sly bit in the eighth paragraph: as if the analysis of the testimony is nothing but mere ‘speculation’, and therefore since one side (the anti-Stampede side) is ‘speculating’ then why can’t the other side (the Abusenik side) “speculate” too? 

      But the anti-Stampede side (if you wish) has not been ‘speculating’ out of thin air; the testimony is there for everyone to read and to assess and that has been done at great length on both this site and the BigTrial site. Whereas the Abuseniks have indeed simply been engaging in mere speculation and assertion to try to sidestep the abyssal problems with the testimony and with“the scandal” generally. 

      And the ninth and concluding paragraph brings us back to SNAP (all those 3x5s in the shoebox have to be given some play, after all): “Distrust everything as presented”, bolstered by “particularly when authority over the story line is granted, sans questioning”. 

      Well now. 

      That’s precisely the lesson I have taken from the Abuseniks and the Stampede, especially in regard to the Victimist “authority over the story line”, which – as I have limned it so often here – has to be this story line: large-futured and utterly innocent and pure waif is ruthlessly and deliberately raped into wreckage by pedophile priest abetted by equally repugnant enabling hierarchs. 

      And – also in conformity with JR’s formulation – I realize that this “story line” cannot be permitted to crunch on “sans questioning” and so I question and assess and examine. 

      But I wasn’t just “taught” this by the Abuseniks. I learned this lesson when reviewing the historical record of Soviet and Nazi and Fascist agitprop and the later-derived tactics and strategies of Victimist agitprop. Because the methodology is the same, then and now.

  8. John Duffin says:

    The good old catholic church at it again, pleeding victimhood. Please!               popecrimes          abusetracker

    • Publion says:

      On the 29th at 712AM ‘John Duffin’ will do a familiar Abusenik ‘drive-by’ turn, simply tossing up a link to You-Tube, accompanied by nothing more than a manipulative assertive spin about the “good old catholic church” (sic) “pleeding victimhood” (sic).

      The source of this You-Tube video is apparently (hard to determine from the text of his comment) Bishop-Accountability’s ‘Abusetracker’ site in regard to “popecrimes”.

      He is welcome to read more extensively on this site as well as continuing his perusal of the B-A site.

    • Vince says:

      Agreed P the Duffin link was dumber than I thought.

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    One doesn't have to be acting "in favor of the church" One can be acting because a favor's owed to people other than the church; and they could have arranged a favor for the church.

    • Publion says:

      On the 29th at 949PM, JR will spin further ‘possibilities’ which reveal that at this point he is simply playing with words, in this case “in favor of” becomes “a favor” and who might owed one to whom. “They could have” this and that; this is actual “speculation” on the hoof and in front of our eyes.

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    My words come out of a hole in my ass. What an idiot you are!

    How do you know who Billy and his family are loyal to; or to whom, they might owe favors? Or from whom, pressure might be applied?

    Let's just see how this plays out.

    But it's Cipriano who been turning the soil "preparing the way of the Lord" Why would anyone, let alone a lawyer, pay someone to write on a blog underlining again and again the flaws in Billy Does case. And such gapping flaws; if even a third of what you say is true.

    The one thing I know for an absolute surety. If groups;  or reporters; or "authorities" appear out of nowhere and they are paid oddly; and with no victims any where in sight. Then it's a fake. It's the church. Guaranteed. I've seen it happen over and over again without exception.

    Compare it to SNAP, a show put on without any victims asking for one. SNAP was handed to us and we were handed to them.

    Just exactly like this cause in Philly. It was handed to us ready to go. Ready to blow as if on cue. What better time would there be than when his holiness parades by to have that cue, that squib go off.

    It's tooooooooooo obvious. Doe's is the case choosen to put a monsignor in jail?

    No where else in the world has that happened and only around Billy Doe's case?  A case with so many questions?

    Puhleeeeeze! Pull the other leg. Or as st Lawrence said as he was being martyred, roasted on a spit: "Turn me over! I'm done on this side".

  11. Jim Robertson says:

    John Duffin's link makes me look charming. But Pat Condell's right about one thing the church putting all it's chips on the Nazis.

    What he's wrong about is money spent by the church on it's victims. Particularly when the vast majority of victims have recieved NOTHING! So I guess the church's lies are working just like they always have. They've even convinced an agnostic that they've spent money when they haven't. The one thing you can say about catholics, they know how to put on a show.

    • Publion says:

      On the 29th at 1035PM JR will try to salvage something to his own advantage from the Duffin link.

      Thus, JR brings back his Church-Third Reich connection, demonstrating his superior if not supreme knowledge of Church history by declaiming that the Church ‘put’ “all it’s chips on the Nazis” (sic). Readers may judge this as they will, consulting on this site, if they wish, the extensive assessment of the problems with that ‘theory’.

      But then he has to find a way to make the three billion or so dollars poured out from the piñata somehow useful and congenial to his various visions and phantasms. He does this by introducing another familiar phantasm: that there is a “vast majority of victims” out there, somewhere, anywhere, or everywhere, who have still “received nothing!” (scare-caps omitted, as always). Readers may judge this as they will, consulting on this site, if they wish, the extensive assessment of the problems with this phantasm.

    • Publion says:

      On the 29th at 1021PM we’re back to the cafeteria again:

      The first paragraph opens with scatology in the service of epithet. None of which actually resolve the on-going question as to the source of his material.

      The second paragraph asks how it is known to whom “Billy and his family are loyal”. Is there any rational way of connecting their “loyalty” to the Church? Is there any way of rationally establishing the probability that their “loyalty” is to the Church? And we see here the Abuseniks even throwing ‘self-identified’ ‘victims’ under the bus in order to keep their Game going. Charming.

      The third paragraph proposes to “see how this plays out”. But that doesn’t mean that JR has a rational scenario to propose here and now; rather, like Wimpy, he will take the hamburger of credibility today and suggest we’ll all get paid on some future Tuesday. Now there’s a real deal.

      Having thus wished-away all the uncongenial issues, JR will then in the fourth paragraph turn to more creative bits. 

      First, he tries innuendo: “why would anyone … pay someone to write a blog underlining again and again the flaws in Billy Does case?” (sic). 

      Without presuming to speak for RC, I would say:  a)  because there  actually are substantive and significant and fundamental “flaws” in Billy Doe’s claims, allegations and stories; b) because RC realizes that the Stampede involves a clear and sustained and significant derangement of the justice process and that is a problem of great urgency for any citizen; c) RC’s direction and position were originally contra the Church in the Abuse Matter, but close observation of the justicial process in a 2012 abuse case changed his direction and position  – so it was RC who had control over the direction and position taken in his articles and thus he wasn’t brought on to take a specific direction and position, since he changed it 180 degrees and is still engaged to write on the BigTrial site. 

      And the last sentence of the paragraph is incoherent both in itself and also in relation to the point that – as best can be determined – JR is trying to make in the paragraph: if there are “gapping flaws” (sic) in the Billy Doe stories and claims and allegations, then in what way would it be illogical for a legal site and a reporter concerned about the issue to follow the case closely and provide extensive commentary and analysis?

      And lastly, it is not a matter of merely “what [I] say”; the gaping problems with the Billy Doe material are there for everyone to see and have been covered carefully and extensively on both the BigTrial site and the TMR site.

      And then in the fifth paragraph we are given – by the Wig of Assured Knowledge and Declaration – “one thing” that JR doth “know for an absolute surety”. 

      But this “one thing” corresponds to no reality at issue here: i) No “groups” or “reporters” or “authorities” actually did “appear out of nowhere”: these Abuse trials constitute a significant public event and were given wide media play (at least until they began to go badly for the Victimist position). 

      So it corresponds to no reality whatsoever to assert that groups and reporters appeared out of nowhere; that the legal profession and any concerned reporter(s) would take a sustained interest in these events is not only natural but predictable. 

      And ii) nobody is “paid oddly”. The legal firm has its own resources and sponsors a local legal site that is concerned with major local cases and the Catholic Abuse cases are certainly major local cases (although the BigTrial site also deals with other major local cases, in case JR hadn’t noticed); the legal firm pays (I presume) RC to participate in order to provide analysis and commentary, as it does other commenters and analysts.  

      And iii) it is nothing more than ‘minimization’ (as the Victimists like to say) to characterize the BigTrial site as a “blog”. The articles on the site are not hodge-podge occasional piece of mere reflection and opinion as in a “blog”; the material there is in the form of articles that are solid analytical pieces based on the material and evidence provided by the trials themselves and by the situations related to the subjects of those trials. 

      And iv) the bit about “no victims any where in sight” (sic) is at the very least inaccurate: the allegants in the Abuse trials are constantly being discussed. Unless, here, JR is trying to make his usual point that no “victims” have been asked to write articles for the BigTrial site (say, for example, JR and “Dennis”). 

      And thus v) JR’s assertion that on the basis of (i) through (iv) then the BigTrial site “is a fake” is not a demonstrable piece of ‘knowledge’ and indeed  teeters dizzily on being phantasm.  But very self-serving and convenient phantasm.

      And thus vi) JR’s “guaranteed” assurance that “it is the Church” (whatever that means) also fails. Nor is it rescued from that failure by JR’s further braying to the effect that he has “seen it happen over and over again without exception” (which bit is itself a nifty example of the Abusenik tendency to imagine that mimicry of phrasing will or can somehow pass for actual content of ideas and of competence; it’s nothing but mere assertion and bloviating but my how impressive it appears in pixels). 

      The sixth paragraph will then try to bolster the already hugely problematic material of the prior paragraphs by taking us back to the old SNAP 3x5s, although once again we have no way of verifying that the SNAP stories are themselves credible, let alone connecting them to the matters at issue here. 

      And the scenario in this sixth paragraph is irrational and incoherent at best: SNAP is characterized as “a show” because “no victims” asked for it to come into existence. But JR has himself insisted that “victims” did not and could not come together, so how could they have come together to create a group or ask for a group or refuse a group? And it would certainly appear that some people went to it, and from it were then passed on to torties for the heavy-lifting. And why, having come together, and if they did not like SNAP, did the now-assembled “victims” not create their own alternative group? 

      The seventh paragraph then tries to tie all of the above to the Philadelphia abuse-trials by claiming that the trials – or Billy Doe’s trial – “was handed to us ready to go”. That’s how criminal trials come about: the D.A. doesn’t take a poll to see if various folks want him to bring charges – he brings charges and m having put his case together, causes the trial to be convened. The public isn’t asked to vote on whether charges should be brought and a trial convened. (Perhaps this is merely an echo of JR’s irritation that his opinion wasn’t asked beforehand by the Philadelphia D.A.)

      And – yet again – in what way is this trial “ready to blow”, as we are again taken back to that never-explicated “blow up” metaphor, the dynamics and elements of which remain unstated. 

      The eighth paragraph then tries to make it sound like JR has demonstrated something which can now be proclaimed to be “too obvious” (extra letters omitted). 

      But a) what is it that is “too obvious” and b) in what does it mean to claim that what is “obvious” is that Billy Doe’s trial “was chosen to put a monsignor in jail”? (Short possible answer: what JR is going for here is that the Church arranged “just enough” vital and necessary authorities and players in the Philadelphia police, D.A.’s Office, judges, jurors and unknown others to have charges brought on so flimsy and dubious a basis as the Billy Doe stories and claims, in order to – had you been waitttttttting forrr itttt? – ‘make victims look bad’. 

      Thus it’s not that the Stampede finally overreached itself by trying to run its basic Game out in the open through a public and criminal trial; rather, we are to accept that the Church arranged all of the necessary variables and manipulated all the processes and sub-processes in order to have this case brought to criminal trial by the D.A. … in order to ‘make victims look bad’ and thus the whole thing was “a set up” organized and manipulated by the Church. 

      Readers may consider this bit as they will.    

      The ninth paragraph makes no sense as written – so often a giveaway that JR is trying to toss up words without having a clear idea.

      But then that all leads to the wit and wisdom of the tenth paragraph, that simply dissolves into a bunch of concluding snarky bits and somehow (and not quite sensically) tries to drag St. Lawrence into the moosh. 

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    The church and the mob are old friends.

    The vatican bank was a cleaning establishment that laundered billions of mob money.

    That's why Frank set up new rules that allow the bank to be examined from now on but the bank examiners are not allowed to look at the past vatican snow jobs for the mob. So convenient. The past must stay hidden. The church is nothing if not consistant.

    • Publion says:

      On the 30th at 1110PM more assertions and claims, unsupported as usual, as the relationship to the Church and “the mob” and that the Vatican Bank “was a cleaning establishment that laundered billions of mob money”.

      Readers may consider the validity of these bits as they may.

      Although it might be kept in mind that “the mob” – insofar as it refers to organized crime as we understand it today – did not exist until the U.S. instituted Prohibition after World War 1, at which point the American criminals applied entrepreneurial and corporate-business techniques to their affairs. But then Prohibition was repealed and not long after intercontinental banking was blocked by World War 2. And then a few decades later the U.S. began to dismantle “the mob” and largely succeeded. How “billions” thus (allegedly) wound up in the Vatican Bank during those few windows of opportunity is certainly food for historically-competent thought.

      But JR just ‘knows’ all this, doncha see? And more than that you do not need to know.

      And the concluding stab at epithet serves merely to remind us of the ever-inexplicable inconsistency of JR’s alleged spelling-problem.

      And the comments of the 31st at 720PM and 722Pm serve merely to remind us of the actual level of JR’s mentation. And point to the inconsistency demonstrated by the various comments that seek to extend themselves in style or content or both.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    What a poor soul you are, P, to have no wit.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    I guess that's where the word, nitwit comes from. "Doncha' know"?

  15. Jim Robertson says:

     To the TMR readership,

    Well folks here's a letter , an open letter to Tom Doyle by another victim; just posted.

    I share this link with you because another victim has put forward questions to Tom Doyle about his actions and lack of action.

    I couldn't convince the letter writer several years ago to organize but he has organized his thoughts about Doyle rather clearly and in rather catholic terms and catholic language. imho.

    Please read this letter and tell me what you think.


    • Publion says:

      On then to the 2nd at 859PM.

      This time we get a formal memo introduction (and – remarkably – no epithetical splash).

      We are proffered a link by another (self-identified) victim/allegant, that was (cue the breathless drum roll) “just posted”. Ovvvv coursssssse.

      And what do we get from this commenter from the ‘Renegade Catholic’ site?

      We merely get stuff about that commenter’s issues with the still-Father Doyle. Fine and dandy but the stuff is of no relevance here since nobody here has ever expressed doubt about Doyle’s shenanigans (although there is possibly some room for readers to wonder whether Doyle was completely happy with Blaine’s indenturing of SNAP to Jeff Anderson over coffee that morning in the late 1980s; as I have said here before, it clearly appears that Doyle was planning to use SNAP as his organizational platform for his own fiefdom, once the American Bishops refused his proposal to set him up as their go-to guy on the Abuse Matter – but SNAP didn’t do very well going down that road, and was ripe for Anderson’s offer a few years later in which SNAP would become a front-and-funnel organization for the torties).

      In regard to JR’s “imho” as to a) the clarity and b) the “catholic terms and catholic language” (sic) of this (remarkably convenient) commenter, readers can judge the worthwhile nature of that ‘humble opinion’ for themselves or take the matter to prayer with, say, “John 23”.

      And we are further informed that JR actually knows or knew “the letter writer several years ago”. Yes, I find that easy to believe; I think JR knows “the letter writer” very well.

      And the bit concludes – had you been waitttttttting forrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – without offering any explication or explanation as to what JR doth “think” of the material (except for that manipulative blurb noted above). Instead, he hopes that the readers, rather than he, will do the heavy mental-lifting (leaving him free to either rah-rah opinions that please him or epithetically toss plop at opinions that do displease him).

      So readers are asked (“Please” and pretty-please) to do JR’s work for him. The pom-poms and plop are ready, as needed, so be the first on your block to get in on the game.

  16. Jim Robertson says:
    • Jim Robertson says:

      I find Kay's opener on her blog. Very well done indeed.

    • Publion says:

      On the 2nd at 923PM and 933PM JR will further try to mimic the competent provision of supportive or corroborative links. But the entire concept is new (or even alien or even uncongenial) to him, so instead of following the standard logical procedure of stating one’s thesis and then explaining, providing corroborative references, JR will take the easy way out and just toss up a link (923PM) and then pull out the pom-poms to proffer merely another manipulative blurb-y bit (933PM; pronounced with the Wig of Competent Assessment and Pronouncement) that the Wig doth find “Kay’s” material “very well done indeed”.

      Readers may recall or review “Kay’s” prior submissions on this site and consider all this as they will.

  17. Jim Robertson says:
    • Publion says:

      Then – in a pitch-perfect demonstration of alien the entire concept of expressing and ‘sharing’ ideas actually is to him – JR (the 2nd at 927PM) will simply toss up – again without any explication or explanation or ‘sharing’ of ideas – a link to (had you been waittttttttttttting forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt?) “Doyle’s crap”.

      I do not necessarily argue here that Doyle’s material is not “crap”, since it isn’t the issue. I do point out that – as always – JR and the Abusenik mind are not only a) averse to thinking and ‘sharing’ their thoughts about material but are also b) averse to anybody else thinking or expressing ideas that may not go in the direction they want things to go. Hence the manipulative and pre-emptive characterization of Doyle’s material as “crap”, just to make sure readers know how they are to think.

  18. Jim Robertson says:

    No victims other than David Clohessy ot Barbra Blaine have ever been keynote speakers at SNAP conferences, from what I know.

    An intelligent victim would ask:  why nothing's been done by SNAP or Doyle for victims in 25 years but talk. Tons and tons of talk and it's been only them talking "for" us to the world.? Only them again and again telling you what the scandal is according to them but no actions from them that helps victims at all.. SNAP is unmitigated crap. And Doyle created them.

    • Publion says:

      And on the 2nd at 942PM we are led into the SNAP swamp again (JR does, after all, have that shoebox full of 3x5s) and the skullduggery underlying SNAP (as a front-and-funnel organization for the torties) has never been denied on this site.

      But it seems to me that if there were any “intelligent victim[s]”, they would – after “25 years” – not only have ‘asked’, but spoken out forthrightly or even set up their own alternative organization. But this is a dog (or pack of dogs) that has never barked (except for JR and perhaps a few other Abuseniks, who perhaps here are nicely setting themselves up as being “intelligent”, in a round-about, manipulative sort of way).

      And I doubt JR will find here any disagreement as to his concluding epithetical bits. But Doyle – I would have to say – cannot be given all the credit for ‘creating’ SNAP and so forth. It was the infusions of cash and message-guidance from Anderson and the torties (and the attention of sensation-and-scandal-happy media) that really put SNAP into the big-time.

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    When and if you read Tom Doyle's address to the SNAP convention. Just look at the look on Doyle's face in the picture that appeared in NCR. What a phony! It's a look of extremely labored "innocence". Read the comments. There is not a single comment allowed by NCR that is critical of Doyle by victims or anyone else. How does forcibly stopping critical victims opinions and experiences help victims???????? It doesn't. What banning critizism of Doyle does allow is, the earthly deification of a living saint. Saint Tom , the patron saint of bullshit. The patron saint of all false flagged efforts.

    I've been banned by NCR and I know that other victims who criticize the St. Tommy for hero campaign have also been banned by NCR. Read the comments. St. Tom All hero, all the time and a suffering hero too. Yet I've just linked you to 2 victims' blogs who do question that party line. So including me that's, at least, 3 victims banned from speaking freely by the fake liberal NCR.

    That behavior alone should tell you something's not kosher.

    When priests are deemed more important, more insightful; and above victims questioning particularly when the "subject" pretends to be about the church's behavior towards victims!!!!!!!! Priests before and above victims? How exactly like the church! Un-fucking-believable!

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 1050AM we are now proffered not the content of Doyle’s comments and material but instead – had you been waittttttting forrrrrrr ittttttttt? – “the look on Doyle’s face in the picture that appeared in NCR”; and from that the first paragraph of his comment simply goes on to do a riff on what – to JR – appears as clear and definitive factual assessment.

      Nor, he notes, is any comment critical of Doyle “allowed by” NCR. We see here an echo of JR’s annoyance at NCR as not being (as, of course, he is) genuinely ‘progressive’ and concerned for ‘victims’.

      And was this article published before or after NCR had banned him from commenting on their site?

      And further: by banning him or not-publishing his comments, is NCR really “forcibly stopping critical victims opinions and experiences” from being amplified? This bit inveigles us to presume that, say for example, JR’s material (and its quality and content and stylistic infelicities have not changed over time) is important and useful for getting a grasp on the Matter. But it is equally possible that NCR – not that I approve of its overall approach or its decision in this specific instance – simply figured that JR’s stuff only really works to make ‘victims’ look bad or reduce online commenting discourse to an unacceptably low level.

      Nor need readers take seriously the hyperbolic declaration of the still-Father Doyle as being a “saint”.

      Nor has anyone here spoken out to the effect that SNAP as we have it today (and since Blaine indentured it to Anderson in the late 1980s) is not a “false-flagged effort”. SNAP is indeed a front-and-funnel organization for the torties; the probability of that, I would say, has been rather well-established over the course of time here.

      The rest of the comment simply continues the harangue about Doyle, with which I wouldn’t expect too many of the readership here to substantially disagree.

      But I would certainly say that if NCR is handling Doyle with kid gloves, it is not because he is a “priest” but simply because he retains some cachet as an early Abuse Matter actor, whose efforts proved useful to those elements within the Church that – with NCR – want to see this, that, and the other “change” in doctrine and praxis all along the line.

      But JR has brought up this tenuous “priest” bit because – as we see in the final paragraph of the comment – it provides a (tenuous) lead-in to his abiding effort to connect the Church to SNAP (and NCR and the entire panoply of other individuals, groups, and interests) as the guiding source of direction and funding.

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    Pub YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.! Such a mis-director. You've never done any of the things with your arguements that you demand of me and my arguements. You are a lying hypocrite. You are part of the false flag efforts created by Doyle as he said the church should do in the project section of his manual. . All we have is you; Doyle and the American bishops pretending that Doyle's manual hasn't been enforced by him and the church he still works for. We victims know better.

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 1546 JR opens robustly with the accusation that I am “such a liar.!” (sic; scare-caps omitted).

      Well, then. Will he support that – finally – with some sort of quotation that establishes my ‘lying’?

      He will not. He simply riffs further with additional epithet (“mis-director”, “lying hypocrite”, “part of the false flag efforts …”).

      And with the further assertion that I have “never done any of the things with [my] arguments that [I] demand of [JR] and [his] arguements” (sic). Alas, JR clearly does not understand the applicable meaning of “arguments” here: here the term does not mean i) merely the colloquial sense of an oppositional shouting-match, but rather means ii) the conceptual formal structure (from which the Scientific Method is derived) whereby one party puts forth a thesis, explained and supported, and another party – perhaps in opposition – addresses that thesis and supportive material, explaining how the thesis and material is insufficient, and then proposes an alternative thesis with supportive materials.

      This second sense of ‘arguments’ is clearly beyond JR’s operational knowledge and ken, although – queasily – he makes every effort to deploy mimicry to make it appear that his usual (first) type of ‘argument’ is actually a valid demonstration of the second type of ‘argument’.

      As to whether I successfully and satisfactorily hew to that second type of argumentation, I am happy to leave to the readership to decide.

      And actually I (and “Doyle” and “the American bishops” – the Vatican hierarchy apparently not being involved) are not “all” that “we” (i.e. ‘victims’) have: they have, say, the Abuseniks such as JR. And yet they do not seem to have been sufficiently impressed as to do anything with all the stuff the Abuseniks provide.

      And readers may consider for themselves in just what ways and to just what extent “we victims know better”, especially if we presume here that JR once again tries to pass off his own eructations as being the infallibly accurate reflection of what “all” ‘victims’ “know”.

    • Publion says:

      On the 3rd at 348PM JR bleats as to “what has SNAP done ‘big time’ for victims?” (scare-caps and repeated exclamation points omitted). 

      And doth demand an answer from me (as characterized by yet another charming demonstration of juvenile scatology).

      I answer: SNAP – although I am convinced that it is a front-and-funnel organization for the torties – has become the go-to national and even international source for media and perhaps even for intellectuals studying the Abuse Matter. Which is a great deal more – it has to be admitted – than JR or any other of the outlying Abuseniks have managed to achieve, even with some hefty infusions of cash through the settlement-monies some of them received. 

      And – more specifically – SNAP played its role well in making what I have called the Anderson Strategies as successful as they have been (to the tune of about three billion dollars in settlements), even providing JR with not seventeen thousand dollars for his story but rather somewhere just north of one million dollars. And this has been true for all of the allegants who received monies through those Strategies. 

      Does JR not consider the jump from seventeen-thousand to one-million (or more) to be a “big-time” jump? Really? 

      As to the 3rd at 352PM:

      Thus too then, in light of what I said in response to the comment of the 3rd at 348PM, the “cornucopia” (of three billion dollars, minus the attorney fees and expenses to which the allegants agreed beforehand) is demonstrated. 

      And SNAP played its role as providing the ‘caring’ and ‘human’ face that fronted for what I would say amounts to just another example of the tortie disability-scam lawsuits that became so popular and accepted against large corporations in this country since the 1970s. 

      And – again – if I might provide “any” or “one” example, I would use JR’s own example: from seventeen thousand dollars to just north of one million dollars for the story (or stories) we have had a chance to examine and assess here. That would be a fine example, I think.

      And I would further offer this possibility: imagine that instead of SNAP’s highly-effective and pious and ‘concerned’ PR bleats the world were offered in prime-time a JR presentation of his own case or the cases of all ‘victims’: can one reasonably say that in such a scenario, that the Abuse Matter and the Stampede would have gotten as far as they did and produced so much for so many allegants?

      And – at all times ignoring the ever-revealing juvenile scatological epithets – we are then given in the second paragraph of the comment a new complaint: “SNAP merely underlines the news. It never makes news it only reacts to the news.” (sic) 

      That is not accurate. It is precisely SNAP’s (and the other front organizations’) efforts that created the predisposition for the public and the elite media commentary to presume that ‘claims’ of abuse were presumptively ‘reports’ of abuse, and thus were valid and veracious “news”. 

      Nor do I “bitch”. I simply point out various aspects and elements. And it is, rather,  JR who consistently bitxxes because I do. 

      But now on the 3rd at 737PM JR will reverse course: now he goes on about how “SNAP does make news”. Oh well, incoherence is so often a characteristic of JR’s material.

      But in what way does “SNAP … make news”? 

      Why, JR responds, it “embarrasses [correction supplied] all victims”. And it “embarrasses” said “victims” by behaving much  like the Church does. And what then does the Church ‘do’? JR doesn’t say. 

      So I repeat – again – that “victims” are embarrassed by the specific analysis of their claims (such as we have seen here, and in the various Doe cases in Philadelphia, and in the Los Gatos-Santa Clara assault case of a couple of years ago – and discussed at length on this site at that time). It is their own stories, claims and allegations that – if actually examined – create embarrassment. 

      Which is precisely why the torties sought to avoid trials (and the consequent adversarial examination on the record and in public) and go for settlements, and also why the torties – in so many instances – were the ones to demand secrecy. (Which would also have been attractive to Insurers and the various Parties Defendant: because if it became public just how flimsy a story and allegation and claim might yet garner a hefty pay-out for almost no risk of further examination, then an even larger Stampede would have been invited.)

      And what did all that do for “victims”? It got them a whole lot of money, which – from everything we have seen – was more than enough to satisfy them and most of them simply got out of town, as it were, and kept quiet and have enjoyed their cash in privacy. 

      On the 3rd at 358PM raises – yet again – the claim that “victims” cannot “meet” if “we know no other victims personally”. 

      To repeat: any ‘victim’ could set up a website and they can ‘meet’ there for openers, and take it from there. This is the internet age and has been since at least the mid-1990s, now 20 years ago. And hasn’t JR said that he knew such persons from his time at SNAP? And was he not in a personal position to ascertain the prospects of meeting 500-plus victims simply in his own multiple-plaintiff case in LA a decade ago? Or were all the plaintiffs in that case named ‘Doe’ and refused to reveal themselves even to other allegants in their own case? Which would be an interesting twist indeed.

      The “Lourdes” snark can simply stay up where it was put. As can the concluding epithet. 

      Thus to the 3rd at 804PM:

      In the first paragraph we are simply informed by (unsupported) assertion about what “other victims” think about Doyle. And so what and who cares? In terms of the discourse on this site, it is – again – irrelevant: nobody is in the record here as supporting the still-Father Doyle. 

      Thus the riffing in the rest of the comment, and the innuendo questions, take us in an irrelevant and distracting direction. 

      Although – as howlers go, even for his material – JR delivers a whopper with his bit in the third paragraph about “settlements that aren’t there anyway”. Three billion dollars … really?

      Then in the fourth paragraph, a sly effort to try to run by us again the bit about how I’ve “fantasized” about various aspects of the Stampede and so forth. As I said on this thread: there is a difference between ‘fantasizing’ and the laborious process of establishing probabilities from known facts – which is what I have done, and at great length and with no small amount of care to explain at each step. 

      Thus too the serious work is not in “imagining” and leaving it at that; it is considering known facts, imagining alternative possibilities, and then applying logic and rationality to see if it is possible to thereby arrive at some reasonable probability. 

      This is far too much work for the Abusenik mentality, which is basically a less-evolved form of the agitprop mentality: just toss your plop and keep tossing it and don’t let anybody think through anything. 

      Nor, thus, can I “explain” the Abuseniks’ “evil reasoning” (an adjective I have never used and which JR has deployed here for his own purposes). I cannot explain the Abuseniks’ “reasoning” because it isn’t in any way, shape or form actual “reasoning”. It is plop-tossing, innuendo, unsupported assertion and allegation, all reinforced – as it were – by epithet and scatology and mimicry. 

      And none of it is “good”. Indeed, continued assessment of JR’s material only serves to strengthen the awareness of just what types of mentation and characteristics were not simply lured up from their native depths but actually ‘valorized’ (as the pomo profs like to say) by the Stampede. 

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    What has SNAP done "BIG TIME" for victims????? Answer me you living piece of dog shit!

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Really! Where is the cornucopia of SNAP gifts to victims? Describe any. Describe one. You are a low life lying sack of poo.

    You bitch because SNAP merely underlines the news. It never makes news it only reacts to  the news.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Excuse me. SNAP does make news. It makes news when it embaresses all victims by being caught out again and again as hypocritical by doing exactly what they've complained about the church doing. That does what for victims?

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    How are victims to meet if we know no other victims personally? Pray for them at Lourdes?

    You are a total idiot.

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    Other victims independently of me and each other have all reached the same conclusions: That there's something wrong with Doyle and his behavior for the past 25+ years. And in that photo of him. You can see it.

    If he and SNAP were really working for victims don't you think we'd know that? What would we victims get from mocking /critizing. Doyle and SNAP and the whole damned scam?

    How would the questions we have about SNAP harm the church or increase settlements that aren't there anyway?

    You've fantasized innumerable reasons for victims to scam the church about our rapes but you can't come up with one imagining that would explain what we'd get out of attacking Doyle and SNAP falsely?

    Come on wise ass. Slip on your Great Karnak turban and explain our "evil" reasoning.

    This should be good.

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    criticizing, sorry!

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Good morning!

    I've started my day watching the Knights of Columbus 133rd Supreme Convention. (Supreme!!!!???? Oh the Humility!) on EWTN.  The logo for the K of C has an anchor and a sword rampant on a Roman fasces. The very fasces from which the word fascist comes. The very image Mussolini based his horror show on.

    Where is it held? Why Philly! And what and who are coming to Philly? Why pope Frank and The World Meeting of Families next month.

    (Will The World Meeting of Families have gay catholic families included? Oh "oovvvvvv courssssee" not. Gay families aren't valid as such. "Don'tcha know".)

    Am I mistaken or isn't Philladelphia where John Doe is from and where the only prelate has been jailed for enabling child abuse?  (I know I'm not mistaken. I'm just dolloping on the irony)

    Philly where Ralph Cipriano's been tilling the ground for "revelations" to come possibly?

    The city of brotherly love seemes to be ground zero for the U.S. catholic fascist constituancy. Quite the redefinition of brotherly love. "Doncha know?"

    The 2 morning hosts have already excused the crimes of Colombus and Junipero Serra by quoting two authors who've written revisionist histories of the two. Which 'ooovvvv courseee" excuses the 2 murderers.

    I remember when one could look to catholic religious, particularly the Berrigan brothers, Liberation theology, Civil Rights activists, for real moral leadership. Not like these fake "Soldiers of the Lord"

    Kill a Commie or Muslim for Christ boys!

    The opening entrance hymn was comparable to music appropriate for gladiators entering the Coliseum.Onward you hypocritical christian soldiers! The lead woman singer kept sticking her arm up in the air when ever the word "God' was mentioned in the hymn to indicate where "God" lives, I guess. Ignoring the tenant that "God" is everywhere and in all things.

    Oh catholic fascists!

    And they dare say "Peace be with you!" This is after they've celebrated the "heroes" of the Nazi like invasion of Iraq. (Usually those who've lost limbs but who can still play sports thanks to artificial limbs. Thank "God'!) The dupes who voluntered to go to an illegal and (redundantly) an immoral war.

    And all the singing about how they all have sinned!!!!?? What bunk!

    Their pomposity just like P's is their biggest sin and they don't even know it. The arrogance!




    • Publion says:

      On the 4th at 1144AM we are greeted cheeribly by a JR who appears to be satisfied that he is onto something big. 

      And what is his discovery/revelation?

      That the Knights of Columbus have chosen Philadelphia as the site of their national convention. 

      Which factoid simply gives him a launch-platform for pulling out his usual 3x5s (which, by amazing coincidence, greatly resemble so much of the pomo stuff that has been kicking around since the 1960s, but that got a particularly excited (not to say fevered) play since the 1990s. 


      word-play and the profession of outraged Harrumph that the upper echelons of the Knights organization is entitled ‘Supreme’; it reeks of a lack of humility, doncha see?; 

      and that its organizational logo includes “an anchor and a sword rampant on a Roman fasces” (this “rampant” bit being clear indication – and not the only indication (see below) – that another mind is in evidence here); but his historical stab then fails through a rather blatant anachronism since the Roman fasces has been around since – well – the Romans, and the Knights chose it in the year Mussolini was born; and, additionally, the fasces forms elements of the organizational symbol of the U.S. National Guard Bureau, hangs in the Oval Office, appeared on the Roosevelt dime, is part of the logo of the U.S. Senate, constitutes part of the frieze around the base of Freedom’s statue atop the U.S. Capitol building, is depicted on the façade of the U.S. Supreme Court building (a Roman centurion holding a fasces as a symbol of Order), appears on the mace of the U.S. House of Representatives, and appears in the Washington Monument where there is a statue of Washington leaning on a fasces (again as a symbol of Order) … among other places and appearances of the Roman fasces (in other countries as well as the U.S.); 

      and that JR sees some significance in the K of C’s choice of Philadelphia since the Pope is coming there next month (and will the Knights still be holding their meeting there in a month’s time?); 

      and that the Church’s World Meeting of Families probably won’t have “gay catholic families” (sic) included; but for one very rare instance, JR accurately claims that in the Catholic schema “gay families aren’t families as such” – which is true, if rather too well put to be sourced in his own mentation;

      and that Philadelphia is the site of the various Doe cases related to the Catholic Abuse Matter – which JR (or his muse) tells us he is telling us simply because he is (he apparently thinks) “dolloping on the irony”;

      and that Philadelphia where Ralph Cipriano has been “tilling the ground for ‘revelations’ to come possibly” – which, viewed through the lens of clinical-projection, simply describes the whackness of JR’s and his muse’s or muses’ own tea-leaf reading efforts.

      And thus the conclusion – so to speak – that Philadelphia (where, by the by, “Dennis” is from) “seemes” [JR’s effort to write medieval English?] to be ground zero for” – had you been waittttttttttting for ittttttttttttt? – “the U.S. catholic fascist constituancy” (sic). 

      And readers are advised that they need not, in the privacy of their own computer hutch, take the foregoing moosh with a straight face. 

      Then, following the rather artless play on the phrase “City of Brotherly Love”, we are informed that “the 2 morning hosts” on the EWTN network (most surely, another mind is at work as muse and source here) “have already excused the crimes of Columbus and Junipero Serra”. 

      And how has this already dubiously asserted bit been achieved? 

      Prepare yourselves: JR  (or rather his muse here) ‘reports’ that this has been done by EWTN’s quoting of “two authors of revisionist histories of the two”. We note a) that JR here references books – which would be surprising enough in itself, but also that b) he doesn’t bother to give us the titles of the books or the names of their authors (which shows us either i) how his mind works or rather doesn’t work and/or  ii) that he hasn’t read the books and thus their titles and authors’ names are not known to him or are not considered important enough to ‘share’ here. 

      And since Columbus and Serra have been for some centuries rather highly thought-of, then it would be a contrary position that would be “revisionist” – a matter of historical competence that (had you been waittttttttting forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt?) appears to be unknown to JR and the Muse(s).

      Having thus established their lack of creds, JR and the Muse(s) then proceed to a reminiscence: in this scene, JR doth “remember when one could look to catholic religious, particularly the Berrigan brothers, Liberation theology, Civil Rights activists, for real moral readership”. 

      What to say?

      It can hardly be denied that JR (and the Muse(s)) could use – among other things – some “real moral leadership”. And this potted mélange of 1960s iconography serves merely a rhetorical and histrionic purpose rather than an illuminative one: neither the Berrigan brothers nor all civil rights activists (Jackson? Sharpton?) were in the “moral leadership” business, especially since the Berrigans’ embrace of Marxist-contaminated Liberation Theology took things in a very inadvisable direction. And the paragraph concludes with an epithet – there’s the genuine JR! – about Serra (and apparently Columbus) being “fake ‘Soldiers of the Lord’”. 

      Then another stab at some 1960s juvenilia about ‘killing for Christ’ (by a military which, when JR himself had the chance to oppose it outright, he chose instead to lie his way in, serve a hitch processing paperwork in the balmy Carribbean, and count the days until he could get out without causing himself too much trouble or personal inconvenience). And Junipero Serra looks baaaad next to somebody like this?

      Then a bit about “the opening entrance hymn” … to what? Or perhaps this is simply a fever-vision designed to platform the “Onward, Christian Soldiers” epithet (although that hymn is not a Catholic hymn – but how dare we take him “verbatum”?) and the historical reference to gladiators in the “Coliseum” (sic) – where, JR and the Muse(s) apparently have to be reminded, the Christians were the victims and not the organizers, who were actually the Romans. But JR and the Muse(s) are in full plop-tossing mode here and, therefore of course, ‘facts don’t matter’. 

      As for the rest of JR’s whatever-it-is about the opening service, readers can make of it what they will; we are back in judging-Doyle’s-facial-expression territory, which is itself a version of JR’s signature tea-leaf reading. 

      Then the clearly histrionic pre-conclusory ode to “catholic fascists!” (again, the tone reminds me of some other commenter).

      Then – remarkably – an attempt to connect the Church to some “they” who “celebrated the ‘heroes’ of the Nazi like invasion of Iraq” – and here I think is a clear echo of JR’s own rather non-heroic military performance that grounds his abiding and robust vitriol against those who actually went, as they were bidden by the government to which they had pledged and sworn allegiance, and followed their orders and did their job (most of which is rather alien to JR’s own demonstrated ‘modus operandi’).  

      And the rest of the paragraph – even more obviously than the comment overall – then descends into some type of rant and let it remain where it was put. 

      Then the donning of the Wig of J’Accuse atop the Wig of Outraged Decency: that Catholics “dare say ‘Peace be with you!’”.  Which neatly wraps up with a heark-back to the ‘war’ and ‘murder’ bits in the earlier sections of the comment – this is all far too rhetorically well-organized to be JR’s. And ditto as we see yet again that telltale histrionic inclusion of the exclamation point. 

      And then – finally – the actual concluding capstone epithet: it is “pomposity”, it is just like mine, and – the Wig of Papal Pronouncement and Denunciation (although it’s topped, no doubt, with a tiara) – it’s “their biggest sin” and “they don’t even know it” – which, of course, yields a marvelously clear and pitch-perfect demonstration of the plop-tossy mentation since if you “don’t even know it” then it cannot be a sin and it can hardly be accurately construed as “arrogance!” (with that histrionic exclamation point as well). But it was too choice a pile of plop to simply leave lying around the cage, no doubt, and readers should thus exercise some forbearance for the hard-working and inveterate plop-tosser(s). 

      And that’s it for the 1144 performance. And a pretty performance it was. And rather revealing

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    Cardinal Burke and the lead commentator just conversed about the "Attack against the family" by the supreme court. What nonsense!

    The very people who have allowed and enabled sexual attacks on catholic children dare blame gay families for an "attack on family"? The unmittigated gaul of these people.

    But they couldn't even say the word gay. They instead compared empathy for gays (still without naming us) to "drug addiction" and created "false compassion" as a definition if you happen to empathize with gay families.  They also failed to mention 62% of Irish catholics voted for gay marriage along with 30%+ of Irish priests. That's Ireland folks.

    If you weren't so lost and mean you'd be a sad joke but you are far worse than that. You are the exact opposite of empathy. You are tyranny.

    • Publion says:

      On the 4th at 205PM we get what is apparently a ringside narration as “Cardinal Burke and the lead commentator” discuss a matter. Picture JR hastily blabbering into a microphone or typing furiously as the pace of events thunders on up in the ring.

      And what has he to say? As usual, he attempts not to report what was said but simply to declare, declaim and denounce that any thinking to the effect that the (U.S., presumably) “supreme court” (sic) has made an “attack against the family” is – had you been waitttttttttting forrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – “nonsense!” (with that rubbery and histrionic exclamation point yet again).

      And the logic – as it were – deployed is this: a) “the very people who allowed and enabled sexual attacks on catholic children” (an assertion to be taken only in conjunction with what analysis here has and has not revealed) now b) “dare blame the gay families for an attack on the family” (which presumes that the phrase “gay family” conforms to the definition of “the family” and that an effort by assorted gay advocacies to force the definition of “the family” to change to their own advantage or preference does not indeed constitute an “attack on the family”).

      This is far too much of a stab at thinking for JR and this site is not the place to be hashing out this general but important topic about – I presume – the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.

      And – perhaps in an effort to demonstrate his (or their) historical chops, JR (and/or his muse(s)) will confuse “gall” with “gaul” (or more properly, ‘Gaul’). And we can leave “unmittigated” where it was put; no doubt the phrasing was simply too delicious a bit of plop not to be tossed.

      As for the JR ‘report’ as to the substance of the exchange between Cardinal Burke and the network commentator, readers may make of it what they will, perhaps – if so inclined – after actually viewing the segment itself.

      Then – apparently referring to me – JR puffs up his pinfeathers so accuse me of being “so lost and mean” and “a sad joke” and my being “the exact opposite of empathy … you are tyranny”.

      No doubt this last bit was too delicious and histrionically ominous a bit of plop not to go-out on, but consider it for a moment from the perspective of clinical projection: who is it here who seeks to squelch any doubt or discussion or questioning that does not conform to his own preferred spin and take? Who is it here who does not provide actual texts but simply and manipulatively provides his own spin in order to ensure that readers do not think for themselves? Who is it here – for that matter – who harbors an abiding fondness for the type of agitprop mind-and-speech control so finely honed by Lenin and the Fascists and Goebbels? And who is it here who – so reminiscent of various forms of the aforesaid thuggery – seeks ever and always to deploy epithet instead of reason, in order to avoid substance and attack the questioner?

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    How would you know anything about thinking? When have you ever thought other than your masters? You're a robot.

    ASK QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU CHOKE.  No one's ever told you not to ask questions. But if you never, ever accept any victim's answers, bar none. You are not interested in finding the truth; because you believe NONE OF US, EVER.

    You are the fucking fraud! Posing as reasonable; when you never are. You are a poseur. a cardboard cut out.

    Could you just die and go to the hell you believe in and so richly deserve?

    My opinions are more than valid, simply because they are mine; they are honest and accurate. Something your lies can never be. You deserve to be called names. Karma's tough.

    You are a death machine. Your world is dying. Think Ireland. Arrogance and ignorance are losing and that's what you hate. They WERE your money in the bank. No more. 

    I'll dance on your grave, personally. That's if anyone bothers to bury you.

    Your religion is all about people not thinking for themselves, you dumb shit.

    Your church leaders were the first and last supporters of fascism.

    You are a typical Nazi. You'd have gladly driven a train to a death camp in a catholic country to protect your privilage and fancifull notions about yourself. You are a narcissist. Though what you find to "love" about yourself I don't know?

    Pick away, you carrion crow, while you can. The average age at the K of C is about 60. The young have left you . Why? Because they know, you don't like people. Particularly when they tell you the truth.

    Requiem Sine Pacem.


    • Publion says:

      Well now. 

      A pre-note is in order: there is more than one mind at work in the current crop, but things are more intermixed than usual. I’ll explain that as we proceed. And scare-caps, of course, will be omitted from quoted material.

      So let’s get to it, then.

      In regard to the 5th at 1102AM:

      The comment opens with epithets – which, among other things, use the interrogative form to insinuate that I don’t “know anything about thinking”. Marvelous and pitch-perfect and let the readership consider as they will. 

      Also – alas – things in that paragraph get a tad confused as the epithetical riff gloms onto the ‘thinking’ trope and then tries to play on the word by going with the insinuation that I think nothing on my own, but only think along with my “masters”. Marvelous and pitch-perfect and let the readership consider as they will. 

      The second paragraph (scare-caps, of course, omitted) tries to go for the Victimist high-ground by bleating that I “never, ever accept any victim’s answers, bar none”. But this is too sly by half: Abusenik (we can’t really be sure if we are dealing with genuine victims) come-backs are not actually “answers” and a) were they proffered on the stand as they are proffered here many of those “answers” would be easily characterizable as ‘non-responsive’ or b) they raise more questions than they answer. 

      And then the paragraph offers a choice bit of illogic: I am “not interested in finding the truth”, and JR knows this – doncha see? – because I “believe none of [the allegants] ever”. 

      This reminds me of the eternal plaint of Homer Simpson: “Why do things that only happen to stupid people always keep happening to meeeeeeeee?”: the heart of this joke is a matter of logic: Homer can ask his question only because he has utterly precluded from consideration the actual and true answer and thus can legitimately (sort of) claim that he has no idea as to how his experience can be explained. 

      So too with JR: having utterly precluded the possibility that his credibility and veracity are variables here, then he can don the Wig of Exasperated Innocence and plaint that he is not believed, “ever”, as if there is no conceivable explanation for this phenomenon (except that some people just mulishly refuse to believe his material).

      The third paragraph takes a pause to toss more epithets, adding in both juvenile scatology and that now-frequent rubbery and histrionic exclamation point. 

      Followed by – through the wonders of clinical projection – the bit about “posing as reasonable; when you never are” (sic) which is about as succinct a self-revelation as can be managed, I would say. And he hammers the nails further in with the bits about being “a poseur [and] a cardboard cut out” (sic). And the word “poseur”, I would say, is also a bit beyond his demonstrated range. 

      The fourth paragraph continues the epithetical, this time bringing in my death, after which – the Wig of Papal Poseur – I am denounced and declaimed to be bound for “hell” which I “so richly deserve”. We can take JR’s word for it – he has communed with “John 23”, pretend-pope to Pope, as one might say. 

      On to the fifth paragraph where he hits the nail on the head without realizing it: his “opinions” are indeed valid … as his opinions. But his assertions and claims and stories are not therefore equally “valid” since they so often demonstrate neither veracity nor coherence nor plausibility. And – it apparently has to be pointed out to him – there is a difference between “opinions” and an ‘assertions’ or ‘claims’, since the latter two create a demand upon others to be taken as true yet proffer no sufficient demonstration or explication or corroboration in any form.

      But he solves this problem – to his own satisfaction, anyway – by immediately adding that his own “opinions” are “honest and accurate” (which is precisely what his claims and allegations and assertions  have not demonstrated themselves to be) and then – so very conveniently – he also claims that my material is “lies” – although he has never proffered any accurate quotations to support that assertion. 

      All of which – so very conveniently – then justifies – in his own mind, anyway – his ‘calling me names’ because – doncha see? – I “deserve to be called names”. Neat. A particularly effective example of the ‘economy’ of the agitprop mentality: assert that somebody is X, presume the claim without any justification, and then on that (utterly insubstantial) basis justify your assertion that that somebody ‘deserves’ whatever you assert. 

      And even then further assert that what you are doing is just “Karma”. (Thus JR dons not only the pretend-papal Wig but the Wig of Karma as well.)

      Those keeping a Notebook are getting a rich haul today.

      The sixth paragraph continues in epithet-mode, since JR is clearly on a roll or out of control here. 

      The seventh paragraph ditto, again bringing in my death.

      (And can you imagine an outburst like this on the stand? The Anderson Strategies knew very well what they were doing when they avoided trials.)

      The eighth paragraph is an epithet against the Catholic religion as being “all about people not thinking for themselves”, although if what we have seen from JR (and other Abuseniks) is an example of what they can manage to ‘think’ when they have cut themselves loose and float-free, then I wouldn’t call their ‘liberation’ much of a liberation at all. 

      The ninth – digging now into the shoebox for any available 3x5s – brings up the Church-fascism bit. 

      The tenth then gets back to epithets against me, this time to the effect that I am “a typical Nazi”. And from that unsupported and un-explicated bit riffs on to phantasms of me ‘driving’ “a train to a death camp in a catholic country” (as has been pointed out to him many times here, the Government-General was not a Catholic country and the Poles themselves had few options; you’d think that somebody who caved to his own drafting into the U.S. Army – for which he demonstrably holds little regard – would be “sympathetic” to the problems confronting the Poles who had to deal with the SS and the Gestapo).

      Then – the Wig of Competent Diagnosis – I am “a narcissist”, recalling nothing so much as my previously expressed thought that Abuseniks keep 3x5s of diagnostic terms they have unhappily encountered in their own clinical misadventures, for plop-tossing against those who displease them. 

      But – and again this is simply too rhetorically neat for JR’s demonstrated level of competence – a riff that indicates some snippet of knowledge about the dynamics of narcissism (exaggerated self-love, in a broad stroke): JR cawn’t think what I might find in myself to “love”. Too clever by half.

      The eleventh then descends to the level low guttural threats about the future of the K of C and the Church and so on. Bolstered, as it were, by the Wig of Tea Leaves declaring that “the young have left you”, followed by larding-on a further riff to the effect that “the young” do “know that you don’t like people”. 

      And all of that is already far too histrionic yet rhetorically adept for JR. Yet it continues even further into the huffy-puffy depths with a neatly sly recall of the “truth” trope, i.e. that JR doth “tell [me] the truth”. 

      Readers may judge it all as they will. 

      And – from JR and his muse(s), who have been recently proclaimed by JR to know so very much about things Catholic – we get in conclusion a bunch of Latin words that mean absolutely nothing. Perhaps JR can scoot back to St. Peter’s for, at the very least, a few Latin lessons from “John 23”. 

  29. Publion says:

    I have just noticed that I hadn’t given sufficient attention to another drive-by comment from ‘True Catholic’, made on the 31st of July at 1254AM.

    The first sentence opens with a manipulative spin-setting assertion (“What a joke.”).

    The second sentence accuses me of ‘bypassing’ “all of the dozens of incriminating factors, on the defendant” (sic). But – as ever with Abuseniks – TC fails to actually list even a few of those “dozens of incriminating factors” and so this bit remains as simply another ungrounded and unsupported Abusenik assertion and claim.

    The third sentence accuses me of merely ‘choosing’ “one or two factors, to smear the victim”. Those “one or two factors” are vital and fundamental and significant elements, not just incidental or ancillary bits. And if those factors work to the detriment of the (presumed) “victim”, then that is not the fault of the questioner – rather, it is simply a consequence of the problems with the story and claim and allegation that “the victim” is making. Once again, we see here a classic Victimist and Abusenik dodge: if you point out problems with their claims, then it is you – and not their own material – that is ‘embarrassing’ and ‘smearing’ them.

    As to the fourth sentence: The lie-detector “result” is indeed “inadmissible” for evidentiary court purposes. But it is legitimately available for persons to use in forming their own opinions. In this case, the defendant not only passed the test (and twice) but also requested the procedure. If a defendant actively requests the test, and passes it (and twice), then one is hardly irrational in considering the possibility that the defendant is not trying to hide anything.

    And that “person working for the Church” is a former FBI agent. Would TC have been more comfortable with a small-time private eye? And if I recall correctly, “the Church” is not paying for the defendant’s defense costs and thus the former FBI agent is not “working for the Church”.

    As to the fifth and concluding sentence: the defendant has not been “proven to be a pedophile” (correction supplied).  And thus the bit as to how “a so-called ‘Catholic’ organization” can “defend” him fails for yet another reason.

    And thus TC’s most recent drive-by plop-toss.

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    How do I tyrannize you? Your church doesn't even pay taxes. Some tyranny!

    Gay people getting married forces you to do what exactly?

    What your church calls an "attack on religion" or an "attack against the family" is the simple removal of religious prejudice and bigotry from the common law. A place religion was used to dominating.

    Religion rules the rest of us, no more. You been put in your place and you are mad because you are used to ruling the roost. Declaring good or bad at your whim and for your financial gain on this plane.

    • Publion says:

      On the 5th at 1118 we get – again – a comment demonstrating far more range of subject than JR has ever demonstrated.

      The first paragraph asks – ludicrously, in light of my concluding comments on the 4th at 1127AM – how he doth “tyrannize” me. But – intentionally or otherwise – he pulls himself out of that hole he has just dug for himself by suddenly shifting focus from how he might tyrannize me to the subject of the Church paying taxes. Readers who can follow that bouncing ball are to be commended.

      As to the gay marriage question in the second paragraph: I had discussed this in prior comments on a previous thread – but when dealing with Abuseniks it’s always ‘today’ and there are no ‘yesterdays’ and one is always having to start afresh.

      So I will say again although at more length: The structure of marriage is vital to the structure of any society and culture and civilization; it is based in and based on the deepest anthropological assumptions about the nature of the two different sexes, about their purpose and role, about the raising of the children who will be carrying on that society and culture and civilization, and about how the sexual and the relational attractions (confusingly both called ‘love’ in the English language) between males and females are best channeled in the service of and to the betterment of that society and culture and civilization.

      These are profound and vital issues. And they deserve and must receive a full and open airing when a proposal (or, more accurately, a demand) is made to fundamentally alter a structure that has been in place for all of recorded human history across the board, across time and geographical space, among all human cultures known to us.

      And in light of so profound a content (of the demand) then a) it is necessary for all persons in any society and culture and civilization to have their say and thus b) it is frivolous to the most immoral extreme for any court to simply wave away all of that with – for all practical purposes – a wave of 9 wands … or, actually, 5 wands, and thereby forcing an entire society, culture and civilization to accept so profound a change not only to their beliefs but quite possibly to the successful continuation of their society and their culture and their civilization.

      To presume that the waving of 5 wands can effect this change, without consequences, and to presume that there is only an up-side to the thing, is Cartoonish in the extreme.

      The third paragraph sees JR sallying forth into “the common law” (and surely another mind is at work here): i) there is nothing “simple” about all of this and ii) the structure of marriage and family based on the stable bonding of a male and a female has not been limited to “the common law” of the recent English-speaking West but has been the practice of all major civilizations. So this sally into “the common law” bit is ludicrously and ridiculously insufficient as an explanation or justification. Male-female marriage predates Christianity and extends far beyond Christianity in time and geographical space.

      The fourth paragraph attempts another pronunciamento with the fake-Papal Wig of Pronouncement. Which is then followed by an attempt to reduce the whole matter to sour-grapes in the school cafeteria.

      And the whole bit is concluded then with a reference to “this plane”. The easy explanation for this odd phrase is that it is simply more JR whackness. But I don’t think that’s it. Some mind, capable of recalling terms and weaving them in with some rhetorical skill, is hearking back to my Plane of Existence terminology. And although it is not really apt as deployed here, it indicates again some mind beyond JR’s.

  31. Jim Robertson says:

     FYI, combat to the death continued 250 years into the christian era in the Coliseum. (So much for a religion of love.)

    So a Nazi,you P, who spells well with spell check (which I don't ,for some strange reason, have at this sight) is, somehow, my moral superior? Spelling with an electronic aid some how in your teeny brain equates to morality? Pathetic.

    This is why people walk away from your nonsense shaking their heads.

    • Publion says:

      On the 5th at 317PM JR will proffer another of his “FYI” pronouncements, which – one might think – he would have by now learned is not his strongest suit.

      Gladiatorial combat was a deeply-rooted element of Roman society centuries before Christianity or the Church developed. The historical fact that it continued after the dawn of Christianity and even after the Theodosian elevation of the Christianity to the official religion of the Empire simply indicates that not even Christianity or the still-nascent Church could stop so popular and rooted a practice quickly.

      Tertullian in the 3rd and Augustine in the 4th century wrote against the combats, with the former declaring that they were murder, spiritually harmful to all involved, and that the deaths of gladiators amounted to nothing less than pagan sacrifice. But even Constantine defied his own edict against the games (issued in 337AD when he converted to Christianity), in light of their popularity.

      The increasing crises of the Empire in the 3rd century put a strain on imperial finances, since monies were urgently needed to fund the legions fighting against barbarian incursions.

      However, St. Telemachus sought to do so at the combats themselves and was stoned to death by the angry crowd. But this martyrdom so impressed the Emperor Honorius that he banned such combats in Rome, with the last known combat there taking place on January 1st, 404AD.

      So much for JR’s effort at plop-tossing. And his ‘knowledge’ of things ancient and Christian and Catholic and what-have-you.

      As to the second paragraph:

      I don’t use spell-check since I learned to spell in grade-school. And we see again JR’s attempt to excuse his own (incomprehensibly intermittent) spelling ‘problem’ by claiming that there is no spell-check on the TMR site. But that can be solved by composing his comments on his own computer (which cannot but have a spell-check in this day and age); as for imported material, his muse(s) seem to have sufficient spelling chops.

      JR has invented the issue of my being his “moral superior” because I spell correctly, as he has invented so much to distract from actual issues. His epithet as to my “teeny brain” however, coming from a man claiming the mantle of almost 70 years, is – if I may quote him accurately – “Pathetic”.

      And his concluding comment, viewed through the lens of clinical projection, should provide him with quite a bit of food for thought.

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    My god you are an ass! Did I spell that right?

    You are so superior what with learning how to spell and all and in grade school yet. Extraordinary! Congratulations!

    Was that your college major Dr. Pangloss? Spelling? Wonderful! 

    You are like the man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. 

    What you do to the English language is a crime against nature but you spell it correctly. Hitler spelled his Mein Kampf correctly too. I see you're in familiar company there.

    I wouldn't be talking about projection if i were you. You project your lies upon a universe that offers ZERO proof for your dreams/ nightmares.

    You project others to be liars when after all it's you who lies.

    I'm done, for now, bickering with you.

    It's boring. My  invain attempts to communicate with whatever you are: Evil? Stupid? Superstitious? Nazi? Is a waste of time.

    You are all of the above but a christian? Never. There isn't a christian bone in your body.

    I wait to see what happens in Philly. Your church's World family conference should be a laugh riot.[ And what a swell coincidense: K of C Supreme Klan meeting; World family bullshit conference; and pope Frank all in Philly and all within a 2 month period. Philly .where the only prelate (if a monsignor is a prelate) is in jail for his being an accessory to catholic child rape. You guys really know how to support the family all right; by fucking the kids?] What a holy example you are!

    Show the world your bigotry against real families who happen to be headed by same sex parents. It is always so charming to watch. So Jesus like "Doncha know?"

    Moronic closet cases like yourself demeaning hard working families is so droll; and so full of love. That's why you attract and keep so many born into your crap fantasy. It's all that love you show.

    Go at it. You do love so well. 

    "Rest without peace" is exactly what I said and what I meant to say and in Latin.

  33. Dennis Ecker says:

    Hi Jim, I don't think you are really going to see anything spectacular happen in Philly with Frank's visit. There are so many people pissed off already ranging from local citizens to business owners. Many already have said they want no parts of his visit and if they were planning on attending have changed their mind. The pope will not be walking into a city of brotherly love. Not only will there be a strong showing of those affected by clergy sexual abuse, but if you are aware of Margie Winters the married lesbian school teacher who lost her position at a catholic school will also have a strong showing. Then there is the scratching of the heads of the catholics who are questioning the moving of Msgr. Lynn to a prison 2 1/2 hrs. away from Philadelphia after he was chosen to be one of the inmates to meet with Pope Francis when he visits Fromhold correction the residence of Lynn before he was mysteriously moved. The archdiocese and the city have gone to far. From closing of roads that will restrict people from getting into their own homes, closing of the Ben Franklin Bridge, and now the Philadelphia Schools requesting to close additional days have pissed off alot of people. Removal of school days to the already dumb kids of Philadelphia does not sound like a smart move, and the little hoodlums would be most likely be the ones who cause any trouble. I see some lawsuits after the pope is long gone because of all the lost revenue.



    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hello Dennis, I'm no seer. I could be completely wrong about monsignor Lynn's case; and it's connection to the pope's visit. But the fact that Francis was/is schedualed to visit the prison Lynn was in, says much. (He could still helicopter to Lynn. It would be a visit from on high. :^))

      The church will turn out all it's schools children as is done everywhere when the Big Kahuna shows up. I've no problem with that.

      The fact all the public will pay for the pope's security is an issue for me. Why should protestants, gays; muslims; and atheists foot the bill for papal mumbo jumbo? I don't know.

      So far pope Francis' behavior has been progressive towards the poor VERBALLY but in action the church is the same ol' same ol'.

      They refuse to compensate their own child victims while throwing millions of dollars against the right of women to choose and gays wanting to marry. They hide their wealth as in Minneasota (by transferring tens of millions into a cemetary trust thanks to cardinal Happy Dolan, who was promoted to cardinal of New York city for doing so..

      What Francis says and how the church behaves are polar opposite positons. Francis may not judge gay people but the church he rules judges gay employees right out of their jobs. So much for love.

      Dennis, Hope you are well? All's good here.

      Peace and love to all who care about peace and love. Go Bernie!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Also Lynn's transfer to another prison because the pope might visit him only underlines the Lynn as martyr campaign/show. Poor persecuted prelate! You won't see Frank visiting the church's victims. A few "well" choosen catholic victims might be picked to meet Francis (They'll come to him, tugging their forelocks) where they will wet themselves with gratitude and honor  and mysticism at his "holy" yet still "humble" presence. The media, per usual, will sing Frank's praises.

      And the Beat goes On, as Sonny sang to Cher before he hit the tree.

  34. TrueCatholic says:

    In Minnesota. A victim, who was a successful lawyer, sued for abuse he reported, thirty years ago. When he was a teenager. The Church' stance, was that he was unlikely a victim. Because most victims, usally become drug addicts, alcoholics, and criminals. His past did not "fit the mold". Their argument, was "Surely, if he was a victim. He would have a criminal record, and a drug, or alcohol, history."

    And yet. Whenever most victims, step foward, to sue. They are immediately smeared, and discounted, by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church brings shoplifting, and drug related charges. To discredit anyclaim they might have.

    • malcolm harris says:

      On the 12th we have 'TrueCatholic' again heaping scathing criticism onto the Catholic Church. Frankly I think that the credibility of this person must be called into question. Because cannot recall anything but criticism of the Church from him/her. It would be like me pouring negatives on all Buddhists and then calling myself 'TrueBuddhist" ????  People would begin to question my genuineness, thats for sure..

      As for the story he proffers about a lawyer's own personal claim being rejected by the Church… then so what? Surely a lawyer would know that after waiting 30 years before acting,then he might have left it too late. The fact that he didn't follow through with his threat to take his case to court should tell us that his case rested on flimsy grounds. Too flimsy to convince a court! So why should we be surprised that the Church also doubted his veracity. 

      As for the Church publicly trashing the claimant's reputation…this is nonsense. The claim would have been handled secretly… whilst he argued eloquently for a settlement. Usually these things only become public when the claimant sees some tactical advantage in making it public themselves.

      I don't believe that "TrueCathollic' is being entirely honest with us. But if he is… then I have little sympathy for this lawyer, because he would know his rights better than most of us. That's for certain.


  35. TrueCatholic says:

    How the Catholic Church can stad behind Msgr Linn ? When it was clearly proven, he lied and covered child rape up. Is beyond me. Like Archbishop Nienstedt (Minneota) and  Bishop Finn (Kansas City). He has not, and will not, be removed from the peiesthood.