Your PBS Tax Dollars Hard at Work – Promoting Anti-Catholic Bigotry In Boston

Phil Saviano : Margery Eagan : Mitchell Garabedian : Michael Rezendes : Martha Coakley

Publicly funded haters (l to r): BishopAccountability's Phil Saviano, dissident Margery Eagan,
contingency lawyer Mitchell Garabedian, the Boston Globe's egomaniac Michael Rezendes,
and former Mass. AG Martha Coakley

It was 65 years ago when political thinker Peter Viereck first wrote, "Catholic-baiting is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals."

That aphorism was fully ablaze the other night when the left-wing talk show Greater Boston, airing on Boston PBS television station WGBH, devoted a half hour under the pretense of discussing the death of Cardinal Bernard Law to brutally attacking the Catholic Church with ugly falsehoods and outright bigotry.

Greater Boston is hosted by Jim Braude, a veteran broadcaster whose thirst to attack the Catholic Church is only outweighed by his own sense of self-importance. And Braude made sure to round up a reliable stable of like-minded Church-bashers who would be sure to hammer the Church over decades-old sex abuse cases. Braude's panelists included:

Jim Braude : WGBH

Carnival barker/host Jim Braude
directs a bigoted assault

And Braude's guests surely kept the hate flowing, with panelists taking turns predictably blaming the abuse scandals on the "all-male priesthood" and the "power structure" of the Church. Saviano chirped that "if there had been a few women in those rectories, there wouldn't have been half the problems we ended up with." (Note to Saviano: Women have been running parish rectories for at least the past 50 years.)

Yet the worst may have come from Garabedian, who, in addressing abuse in the Catholic Church decades ago, raged, "The Church has been doing this for centuries; they've been raping kids at a wholesale pace for centuries; it's a trillion dollar business."

After nearly 25 minutes more of this echo chamber of hate, Coakley unleashed a line which one could only imagine she had been waiting the entire episode to deliver: "This is an institution where they still dress as they did in the 15th century. So what do you expect?" Classy, eh? And this is from a former Attorney General, who is supposed to be fair and impartial.

Double … standard

Step back for a moment. Imagine if a guest on a television program had said that Muslims, Buddhists, or Jews had been "raping kids at a wholesale pace for centuries." Think about it. The rebuke would be rightfully fast and furious. The person who would utter such calumny would likely be fired and banished from mainstream media forever. The same applies for someone who would attack a religion because they "still dress as they did in the 15th century."

This is called "bigotry." But if the topic is the Catholic Church, it is only business as usual.

And the tragic irony here: You are forced to pay for all this through your tax dollars.


  1. Jim Robertson says:

    Vickie Vitriol be back! And spelling is her forte. Fuck you! You dick wad! Fuck you from the bottom of my church rich heart. I lied and I've got yer money.  HA! Every victim has lied. Yet you are the biggest liar of all. You lie about religion, sexual abuse, people's personal history. Nothing human is sacred to you jerks.

    But hold on the vast majority of victims have gotten no money. Dear oh dear I guess our "lil" fraud hasn't worked Ol' Jeebus mus be on your side. Scumbags!

    And Vickie killing you would be a pleasure. Another gem for my throne in heaven.

    Why am I supposed to be ashamed of wanting to kill you P?

    Why is that such a terrible idea? To know you is to want to kill you.


  2. Donald Link says:



    Jim Robertson's comment should never have been allowed on this site.  Someone was asleep at the wheel.

    A side note:  There have been efforts for decades to stop the public finding of PBS and NPR for good reason.  It is simply not a function of government to finance opinion.  That can be done by those wishing to spread their message.  For those in favor of continuing this funding, remamber that one day it may be your beliefs that are ridiculed and nailed to the wall.

    • Dan says:

      Let's be perfectly clear, Donald Link, it's not just your "beliefs that are ridiculed", but more the disgusting child molesting crimes of your clergy, the churches shuffling of those criminals to harm more children, the secrecy and deceiving hiding of those crimes, the business as usual attitude of "the church" and the false teachings of your cult that are being questioned. It's not the moral authority as it claims, nor the pure true church of God Almighty. If your claim is that "the church" is being persecuted, than NO, it's only getting what it deserves and brought upon itself.

  3. Jim Robertson says:

    I agree Donald. My post shouldn't have appeared. But I just get so fucking tired of being lied about. I came here to be as honest as humanly possible and I hit the conservative Catholic horror show. Where the dead matter more than the living. Where lies are passed off as truth.

    Donald who finances opinion for the poor? The disenfranchised? If the govt. doesn't do it the owner class will and we know who benefits from that. My beliefs have been ridiculed and nailed to a wall all my life. I'm a Communist and I'm gay. What you object to is any criticism of your beliefs and that's free speach you are fighting. I've lived through decades of loathing and misrepresentation and laws that enforced that. Who has made a law against your religion? No one. you're pissed that you've been called out for your crimes against your own children. Accept it happened apologize and give reparation and move on with your victims by your side not our perpetrators.

    Marty would rather read books about demons. And demons possessing people while his country (assuming he's American) supports the slaughter of millions of his fellow men in real life. Real life not scarey kiddie stories. Seems he skipped the Age of Reason.

    How many of you listen to Rush and or watch Fox News? How many of you are from the Mid-West. What's your educatuion levels more importantly what do you read? Who do you read?

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    education obviously.


  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Hello from The Virgin Mary. I'm inspiring Jim to write what I want to happen.

    "Dan I'm dead. Dead as a doornail. I'm a contraption that people, real people love. I help them through their troubles My boy is so busy helping his Dad run the universe and everything. So I get all his excess prayers. I do a little sorting and give him the big ones to handle. I'm like his secretary. Every now and then I make personal appearance usually encouraging springs, tourism, hotels and gift shops. But you know Dan people feel easier talking to a woman sometimes. Even imaginary ones, like me and they pray and think and go on with their lives. Their trips to meet me mean something to them. Even if I'm not here. I'll not answer the prayers. my son will not answer them either but like the devotions once made to Apollo or Aphrodite  these prayers fall upon the wind and still people go on.

    Have a nice day Dan and don't be so rigid. In my son's house their are many mansions.

    Yours truely the V.M."

    • Dan says:

      Wow Jim, now that I know she speaks through you, I'm convinced that she must be the real deal. I think I'll go dumpster diving and see if I can find the rosary beads and statues I threw away 50 years ago. Maybe I'll even have a vision while I'm digging through the muck and mire. LOL

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dan Catholics believe as is their right that they don't worship Mary they honor her.  They use the Rosary beads because they want to and it's their tradition. They tell every Catholic child not to worship Mary or the statues. The statues are just reminders of the "real" deal in Heven.

      Catholics have I mis-stated your POV?

    • Jim Robertson says:



  6. Jim Robertson says:

    There not their.

  7. Publion says:

    On then to JR”s of the 13th at 1139PM:

    The epithetical opening is a reliable tip-off that there isn’t going to be too much substance to whatever follows.

    Here JR merely repeats his bit about the mid-1990s FBI numbers, ignoring the profound difference between a) the mere fact that a claim has been made and b) the question of whether the claim is factual in its content. For JR – whether for mere rhetorical purposes or because he can’t really think things through or both – the difference between (a) and (b) cannot be considered.

    But that evasion thus grounds his further riffing, bleating as to “liars” and presuming to speak for and make claims about “the vast majority of” … (slyly) “us”. And so on. Anyway, so what if they might have “robbed the sacred money of the bestests” (sic) … ? It’s not that bad when there’s more of it where that came from, doncha see?

    But who’s “pretending” here? It’s JR who’s doing that, “pretending” that most of the claims were genuine (including his own). I’ve only pointed out the notably problematic elements with the Stampede.

  8. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 842PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to start the play at second or third base rather than with an at-bat: he wishes readers to presume that his various bits constitute a sufficient and convincing ‘explanation in detail’ as to his bleats and brays about Mary as – had you been waittttingggggggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “a false Christ”.

    ‘Dan’ doesn’t see – and probably can’t allow himself to see – the rather profound difference between a) a mere recitation of his 3×5 bits and b) a convincing explication and demonstration of his 3×5 bits.

    And – with a marvelous demonstration of lack of self-awareness – he then goes on to quote Matthew about “false prophets”; this from somebody who has recently put up what he claims is a “prophecy” (from God through ‘Dan’ or somebody who lives with him) on this site.

    He proffers one new twist: in the matter of Lourdes miracles, perhaps they are “medically impossible” but maybe that just means that they came from the Devil. Hmmmm, and maybe the crew in his bathroom mirror comes from that source as well … it surely hasn’t been demonstrated to be otherwise, and it is certainly possible that even the Devil can quote Scripture.

  9. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 908PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ now claims as “deceit” – on what authority one might wonder – that Mary “retained her faith” during the Crucifixion.  Does ‘Dan’ have any Biblical evidence to contradict my statement?

    He does not. Instead – ridiculously – he simply unloads a larding of epithets, leading up to the queasily juvenile bit about Catholics etc. being “too chicken and obviously guilty to face the “awesome Father”.

    Since Mary was given so exalted a position by the Father, and since it’s – in the Catholic vision – “all in the family” up there in the Heavenly Throne room … ‘Dan’s objection remains merely an artifact of his fundie and personal agenda and animus.

    Oh, and ‘Dan’ hereby declares that he entertains no jealousy whatsoeverinanywayatall in regard to who qualifies for the title Queen of Heaven. Methinks ‘Dan’ doth protest too much.

  10. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 13th at 152PM:

    The Horned Helmet and (plastic) Spear are brandished vigorously here.

    On the basis of his performance here in this comment it seems quite possible to me that those long-ago high-school administrators were not inaccurate in their original estimation: JR is a vengeful, other-blaming sorta guy and if you cross him (failing him in a subject, say) then he’s gonna getcha you betcha. Half a century and more later and JR’s merely gone further down that darkling road.

    It’s JR who has now said that “every victim has lied” – I have never said any such thing.

    He then claims – yet again – that “the vast majority of victims have gotten no money”. And the basis for that claim? He has no basis; it’s just a bit to gussy up his own preferred cartoon.

    And if he is to be believed in his querulous concluding plaints, he honestly and genuinely cawn’t think why he should “be ashamed of” wanting to kill me nor “why [that should be] such a terrible idea”. It certainly appears from these ‘questions’ that those high-school administrators were on to something half a century and more ago.

  11. malcolm harris says:

    The only reason I read comments from JR, and Dan, is because they are like phoney signposts. Potentially misleading gullible minds…. the people who may  be seeking  genuine answers. Of course I cannot speak for Publion, but suspect  he is motivated by the thought that somebody might be sidetracked by all the baloney. So he  takes out his magnifying glass to highlight the many errors…. of historical fact….. and the outright bigotry. He also seasons his offeriings with the occasional cutting observation. Which, I suspect, really stirs up Mr.JR . But my own view is that modern pitchfork- bearers will never achieve what Emperor Nero ​failed to achieve. He couldn't destroy the Church….  nor will you guys.

    • Dan says:

      It's pretty telling, Malcolm, that publiar's catholic fan club prefers publiar's lies over someone telling you the truth. This is what indoctrination and brainwashing does, Malcolm, after awhile you can't distinguish between what is truth and what is deceit. You've fielded so many lies from "the Church", that when someone offers you the truth, you think it's "baloney". The "baloney" you've been consuming from "the Church" would be closer to head cheese or pigs feet. By the way, the cult is slowly destroying itself and you have none but yourselves to blame.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Poor old Nero.

      Could he read at night by the torches in his garden?

      Baloney? Prove it baloney. Malcolm you are slipping. Nobody wants to wreak your church. We wouldn't mind if you wreaked it. But that's up to you. It's yours not mine.

      I'm here complaining about your unpunished crimes. Including the FRAUD that is SNAP and every other fake victims groups you've created around the world.

  12. Publion says:

    If I may address the ‘Donald Link’ comment of the 14th at 1240PM:

    While Dave Pierre and I have never discussed these JR murder threats directly, I have not objected to their being allowed up on the site; these comments of JR’s do give readers a picture that they might well never have gotten otherwise.

    I certainly understand and share DL’s own distaste for them.

    But there is an overriding revelatory value to them, I would say, and – without presuming to speak for Dave Pierre – I think he realizes that as well.

  13. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 15th at 1AM:

    This comment of JR’s responds to mine of the 12th at 203PM.

    But – as so often – it raises more questions than JR would truculently presume to answer.

    In JR’s claimed scenario, allegants went to the torties first and it was the torties who then told the allegants to go to the SNAP meetings (to which, presumably, they had not been interested in going to before) and thus that the allegants sought out torties on their own with no help from SNAP.

    Readers may consider the plausibility of that assertion as they may.

    But again: in what ways, then, were such clearly enterprising allegants “controlled by SNAP”? Did the torties tell these allegants to go to SNAP meetings and buy everything they were told or that they heard at those meetings? Or did the torties suggest that mere physical attendance at such meetings would ‘look good’ for the case? (Thus, perhaps, the torties wanted to establish a sympathetic ‘track record’ of allegants as being so damaged and eager for ‘healing’ that they took every advantage – i.e. attending SNAP’s ostensibly therapeutic or ‘recovery’ or ‘support’ meetings.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      In my case I went to my lawyer first. I had been to one SNAP meeting back East many years before so I knew about SNAP and when my lawyer said go to their meetings here I went. I should have known from the jump something was fraudulent. I asked questions i did my due dilligence. But the cross hatching of "authorities" made me believe they were anything but the church. But BOY was I WRONG. They were the church doing what the church needed to have done. Focus on anything but the victims and first and foremost Never become a class action suit and secondly Never support any recovered memory of abuse. We instead spoke only about protecting Catholic children. So that the church could show how much they were protecting Catholic children NOW.

  14. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 14th at 928PM:

    Here JR tries to continue running his deceptive line of thinking whereby one must merely presume that a) any accusation or allegation made is b) ipso facto to be taken as veracious.

    He also makes reference to the recently-concluded Australian Royal Commission into abuse matters. Although he does not – despite the availability of that Report on the Web – actually make any relevant points about the Report’s contents.

    I also note – again – that last summer’s Aussie brouhaha over the accusations against Cardinal Pell, last seen when the prosecutors promised to quickly turn over their evidence to the defense counsel ,appears to have disappeared, and without any such ‘evidence’ being turned over.

    As I have often said on this site, the more you look closely at so very many of these Catholic abuse cases and assorted forms of litigation or prosecution, the more questionable the whole process seems: the Dutch matter of 2011, the Irish Magdalene brouhaha of a few years later, the Austrian (or German) choirboy matter, and now this Pell matter in Australia, to say nothing of the many USA cases.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I have a deceptive line of thinking based on the facts of 2 to 8% false claims as stated by the FBI the same FBI your side bought and brought into this story?  Hired former FBI were all over the church's side. Hired hands to really investigate our stories. Retired FBI agents mostly. How much was spent on them? The FBI figures are the same % as the John Jay report estimated?

      I'm saying individual claims against the church are just that ,individual. SNAP the false flag made it look like victims were organized when we were in fact being organized alright but by the church through SNAP.  Look at the outcome. California gets the highest settlements. Fact. What happened to the other 49 states and X # of territories? What did the rest get?

      It's not real victims responsibility if YOU get hit on by fraudsters. You set up the very system that allowed people to abuse and even encouraged it by trying to save priests instead of your own children. This is ALL YOUR problem yet you blame all claiments.

      Where is your morality? Blaming 92% of victims? Fraudsters are the cost of you doing business. Not my problem. Particularly when your church created fraud after fraudulent group to control us.

      Barbra Blaine died of shame. She was used by her church. hailed a heroine by the media as a leader of victims and died in part due to the contradictions between who she really worked for, the church and who the world thought she worked for, us victims



  15. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1019PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to rebut or neutralize my ‘surf’ analogy by … rummaging through Scripture for “water” imagery.

    On the basis of which collection he then puffs up his pinfeathers to declaim as to “when will you catholics quit being impressed and puffed up with the ignorance …” and so on. Rather, Catholics are instructed to “listen to God’s Word” (but only as interpreted by ‘Dan’, of course).

    Then – revealing his own fundamental loss-of-boundaries between self and others – ‘Dan’ presumes to decide for God that “your cult is way past any chance of forgiveness …” and so on.

    Oh, and he’s rather satisfied with himself over his “go down with the ship” imagery. That must console him.

  16. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 14th at 908PM, wherein JR himself doth respond to the ‘Donald Link’ comment of the 14th at 1240PM:

    It is notable that JR doesn’t actually blame himself; rather, he now thinks that his “opst shouldn’t have appeared”. As if it were Dave Pierre’s fault for letting it post and not JR’s for having written it in the first place. JR is ever a victim, doncha know?

    Having thus evaded his own actions even with his ‘apologetic’ remorse, JR quickly (and so very slyly) changes the subject to the matter of his own heroic and truthy purposes here.

    For the record, I have certainly not “nailed [JR’s “beliefs”] to the wall”; I have pointed out the problematic elements either within his claims and assertions or in regard to the consequences that they entail and the further questions that they almost always create.

    But JR can’t make a ‘victim’ out of himself merely for having to demonstrate and explicate his claims and assertions; thus he must be “nailed to the wall” to maintain that semblance of victim-y cachet and status.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Princess. I should never have said it period. Whether I do or not depends on you almost as much as on me. But you can't do it. You can not say anything nice about me. And I felt punked by your lies and in the real world you insult someone long enough and you'll get a poke in the nose.

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 908PM:

    That he is “Communist and gay” – which, I would say, should the very very least of his concerns – is something that is supposed to nail-down his ‘victim’ status; he’s persecuted for his “beliefs” and his sexual orientation, doncha see? And he’d rather leave his myriad and highly-dubious and problematic claims, assertions and accusations out of it, thank you.

    Oh, and he’s bethumped by those who don’t appreciate “free speech” – heading once again for the victim-y high-ground.

    And so on.

    He’s bethumped – certainly by me – for his myriad and highly-dubious and problematic claims, assertions and accusations. His “beliefs” and the rest are not at issue as far as I’m concerned and he’s welcome to them.

    Thus also the issues raised on this site are hardly well-characterized as some form of ‘conservative vs. liberal’ problem. The issues are, rather, well-reasoned and supported claims and valid questions vs. mere self-serving ranting, insinuation, and accusation.

    Anything else he goes on about in this comment is – to use his one of his own favorite characterizations – merely a “smokescreen” to cover his very problematic stuff.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      What should my concerns be P-liar? I didn't say I was persecuted presently. But I've been before. Oh I forgot the game is that I lie about everything. Remind the readership how awful I am. P. That's what you are here for. Me or anybody else who holds your church responsible for it's crimes will always be wrong here. My question is: why?

      The Left Catholics will pretend to talk about it justly but you guys just deny it ever happened. Afraid the old folks will cut you out of their wills?

    • Dan says:

      We're glad to see that you've finally come to the realization that your "mere self-serving ranting, insinuation[s], and accusation[s]", and let's not forget your compulsive lies, are all issues you're having a problem with. Could you warn us ahead of time when you're going to start "well-reasoned and supported claims and valid questions", it just may be too much shock to our systems. And like Dick says, goddess bless.

  18. Marty says:

    Dan / Jim- I don't know if this makes you happy : an evangelical church in communist China has been demolished for " code violations" , with no notice to the congregation. No pope in that church. Last month, it was a Catholic Church . Is this what you want in the u.s.? To physically destroy it? Maybe the Chinese will build another plastic factory , and you'll support it by buying plastic junk. Maybe they'll start doing it in the u.s. If organized religion is destroyed , what fills the vacuum , organized Marxism , or organized new age religions?

         This is why you are freeloaders off western civ. If you did what you do here , in Saudi Arabia ,you'd have consequences:

    Dan – a Shia who would continually denigrate the majority Sunni , would not be accepted well.

    Jim – a person who continually blasphemed , would be called to task.



    • Dan says:

      Hey chump! Who you calling a freeloader? I was born in this country and paid taxes for over 40 years of employment and property taxes. We have freedom of speech in this country, and the only ones denying me of my freedom was stupid cults, like yours, with its cowardly ignorant lies and liars. You don't like it here, then go live in Saudi Arabia. Just because a certain people makes a majority doesn't make them right, and the catholic church is a perfect example of that.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Lol! Blasphemed? Not enough forlock tugging to your beliefs? You'll live.


  19. Marty says:

    (Con't) the laws there might suggest prison , or beheading.

    Pax Marty – your "p"c – marty

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    Happy as a P-ig inP-oo.

    One church in Communist China demolished and that effects your freedom in America how?

    I'm not free to be myself or publicly be myself in Russia. I'm still free here and though I support my friends in Russia getting their civil rights. I can't pretend I'm being persecuted here. Gays are far more persecuted than Christians are, everywhere. Let's make a deal.You come out for my people's freedom and I'll come out for yours.

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    "Oh! we are going to talk about me are we? Goody!"

    Yes Catholics would never support murder. Lol! Christians would never support murder.Lol!

    I'm Irish and when my dander is up. It's up.

    I can safely say that I have never ever threatened anyone else with murder in my entire life. I admit I've done this time period with P.

    When I am lied about and insulted and demeaned, unjustly .i see red.

    When communication, questioning and respect are thrown out the door for propaganda that protects rapists. I see red.

    When a critic never has something good to say about you and I mean never. They aren't fair and or they just aren't looking to find any .goodness ever. That's where we are with P.  To what end? Who benefits?

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    Marty your church spent $20,000 000 against equal rights for gays in Calif. And you lost. That 20 million could have built one humdinger of a church.

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    You know I guess I wanted to be banned. I have been edited here before. The powers that be here probably had a phone conference and decided oh let the bastard hang himself. My suicide attempt perhaps. Thought maybe you'd have me arrested and I'd get attention to my Conspiracy facts. It's a fucking drag trying to do right. Mock away McP. It's all you've got.

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    wrecked.  Sorry about the misspells. 

  25. malcolm harris says:

    On the 14th JR said that he was communist and gay. My reaction then was….who cares? But things have happened in Australia that caused me to think about the politics of the gay lobby. The backgound was a national postal vote on the question of same-sex marriage. Both sides of the debate used adverts, to push their respective arguments.  One particular T.V. advert really made the gay lobby angry. A  real and genuine lady doctor publicly said she was against homosexuals marrying… and gave her reasons. The gay lobby went ballistic and demanded she be struck off the medical registry, Saying that she was not fit to practice her profession.  It reminded me of communism, in the old soviet union. If a prominent person publicly questioned the party line he was stripped of status. For example a former respected scientist might find himself sweeping the factory floor.  Yes… by their fruits you will know them.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, and by your fruits we surely have gotten to know the catholic church. Also by their greediness, idolatry, pedophilia, perversions and cowardice lying, we have surely come to know your church. Stop defending them and making excuses for their disgusting sin.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Well I'm one of your fruits. And everything I've told you is true except for my pretending sarcasticallythat I wasn't abused.

      As far as my being a Communist goes. Indeed and so what? And  big so what to your judgments on both. You've been wrong about gay people. You could be just as wrong about Communism. There are many brands and God knows Capitalism has never killed anyone.

  26. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 819PM, where JR merely promises me that he will “answer your lies below”.  Readers may then consult JR’s subsequent comments in this batch and see if that be true.

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 811PM:

    Here JR recites a story that corresponds to one of the possibilities I had mentioned, i.e. that he went to the tortie first and the tortie had “said to go to [SNAP] meetings”.

    But JR had already gone to a single SNAP meeting “many years before” “so [he] knew about SNAP”.

    But JR then bleats that he “should have known” about SNAP (but he was a ‘victim’ of some skullduggery – doncha see? – that somehow had pulled the wool over his eyes and so he didn’t see that “something was fraudulent”).

    As to what “questions” he asked and what “due diligence” he performed – especially in light of his current claims and story … readers may judge as they will.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 811PM:

    But then we suddenly pass from what might be taken as ‘history’ to – via a sly and deceptive leap – a mere repetition of his favorite theory, i.e. that SNAP and the torties were all merely tools of the Church arrayed purposely to confuse, deceive, and defraud him of his rightful cash.

    But – quickly donning the Wig of Youthful Innocence – he intones that – gosh and golly-gee – “Boy, was I wrong”. The all-American kid – doncha see? – was taken to the cleaners by an evil cabal run by the Church. (And yet he corralled a cool million somehow, though the SNAP-tortie cabal – the horror! – wound up taking 40 percent or so of it for fees and costs.)

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 811PM:

    And just what other “focus” beyond the swag did JR seek when he went to the torties to get himself a slice of the 500-plus-plaintiff LA settlement of a dozen years ago? He now bleats about the Church demonstrating “how much they were protecting children now” (scare-caps omitted). Readers may consider if the Church has not demonstrated “now” one of the most stringent protection-regimens on the planet.

    As to why the torties didn’t think it wise to go the class-action-suit route: it could certainly have seemed prudent to the torties not to run the risk of exposing too much of the allegants’ stories and mindsets in any extensive publicity that might – the real horror – slip out of control and screw up the Innocence-vs-Evil meme upon which the Stampede settlements strategy sought to a) keep up public appearances and b) hide what was really just a fresh running of the old ‘sue bigly and settle out of court bigly’ tortie strategy.

  29. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 17th at 526PM:

    Once again, JR merely repeats his FBI claim again, ignoring the various problems with it as pointed out in prior posts.

    And once again he somehow tries to insinuate i) the presence of “former FBI”. But didn’t they once work for the very same FBI upon whose figures JR would have us rely here?

    And ii) that somehow these “former FBI” were merely “hired hands” of the Church.”Hired” for what purpose? To somehow derail or deflate the allegants’ stories? But what if many stories (as Federal Judge Schilz noted) did come apart under close investigation (think of JR’s own ‘story’ in its myriad evolutions and how it has fared under even modest examination here).

    Readers may note the grammatically-nonsensical final sentence of the first paragraph, appearing to make an indicative statement but then ending with a question-mark.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 526PM:

    And then the second paragraph merely repeats JR’s preferred cartoon theory: that while the allegants were “individual’, they were organized by a SNAP (and torties) in cahoots with the master-minding Church.

    In support of which we have the utter non-sequitur of his introducing the size of the California settlements (perhaps he means the big LA case of a dozen years ago, into which he managed to get his oar, for a million-dollar payday). What precisely is the relevance of the CA size-of-settlements point here?

    “What did the rest get?”. The overall U.S. settlements total is said to be – conservatively – 3 billion dollars and as noted on a recent prior thread, the figure put forward by the liberal National Catholic Reporter may actually be closer to 4 billion dollars. (I think the NCR’s stratagem here is to presume that if so much money came through the settlements then … the allegations just must have been hugely veracious.)

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 526PM:

    Thus – and had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttt? – JR then claims in his third paragraph that it’s not “real victims responsibility” (note the sly inclusion of himself among the “real”) because they were “hit on by fraudsters”, i.e. – but of course – the Church-run SNAP-tortie cabal.

    They were just ‘victims’ – doncha see? – of a cabal while they were trying to get some money they very much thought they might like to have on the basis of claims and accusations they weren’t really too keen on having examined too closely.

    Neato: one gets the cash for claiming to be a ‘victim’ while also keeping the moral high-ground because it’s not one’s fault that one had to lodge the accusations and claims in the first place. This sounds rather too much like the old bank-robber defense: it’s not the bank-robber’s fault if society went and put all that nice and easy cash in a place where it could be grabbed; blame society for putting the money there in the first place.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 526PM:

    On the basis of the foregoing, JR then puffs up the old pinfeathers and belts out the aria ‘Where Is Your Morality?’. After which he instantly – had you been waitttingggg forr itttttt? – exonerates himself in the aria ‘It’s Not My Problem’ (because – doncha see? – the Church assembled and ran the whole SNAP-tortie  cabal to begin with … and toss in the FBI too, sort of).

    He then tries to shoe-horn the recent death of former SNAP honchita Barbara Blaine: she “died of shame” – doncha see? – when she realized how she had been hoodwinked by the Church. But – as we saw here at great length quite a while back – she knew exactly what she was getting into when she signed up with Jeff Anderson after their coffee klatsch meeting in early 1988.

    It took almost 30 years for her to realize … ? I would say that after almost 30 years too much was starting to come into the light (through the Father Jiang case) and there was now no way to explain it all away.

  33. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 758PM:

    Here JR now says he “should never have said it” (i.e. the murder threats).

    But wait. There’s more.

    In a marvelous demonstration of his real self, JR instantly proceeds to blame me “almost as much as himself” … because, apparently, I “can not say anything nice about” him and he felt I do “insult” him and he “felt punked” – doncha see? Thus I was so very rightfully punished with “a poke in the nose”. (And are we not here instantly transported back to the mental world of the back tables in a high-school cafeteria?)

    Whether JR is possessed of a deep inner ‘punk’ to begin with is a consideration I will leave to the readership.

  34. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 753PM:

    Here he belts out more in the aria line, this time about what he’s supposed to do about “the game” that presumes he doth “lie about everything”.

    I don’t presume anything; I point out the myriad significant problems with his assorted claims, assertions, accusations, insinuations and so forth. Is JR under the impression that his preferred vision or version of himself remains intact in the light of those problems? Is he under the impression that his preferred vision or version of himself should remain intact in the light of those problems?

    I “remind” readers of nothing. JR’s own material does the ‘reminding’, to use his term.  But his use of the term “remind” is itself a giveaway: this verb presumes the reality and simply denotes the process of calling the reality back into awareness.

    And it is far too generous a self-characterization (serving JR’s preferred version or vision of himself) to say that he merely “holds you church responsible” and so forth. Given the notable unreliability of his claims and accusations and insinuations, then he is doing no such thing; he is merely trying to make the Church responsible for a fever-vision that has never actually been demonstrated, in order to bolster his own preferred vision and version of his own actions and self. It’s his shtick.

  35. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 745PM:

    Here JR further demonstrates – with a fetching clarity – how his mind works: if we are going to talk about “murder” then don’t look at JR; just look at “Catholics” and “Christians”.

    Then, to smooth his already-selected path, he pre-emptively lays the following smokescreen: he’s “Irish” – doncha see? – and now “his dander is up”.

    We might expect some sort of “Irish” performance, chewing the scenery and breaking the crockery and such.

    But no. Suddenly we are confronted with the Wig of Sober Assessment: he “can safely say” – if he does say so himself – that he hath “never ever threatened anyone else with murder” (italics mine). Noooo, not in his “entire life”.

    Readers may assess the reliability of this honking bleat as they will.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 745PM:

    He has, regular readers may recall, done it in regard to me on several occasions here. But he’s a victim – doncha see, of course? – because he hath been “lied about and insulted and demeaned, unjustly” (sounds like ‘Dan’ – does he not? – although ‘Dan’ slyly formulates his threats such that God will do the actual dirty work).

    Thus – and here, finally, the “Irish” bit is given play – JR doth “see red”. But that’s not his fault; he’s Irish, doncha see?

    As to what, among other things, has been “unjustly” said concerning his stuff … readers may consider as they will.

    But JR – the Wig of Sweet Reason now suddenly plopped atop his poor “Irish” head – is all about “communication, questioning and respect” … doncha know? Readers may consult his archived oeuvre here and consider as they will.

    • Dan says:

      "God will do the actual dirty work", because as a True Christian we're not allowed to seek revenge, and with your disgusting cult of lying deceiving hypocrites, He apparently is going to have alot of dirty work to take care of. I believe he's capable and up to the task.

      Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. Romans 12:19

      By the way, those are not my scream caps but His. Good luck to all you greedy, idolaters, cowards, sexual perverts, liars and creeps.  servant of the Lord

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 745PM:

    I “never [have] some good to say about  [him]” … as he bleats here.  This site isn’t a personality contest (one thinks of the old TV show ‘Queen for a Day’). I have pointed out at great length the problems with his stuff, his efforts to further explain (when he isn’t simply ranting) that create even more problems, and all of it creates the problems with his material that I have pointed out at length.

    And – as I have said – JR provides an invaluable service to readers here: we get to see a side of the Stampede and its assorted players that the media have always studiously avoided.

    And he tries to bring it all home with the idea that if X’s material never gets anything good said about it, then that can only mean that X is being unfairly handled (and, of course, thereby victimized).

    No, it might simply mean that X really doesn’t put up much reliably good material. But that alternative wouldn’t feed JR’s preferred version and vision of himself; so he’d rather think – conveniently – that he was being unfairly victimized. And that must console him.

  38. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 1130PM:

    One can only infer that at some point some part of JR’s comments did not make the moderator’s cut for posting onto the site.

    He is thus victimized, as he sees it. And in support of that self-serving conclusion he riffs further on with dark visions of a “phone conference” that “decided … to let [JR] hang himself”.

    DP is the sole administrator of this site and rightly needs to confer with no one as to what comment material does and does not get posted on the site. And I certainly play no role in such decisions, by phone or in any other way.

    But if JR fails, then he must automatically conclude that it is somebody else’ fault, and the work of dark and sinister forces. And this may well have been what those long-ago high-school administrators realized as well.

    But he is on to one very useful insight – though I doubt he realizes it: he will “hang himself” through what he reveals in comments and in terms of credibility; it’s his own material that undermines his preferred version and vision of himself.

  39. Jim Robertson says:

    What a living piece of shit you truly are.

    I take responsibility for my actions.

    Something you never do.

    Oh really? Does it?  Does my version and vision of myself differ so much from reality? Your reality perhaps as if you are above the fray. Is that what religion gives you a seat to look down from and judge and lie about other people? Wow! How loving.  Would you want to be a "Christian" like that if you weren't born into it. What would you say about it if you were on the outside looking in? Would you swallow all the crap if you hadn't been born into it?

     Poor P! What do you do besides slandering others?  Do you even have a self?  asking for a friend.

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    My deal ass wipe if I fail I fail. I have no need to blame others.

    I so rarely fail.

    I blame my molestor. for what he did. I blame his superior for transferring him. They and you are the ones who blame others for your deeds. You are here denying the responsibility demanded by your criminal deeds. Your lying description of me and my life and what happened to me is only to protect something in your life. The church's money or reputation is all you care about so you invent liars where there are none. Why else would you behave so badly?

    You are honestly the most immoral human being i have ever encountered. You discredit everyone but you.

    Where as if you were truly moral you wouldn't be behaving in this absurd manner.

    Who do you think you're fooling?

    You are the only liar here. And you'll pay for that someday maybe. Maybe. Life aint fair.

    You might just get off scot free for your lies.

    Which would prove that there is no God of Justice or Love for sure.

  41. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan I did not know God wrote in English and used caps. What a guy huh?

    Just joking Dan. I know you take this Bible stuff seriously.

  42. malcolm harris says:

    On the 21st JR says to Publion…"Would you swallow all that crap if you hadn't been born into it?"   A question which seems reasonable. But am old enough to have learned that many strong believers are actually adult converts to the faith. Meaning they were not born into it. For at least a decade I was a "lapsed Catholic" and disbelieved much. Only when my delusions about this world,  was replaced with reality, did I return to my faith. So it ain't brainwashing. As JR has crudely inferred.

  43. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1104PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to deploy the familiar fundie pericope gambit: God will do ‘Dan’s dirty work – doncha see? – “because as a True Christian we’re not allowed to seek revenge”.

    First, we recall that this “True Christian” club is simply a notional construct ginned up to somehow evade the glaring fact that ‘Dan’ holds with no “man-made” versions of Christianity whatsoever . And a) finds his assurance and re-assurance solely in his bathroom mirror and his assorted twisty and self-serving takes on this and that bit of Scripture against which b) no sustainable objections can be lodged because ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror channels the Divine Mind fully and absolutely.

    And what might transpire if this TC club were to be assembled in one place? Imagine a location full of ‘Dan’-types all of whom insist that they each possess the sure and certain knowledge of their speshull access to the Divine, pristine and unsullied by anyone else. And each of whom presuming that he or she is the sole channel for the Mind and Will of God.

    • Dan says:

      I'm glad to see that you're coming to the realization that the catholic church has done everything to destroy the "pristine and unsullied" Word of God, His commandments and all that is pure and true, as written in His Holy Bible. This is why your cult fits all the promises of wrath from the Almighty. Just because you're stubborn and hardheaded and refuse to hear correction, not really my problem. So continue with your cowardly lies and slander and keep pouring out deceit and denials that the sexually immoral pedophiles and pederasts are few and far between. My truth comes from the Lord's Word, and you can continue with the immature and childish accusations and mocking that "Dan's bathroom mirror channels the Divine Mind fully and absolutely". You're mocking ignorance and deception know no bounds, Son of Satan.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1104PM:

    Second, we see how ‘Dan’ tries to make himself appear to be supported by Scripture, when actually his behavior indicates just the opposite.

    Thus the pericope Romans 12:19. As the Jerusalem Bible translates vv 18 and 19: “Do all you can to live at peace with one another. [19] Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As Scripture says: ‘Vengeance is mine – I will pay them back’, the Lord promises”. The pericope’s own quotation about “Vengeance is mine” reflects Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22.

    The theological and pastoral point Paul is trying to make here is that Christians should not allow themselves to be distracted and sidetracked and consumed by “revenge”; rather, they should leave all that to God and get on with being – as it were – Christian to others.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1104PM:

    But this is – as it were – hell and gone from ‘Dan’s agenda. ‘Dan’ is consumed with posing himself as a hurler of revenge and epithets as if it were on Divine Authority. It is not; it is merely ‘Dan’s shtick, and for the accomplishment of that shtick ‘Dan’ must make it seem as if his lusty deployment of God’ll-getcha bits is not an indication of his own nasty whackery but rather is a message from God Himself (which, but of course, would make ‘Dan’ God’s very own Mouth and Messenger … neato).

    Nor do the Jerusalem Bible nor the King James nor the New American translations have the “Vengeance is mine” quotation in scream-caps. ‘Dan’ has perhaps been dabbling in one of those ‘paraphrase’ versions so dear to fundies, where they can weasel in their own takes on a pericope while making it seem as if they are merely translating the ancient text itself.

    • Dan says:

      It takes a church plagued with lying pedophiles and perverts to throw out accusations that I use a "lusty deployment of God'll-getcha bits" and "nasty whackery" claiming "a message from God Himself" followed with more ignorant mocking. You are such a deceiving and disingenuous creep. Can't wait until God will getcha and remove your forked tongue.

      Just because in your preferred versions "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" isn't written in scream-caps, in no way changes the meaning of the verse. You'll try anything to try to minimize and dilute the Lord's Word to favor your deceiving agenda.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1104PM:

    And I would also point out that the concluding verse (22) of that 12th Chapter of Romans states “Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good”.

    Which, following Paul’s thought in this Chapter, would mean that a Christian should not be “conquered by” the desire and obsession over the “evil” of “vengeance” but rather should “conquer” evil with “good”.

    This is precisely not ‘Dan’s agenda nor his shtick. ‘Dan’ is gonna get-back-at everyone on his plop-list, so ‘Dan’s gonna getcha you betcha, and he’s going to use the Bible to try to do it.

    • Dan says:

      Vengeance and God's wrath is reserved solely for the wicked and those who refuse God's Truth. God's message of love, kindness and forgiveness is reserved solely for those who repent and wish to change their lives. From what I've seen from lying and deceiving catholics in this forum, along with those who are cowardly, greedy, a hierarchy of child molesters or idolaters, there would have to be a miracle before any of you will hear His message of love or "good". I will continue to try to turn the wicked from their evilness, and will continue to use the Bible, God's Word to accomplish this. Slur me all you like, you will not win.  servant of the Lord

  47. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 21st at 113AM, which nicely demonstrates the juvenility of JR’s mentation.

    So we move on directly to JR’s of the 21st at 126AM:

    A familiar strong epithetical opening is followed by the declaration that JR doth indeed “take responsibility for [his] actions”. Yes, as I noted, although he does so while then immediately noting that somebody else is almost as responsible for his stuff as he is (well, two somebody’s: myself for irritating JR and Dave Pierre for publishing JR’s rants).

    And just what of my material do I “never” take responsibility-for … ? He doesn’t – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – say.

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 21st at 126AM:

    In regard to my point about the difference between JR’s preferred vision/version of himself and his stuff, on the one hand, and reality, on the other: JR quickly heads for the Victim-y high ground, donning the appropriate Wig to bleat that he is being ‘judged’ and – slyly – how “loving” is that … ?

    This is a long-familiar JR dodge: if you don’t believe his stuff, then you are not being “loving” and therefore you aren’t being Christian … and so on.

    Because – doncha see? – being “loving” in JR’s book means that you buy all his stuff. Otherwise he is being victimized and “slandered”… neato.

    This is sufficiently manipulative to incline the clinical mind toward thoughts of sociopathy, though I doubt that this is news to JR.

    Trying to bring the performance home with some – any – thumping comeback, JR can only finish by asking if I even “have a self”. Readers may consider, and judge, as they will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I'm a sheep who bleats and honks and dons wigs according to you. There's just one set of  your lies.

      Here's another of your lies. I've told you over and over and over again that it was my hand that was forced down my perpetrator's pants by him. It can't be your mis-remembering. you've been set right a multitude of times but you always lie and say it was his hand down my pants. Why? Perhaps you are remembering your own sexual abuse of a Catholic child and projecting that crime onto the crime committed against me. You've lied so often and been corrected by me many times on the subject that I can only surmise you have your mad reasons for repeating your lies about what never happened.

      I have asked you and told you to shut up about me not because you are anywhere near accurate regarding who I am and what I say and  that I can't bear the clarity of your "insights" but because everything you say about me is a lie.

      You have now had 2 people from very different belief systems, Dan and I, call you a liar again and again. Dan and I are'nt connected in any of our view points but one outrage against child molestors and the system that enabled those molestations. Yet we both know you to be a liar. (You've lost the popular vote President Donald and there weren't big crowds at your inaugaration either. )

      Dan You know P is a liar. I know P's a liar. P knows P's a liar. It's a trifecta.

      You P are a liar as judged and known by the majority of posters on this site including you.

      Where's your fan club P.? Where are the readers you keep "maying" that they might consider and judge? No one ever backs you P..  Malcolm, perhaps, but unlike yourself Malcolm's not a professional or career liar.  He hasn't your dexterity for abusing people.

      So democratically? you lose. The majority here know you lie and also know you have no wit. "Clinical mind" the fact you feign to have a "clinical mind" is another of your dozens of lies. Sociopaths lie.P I've never lied about this subject but you have. So who's the sociopath?


  49. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 21st at 138AM:

    Again opening with epithet, JR then honks that if he fails he fails and he doth “have no need to blame others”. Readers can re-read his ‘admissions’ of responsibility in recent comments and consider as they will.

    But wait. There’s more.

    JR doth “blame [his] molestor”(and assorted others).

    Passing over the rather major dent this bit puts into his just-asserted claim that he doth “have no need to blame others”, we might consider first that we haven’t really established that he actually had a “molestor”.

    And second, that it’s a very great stretch indeed to conclude that from (allegedly) having a hand stuck down his pants one or three times (over a period of a week or two, if memory serves) a large-futured and adorable and knowledgeable and witty and bright waif was instantly and permanently turned into the source of the JR material we have seen in such great and vivid detail on this site.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 21st at 138AM:

    That performance is then followed by more epithetical opinion about a) my lying description” of him and his life and about b) my being “the most immoral human being” he hath “ever encountered”.

    In regard to (a): he proffers no evidence that I am “lying”. In regard to (b): I think he really needs to get out more.

    Then he asks a question better addressed to his own bathroom mirror: “Who do you think you’re fooling?” (Is it persnickety to propose ‘whom’ rather than “who”?)

    Then, building upon the assertion that – surprise, surprise – I am “the only liar here”, he indulges in a ‘Dan’-like threat about ‘paying’ “for that someday”. But that sounds too much like JR might believe in a God, so he quickly takes it back with that “Maybe” and so on.