Media blackout of sex abuse audit

[J]

Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
Research in the Apostolate (CARA):



The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
in the United States reported on it.

On May 10, I issued a news release saying that “since nearly 100
percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
this should be picked up by the media. But it won’t be. Look for the
story to get buried.”

I was wrong—it wasn’t buried—it wasn’t covered at all. Aside from a
few blog posts, and a piece by States News Service, that was it. Why
did the newspapers ignore it altogether? Because the news was good
news, that’s why. Had it been bad news—a spike in abuse cases—it would
have been front-page news. But because CARA found “the fewest
allegations and victims reported since the data collection for the
annual reports began in 2004,” the story was deep-sixed.

There is bias by omission, as well as by commission. This is clearly a
case of the former. Does it matter? Of course. By not telling the
truth, the media help to feed the sick appetites of people like Bill
Maher: on his May 10 HBO show, he took another shot at the Catholic
Church, saying it welcomes “predators.” The titans at Time Warner (the
parent company of HBO) obviously allow Maher to vent his bigotry,
aided and abetted by newspapers which refuse to tell the truth. It’s a
very sick nexus.












J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Syd M.]

On May 19, 1:36 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
> priestly sexual abuse;

AKA, Bill Dummyhue again whines and tries to excuse priest abuse
again.
As usual.

PDW

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:36:23 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>
>Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
>priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
>Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
>Research in the Apostolate (CARA):
>
>
>
>The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
>the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
>Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
>in the United States reported on it.
>
>On May 10, I issued a news release saying that “since nearly 100
>percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
>them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
>this should be picked up by the media. But it won’t be. Look for the
>story to get buried.”

Yeah, but in all truth, this isn't an example of anti-Catholicism or
anti-anything. The media thrive on shock and outrage. "60,000
Catholics spent the year serving Christ by helping disadvantaged
people all over the world, for a bare survival salay" just doesn't
make headlines.

[NoBody]

]

Your failure to rebut the report is so noted.

[linuxgal]

Mason Barge wrote:
> Yeah, but in all truth, this isn't an example of anti-Catholicism or
> anti-anything. The media thrive on shock and outrage. "60,000
> Catholics spent the year serving Christ by helping disadvantaged
> people all over the world, for a bare survival salay" just doesn't
> make headlines.

If you did get your headlines, your lord and savior would say, "Verily,
you have your reward."

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:54:48 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

snip

>Yeah, but in all truth, this isn't an example of anti-Catholicism or
>anti-anything. The media thrive on shock and outrage. "60,000
>Catholics spent the year serving Christ by helping disadvantaged
>people all over the world, for a bare survival salay" just doesn't
>make headlines.

If they were doing it based on altruism that would be note worthy.
They aren't. They are doing to get converts. You have to pay a price
for that loaf of bread. If you don't believe what they tell you to
believe they ignore you.

Maybe you don't think making converts is a price to pay. How many
Illiterate cultures have been supplanted by religion? ALL OF THEM! Are
they doing better now thanks to religion? The phrase 'religious
shithole' springs to mind.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[•RLMeasures]

• - "When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the
missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed.
When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible."
- Jomo Kenyata

[WrongWayWade]

J wrote:
> Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
> priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
> Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
> Research in the Apostolate (CARA):
>
>
>
> The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
> the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
> Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
> in the United States reported on it.
>
> On May 10, I issued a news release saying that "since nearly 100
> percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
> them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
> this should be picked up by the media. But it won't be. Look for the
> story to get buried."
>

So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <knduk9$f2b$1...@dont-email.me>,
WrongWayWade <rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
...

>So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
>Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.

Good one!

Bullseye!

--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus

[Mason Barge]

I'd actually be quite happy if the news, every once in a while,
pointed out something like "Catholic charities provide billions of
dollars in relief to _________".

As to the "pretty sad" part about sex abuse, of course it's sad, on a
number of different levels. The saddest thing is that it's the first
thing out of many peoples' mouths when they hear the words "Catholic
Church" mentioned.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:38:15 -0700, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:54:48 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>Yeah, but in all truth, this isn't an example of anti-Catholicism or
>>anti-anything. The media thrive on shock and outrage. "60,000
>>Catholics spent the year serving Christ by helping disadvantaged
>>people all over the world, for a bare survival salay" just doesn't
>>make headlines.
>
> If they were doing it based on altruism that would be note worthy.
>They aren't. They are doing to get converts.

Do you have any sort of facts to make this a bit more accurate.

My own impression is that it is partly true and partly false. Catholic
mission hospitals, for instance, are open to everyone.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <u94lp85188lljj903...@4ax.com>,
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

>>So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
>>Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.

...

>As to the "pretty sad" part about sex abuse, of course it's sad, on a
>number of different levels. The saddest thing is that it's the first
>thing out of many peoples' mouths when they hear the words "Catholic
>Church" mentioned.

You totally missed the point.

--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...

[linuxgal]

WrongWayWade wrote:
> So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
> Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.

In his Vatican office the Pope has a poster with a pad of yellow
stickies glued to the middle it. It says "Catholic Priesthood Now 0
Days Since Last Boy Butt Sex" with the yellow sticky pad sitting where
the 0 is. The idea is when the priesthood moves from zero days to one
day since the last boy butt sex, the Pope would tear off that sticky and
write "1" on the next one. But he hasn't needed to do it yet.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:13:33 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:51:29 -0400, "WrongWayWade"
><rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>J wrote:
>>> Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
>>> priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
>>> Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
>>> Research in the Apostolate (CARA):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
>>> the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
>>> Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
>>> in the United States reported on it.
>>>
>>> On May 10, I issued a news release saying that "since nearly 100
>>> percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
>>> them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
>>> this should be picked up by the media. But it won't be. Look for the
>>> story to get buried."
>>>
>>
>>So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
>>Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.
>
>I'd actually be quite happy if the news, every once in a while,
>pointed out something like "Catholic charities provide billions of
>dollars in relief to _________".
>

I'd be pretty happy if the news pointed out "Atheists didn't blow
themselves up today", but the news isn't in the business of "nice",
which you yourself pointed out in a prior post.

I don't think there's any doubt that religious charities do good
things. However, there are a couple of issues at play here: the first
is that religious people are pretty good about reminding each other to
perform charitable acts, and the second is that secular charities
could use publicity too.

Do you give charity because you're a Catholic? Or do you do these
things because you're a decent human being?

>As to the "pretty sad" part about sex abuse, of course it's sad, on a
>number of different levels. The saddest thing is that it's the first
>thing out of many peoples' mouths when they hear the words "Catholic
>Church" mentioned.

Remember that part about news reporting? Well, priest sex abuse cases
are big news, so you can't be shocked at the visceral response to it.
Priests are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and it feels
like every day, more nastiness is uncovered...

The problem is that the RCC engaged in colossal cover-ups and payoffs
for decades, so the scars are still fresh. Do you think Germans like
being reminded of what their grandfathers did 70 years ago? They've
worked exceptionally hard to rid themselves of the sins of the
fathers, but the world has a long memory.

The only thing to do is to continue to do good work, and to increase
transparency.

Here's something I don't see happening at all: I don't see any
Catholics castigating Duke and Patrick for being vile representatives
of the religion... and they post in Roman Catholic newsgroups fer
cryin' out loud!

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dakota]

Did someone mention publicity for secular charities?

http://feedingamerica.org/

http://www.redcross.org/

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

Please add to the list. Thanks in advance.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <knesth$pf5$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.kiva.org/

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knduk9$f2b$1...@dont-email.me>, "WrongWayWade"
<rl31...@excite.com> wrote:

• It would be good news if it were true, but methinks it unlikely that
the problem can be fixed in less than a generation.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <hZCdnaeAb6VSTwfM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

� Straight to Hell. Sheer and utter blasphemy !

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:49:15 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <u94lp85188lljj903...@4ax.com>,
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>>So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
>>>Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.
>...
>>As to the "pretty sad" part about sex abuse, of course it's sad, on a
>>number of different levels. The saddest thing is that it's the first
>>thing out of many peoples' mouths when they hear the words "Catholic
>>Church" mentioned.
>
>You totally missed the point.

No, I understood the point. I have a different point of view about
it, though.

[Mason Barge]

I'm not Catholic.

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:50:49 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

No, he doesn't.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <c9ump8po78d1gtd1a...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

>>You totally missed the point.
>
>No, I understood the point. I have a different point of view about
>it, though.

I heard about this one time, back in '93 (IIRC), where someone on Usenet
was told that he has missed the point, and the person did *not* reply with
"No, I understood the point (*)."

(*) I just disagree.


Hasn't happened since, of course. Many people doubt it even happened once.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as foolish,
and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:43:41 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>

The point stands regardless of your religion.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Alex W.]

Which isn't entirely their fault, it must be said. They
show what their public wants to see, and they report what
their audiences want to hear. If we the public were less
bloodthirsty and prurient, the news would be much keener on
telling us about all the good stuff that is happening around
the world.

>
> I don't think there's any doubt that religious charities do good
> things. However, there are a couple of issues at play here: the first
> is that religious people are pretty good about reminding each other to
> perform charitable acts, and the second is that secular charities
> could use publicity too.
>
> Do you give charity because you're a Catholic? Or do you do these
> things because you're a decent human being?

ALl charities could use publicity, not least because most of
them are beggars who depend on public appeals for their
funding. That gives religious charities an automatic
headstart of established newsfeeds to captive audiences.

ALl other things being equal, though, it must be said that
religious giving outstrips secular donations by huge
margins. Whether this is due to a claimed moral
superiority, guilt (that'd be the Catholics :-) or the
exercise of a religious commandment doesn't change the fact
that certainly in America, the believing household will make
far larger sacrifices than the unbelieving household.

>
>
>>As to the "pretty sad" part about sex abuse, of course it's sad, on a
>>number of different levels. The saddest thing is that it's the first
>>thing out of many peoples' mouths when they hear the words "Catholic
>>Church" mentioned.
>
> Remember that part about news reporting? Well, priest sex abuse cases
> are big news, so you can't be shocked at the visceral response to it.
> Priests are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and it feels
> like every day, more nastiness is uncovered...

Some of that is of course down to perception bias. Because
these cases make huge media waves, the mistaken impression
is created that this is a huge problem in terms of numbers
and incidence. It's comparable to the serious mismatch
between public perception of crime -- "Politicians and
police, DO SOMETHING! We're being drowned in a wave of
violent crime!!!" -- and the actual figures which are
actually in long-term decline. For an even more dramatic
perception bias, consider the contrast between the general
view that the greatest threat to a child by predatory
paedophiles are dirty old men lurking at school gates or in
playgrounds hoping to snatch a kid when the actual reality
is that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens in the
family home, by close relatives. IOW, while we are all
obsessively scanning passers-by and other visitors to the
park, we are quite oblivious to the fact that Uncle Jeff is
diddling little Lucy in the comfort of our own home.

>
> The problem is that the RCC engaged in colossal cover-ups and payoffs
> for decades, so the scars are still fresh. Do you think Germans like
> being reminded of what their grandfathers did 70 years ago? They've
> worked exceptionally hard to rid themselves of the sins of the
> fathers, but the world has a long memory.

Aside from anything else, it's just too juicy and convenient
an insult to forget about. International football matches
without Nazi salutes and chants of "two world wars, one
world cup"? Inconceivable!

>
> The only thing to do is to continue to do good work, and to increase
> transparency.

Abve all transparency, because from that will inevitably
flow an increase in accountability.

[Alex W.]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:28:48 -0700, 嚙瘟RLMeasures wrote:

> In article <knduk9$f2b$1...@dont-email.me>, "WrongWayWade"
> <rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> J wrote:
>>> Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
>>> priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
>>> Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
>>> Research in the Apostolate (CARA):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
>>> the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
>>> Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
>>> in the United States reported on it.
>>>
>>> On May 10, I issued a news release saying that "since nearly 100
>>> percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
>>> them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
>>> this should be picked up by the media. But it won't be. Look for the
>>> story to get buried."
>>>
>>
>> So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual Abuse Last
>> Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.
>

> 嚙瘟 It would be good news if it were true, but methinks it unlikely that

> the problem can be fixed in less than a generation.

I'd actually be happy with the most excellent news that the
RCC have stopped trying to shift the blame by trying to
paint this as a problem of homosexuality. After denials and
a defence of wide-eyed naivety, declaring the abuse of
children to be a "gay thing" is one of their favourite
tactis, and rather distressingly it seems to be reasonably
successful.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:00:34 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <c9ump8po78d1gtd1a...@4ax.com>,
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>>You totally missed the point.
>>
>>No, I understood the point. I have a different point of view about
>>it, though.
>
>I heard about this one time, back in '93 (IIRC), where someone on Usenet
>was told that he has missed the point, and the person did *not* reply with
>"No, I understood the point (*)."
>
>(*) I just disagree.
>
>
>Hasn't happened since, of course. Many people doubt it even happened once.

So what are you supposed to say when someone says "you missed the
point" and you didn't?

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 17:25:33 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Yeah, I understand and agree partially. I still think that journalism
has responsibilities other than the bottom line, but a lot of
stockholders apparently disagree.

>>
>> I don't think there's any doubt that religious charities do good
>> things. However, there are a couple of issues at play here: the first
>> is that religious people are pretty good about reminding each other to
>> perform charitable acts, and the second is that secular charities
>> could use publicity too.
>>
>> Do you give charity because you're a Catholic? Or do you do these
>> things because you're a decent human being?
>
>ALl charities could use publicity, not least because most of
>them are beggars who depend on public appeals for their
>funding. That gives religious charities an automatic
>headstart of established newsfeeds to captive audiences.
>
>ALl other things being equal, though, it must be said that
>religious giving outstrips secular donations by huge
>margins. Whether this is due to a claimed moral
>superiority, guilt (that'd be the Catholics :-)

Hey! The Jews have charities!

>or the
>exercise of a religious commandment doesn't change the fact
>that certainly in America, the believing household will make
>far larger sacrifices than the unbelieving household.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>As to the "pretty sad" part about sex abuse, of course it's sad, on a
>>>number of different levels. The saddest thing is that it's the first
>>>thing out of many peoples' mouths when they hear the words "Catholic
>>>Church" mentioned.
>>
>> Remember that part about news reporting? Well, priest sex abuse cases
>> are big news, so you can't be shocked at the visceral response to it.
>> Priests are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and it feels
>> like every day, more nastiness is uncovered...
>
>Some of that is of course down to perception bias. Because
>these cases make huge media waves, the mistaken impression
>is created that this is a huge problem in terms of numbers
>and incidence.

Here, I have to switch sides, at least concerning the specific
incident. Although I agree completely as a general principal. And
especially on cable news, where they want not just shock, but outrage.

>It's comparable to the serious mismatch
>between public perception of crime -- "Politicians and
>police, DO SOMETHING! We're being drowned in a wave of
>violent crime!!!" -- and the actual figures which are
>actually in long-term decline.

A perfect example.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <13dvg58ga1bsp$.hntmt7vukfzd$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."
<ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:28:48 -0700, ĄERLMeasures wrote:
>
> > In article <knduk9$f2b$1...@dont-email.me>, "WrongWayWade"
> > <rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> J wrote:
> >>> Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
> >>> priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
> >>> Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
> >>> Research in the Apostolate (CARA):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
> >>> the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
> >>> Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
> >>> in the United States reported on it.
> >>>
> >>> On May 10, I issued a news release saying that "since nearly 100
> >>> percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
> >>> them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
> >>> this should be picked up by the media. But it won't be. Look for the
> >>> story to get buried."
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual
Abuse Last
> >> Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.
> >

> > ĄE It would be good news if it were true, but methinks it unlikely that

> > the problem can be fixed in less than a generation.
>
> I'd actually be happy with the most excellent news that the
> RCC have stopped trying to shift the blame by trying to
> paint this as a problem of homosexuality.

*** Homosexual priests were not responsible for 100% of the diddling. In
the Archdiocese of Los Angeles 98% of the settlement went to altar boys
and 2% went to girls. Heterosexual priests have zero interest in boy
bottoms and keen interest in girl bottoms. . Homosexual priests are
attracted to boys, and not girls.

> After denials and
> a defence of wide-eyed naivety, declaring the abuse of
> children to be a "gay thing" is one of their favourite
> tactis, and rather distressingly it seems to be reasonably
> successful.

*** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of the local
victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting gay priest
would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and hog-tied.

[Alex W.]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:43:32 -0700, •RLMeasures wrote:

> In article <13dvg58ga1bsp$.hntmt7vukfzd$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."
> <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:28:48 -0700, ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>
>>> In article <knduk9$f2b$1...@dont-email.me>, "WrongWayWade"
>>> <rl31...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J wrote:
>>>>> Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the 2012 Annual Report on
>>>>> priestly sexual abuse; the audit was done by StoneBridge Business
>>>>> Partners, and the data were gathered by the Center for Applied
>>>>> Research in the Apostolate (CARA):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The report on sexual abuse, part of an annual audit, is available on
>>>>> the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
>>>>> Apparently, almost no one has read it. Not a single secular newspaper
>>>>> in the United States reported on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 10, I issued a news release saying that "since nearly 100
>>>>> percent of our priests did not have a credible allegation made against
>>>>> them last year [there were six out of approximately 40,000 priests],
>>>>> this should be picked up by the media. But it won't be. Look for the
>>>>> story to get buried."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are suggesting that 'Catholic Priests Didn't Commit Sexual
> Abuse Last
>>>> Year' should be 'news'? Pretty sad that it actually might be.
>>>

>>> ¡E It would be good news if it were true, but methinks it unlikely that

>>> the problem can be fixed in less than a generation.
>>
>> I'd actually be happy with the most excellent news that the
>> RCC have stopped trying to shift the blame by trying to
>> paint this as a problem of homosexuality.
>
> *** Homosexual priests were not responsible for 100% of the diddling. In
> the Archdiocese of Los Angeles 98% of the settlement went to altar boys
> and 2% went to girls. Heterosexual priests have zero interest in boy
> bottoms and keen interest in girl bottoms. . Homosexual priests are
> attracted to boys, and not girls.
>
>> After denials and
>> a defence of wide-eyed naivety, declaring the abuse of
>> children to be a "gay thing" is one of their favourite
>> tactis, and rather distressingly it seems to be reasonably
>> successful.
>
> *** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of the local
> victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting gay priest
> would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and hog-tied.

Here's the thing: gay priests are interested in men. MEN.
Not boys. Paedophilia is a completely separate and distinct
sexual orientation. Make a connection between homosexuality
and paedophilia, and you buy into the Christian hate
propaganda.

[linuxgal]

•RLMeasures wrote:
> *** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of the local
> victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting gay priest
> would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and hog-tied.

Alack and alas, all the good men are gay it sometimes seems.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <7ojfj1exk83n.1dt90l7fmwl9s$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."

*** There were over 450 altar boys in LA who were sodomized and felated
by RC priests.

>Paedophilia is a completely separate and distinct
> sexual orientation. Make a connection between homosexuality
> and paedophilia, and you buy into the Christian hate
> propaganda.

*** There are three kinds of pedophiles: Bisexual, heterosexual, and
homosexual. By denying that there are homosexual pedophiles you erode
your credibility.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <x42dnfjSrKXdxQHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

• gay males love to dance and dress up. A friend's 19 yr old daughter
liked to date gay guys because she loved to dance. The stumbling block
for her was that the gay guys she dated had a strong aversion to girl
parts and she liked penis.

[linuxgal]

That's not how we think, Mr. Measures. Seriously. People are not just
parts. When's the last time you heard a woman tell her galpal, "Let's
go out and get some cock." ?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <J86dnRqKrJ2DTgHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

• That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age
25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick". The curious
thing is that they have a history of sharing BFs.

[Dano]

"�RLMeasures" wrote in message news:r-2205130...@10.0.1.3...

In article <J86dnRqKrJ2DTgHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> �RLMeasures wrote:
> > In article<x42dnfjSrKXdxQHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >�RLMeasures wrote:
> >>> > >*** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of the
> >>> > >local
> >>> > >victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting gay
> >>> > >priest
> >>> > >would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and
hog-tied.
> >> >
> >> >Alack and alas, all the good men are gay it sometimes seems.

> > � gay males love to dance and dress up. A friend's 19 yr old daughter

> > liked to date gay guys because she loved to dance. The stumbling block
> > for her was that the gay guys she dated had a strong aversion to girl
> > parts and she liked penis.
>
> That's not how we think, Mr. Measures. Seriously. People are not just
> parts. When's the last time you heard a woman tell her galpal, "Let's
> go out and get some cock." ?

� That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age

25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick". The curious
thing is that they have a history of sharing BFs.

==================================================

So. You're the kind of guy who discusses "cock" with your friend's teenage
daughter? Says quite a lot about you. Happy to not know you.

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:14:55 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>

So you think pedophiles don't prefer one gender of child over another?
My impression is that that is incorrect, but it's not something I'm
interested in sufficiently to go looking around for.

[linuxgal]

•RLMeasures wrote:
> • That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age
> 25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick".

Was that on the Strip?

[Dano]

"linuxgal" wrote in message
news:uK6dnZLAHMaujADM...@giganews.com...

�RLMeasures wrote:
> � That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age

> 25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick".

Was that on the Strip?

========================================

Yeah...he likes to pimp out his pal's daughters when he can.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knitgp$4es$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "•RLMeasures" wrote in message news:r-2205130...@10.0.1.3...

>
> In article <J86dnRqKrJ2DTgHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>

> > •RLMeasures wrote:
> > > In article<x42dnfjSrKXdxQHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >•RLMeasures wrote:
> > >>> > >*** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of the
> > >>> > >local
> > >>> > >victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting gay
> > >>> > >priest
> > >>> > >would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and
> hog-tied.
> > >> >
> > >> >Alack and alas, all the good men are gay it sometimes seems.

> > > • gay males love to dance and dress up. A friend's 19 yr old daughter

> > > liked to date gay guys because she loved to dance. The stumbling block
> > > for her was that the gay guys she dated had a strong aversion to girl
> > > parts and she liked penis.
> >
> > That's not how we think, Mr. Measures. Seriously. People are not just
> > parts. When's the last time you heard a woman tell her galpal, "Let's
> > go out and get some cock." ?
>

> • That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age

> 25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick". The curious
> thing is that they have a history of sharing BFs.
>
> ==================================================
>
> So. You're the kind of guy who discusses "cock" with your friend's teenage
> daughter?

• 25 and 26 is teenage in what number system? // Their father got
caught stealing from me as well as his former employer. He is not a
friend. His daughters revile him. He gets drunk regularly and he smokes
methamphetamine. When his daughters mention cock I do not take a walk.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <uK6dnZLAHMaujADM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

• I do not live in Vegas.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knjefg$bsi$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:uK6dnZLAHMaujADM...@giganews.com...
>

> •RLMeasures wrote:
> > • That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age

> > 25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick".
>
> Was that on the Strip?
>
> ========================================
>
> Yeah...he likes to pimp out his pal's daughters when he can.

• he is not a pal.

[Alex W.]

Paedophiles do have preferences, often to the point of
fixation. But they are not a deviant form of homosexuality
as is often claimed by the Catholic propaganda machine.
They lust after a kid not because it's a boy or a girl but
first and foremost because they are children.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <1f9pjk9ormm6q$.saxitj1y...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."

� classic denial. Heterosexuals humping altar boys instead of
homosexuals is a laugher.

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:42:17 -0700, r...@somis.org (�ｿｽRLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <J86dnRqKrJ2DTgHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>

>> �ｿｽRLMeasures wrote:
>> > In article<x42dnfjSrKXdxQHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >�ｿｽRLMeasures wrote:
>> >>> > >*** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of the local
>> >>> > >victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting gay priest
>> >>> > >would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and
>hog-tied.
>> >> >
>> >> >Alack and alas, all the good men are gay it sometimes seems.

>> > �ｿｽ gay males love to dance and dress up. A friend's 19 yr old daughter

>> > liked to date gay guys because she loved to dance. The stumbling block
>> > for her was that the gay guys she dated had a strong aversion to girl
>> > parts and she liked penis.
>>
>> That's not how we think, Mr. Measures. Seriously. People are not just
>> parts. When's the last time you heard a woman tell her galpal, "Let's
>> go out and get some cock." ?
>

>�ｿｽ That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age

>25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick". The curious
>thing is that they have a history of sharing BFs.

In my much younger days there was a craze going around called
getting 'Tossed'. It's when a girl would take you some place, fuck
your brains out and disappear at the earliest moment. No name, number
or address.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Alex W.]

You still do not get it.

A PAEDOPHILE IS NEITHER STRAIGHT NOR GAY.

A paedophile is as different from a regular gay guy as you
are from Mother Theresa. To claim that the sick lust after
children is a part of the sexual orientation of normal
homosexuality is no less than blood libel.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <s12rp8t1i11jv2hss...@4ax.com>, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:42:17 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <J86dnRqKrJ2DTgHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> ><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> •RLMeasures wrote:
> >> > In article<x42dnfjSrKXdxQHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >•RLMeasures wrote:
> >> >>> > >*** It was not successful with me because I know that 2% of
the local
> >> >>> > >victims were female. There is no way that a self-respecting
gay priest
> >> >>> > >would get within 10 feet of a vagina unless he was lassoed and
> >hog-tied.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Alack and alas, all the good men are gay it sometimes seems.

> >> > • gay males love to dance and dress up. A friend's 19 yr old daughter

> >> > liked to date gay guys because she loved to dance. The stumbling block
> >> > for her was that the gay guys she dated had a strong aversion to girl
> >> > parts and she liked penis.
> >>
> >> That's not how we think, Mr. Measures. Seriously. People are not just
> >> parts. When's the last time you heard a woman tell her galpal, "Let's
> >> go out and get some cock." ?
> >

> >• That was how my friend's daughter thought. I have known two women, age

> >25 and 26 who tol me they were presently in need of "dick". The curious
> >thing is that they have a history of sharing BFs.
>
> In my much younger days there was a craze going around called
> getting 'Tossed'. It's when a girl would take you some place, fuck
> your brains out and disappear at the earliest moment. No name, number
> or address.
>

• Did the girl 'toss' the guy before or after her first orgasm?

[�RLMeasures]

In article <lpxc2qnno3mu.9m5vfyi4u9fs$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."

*** No one said it was part of normal homosexuality but the thousands of
priests who were enchanted with boy butt were clearly Not heterosexuals.
They had to be either bisexuals or homosexuals.

[William December Starr]

In article <r-2205131...@10.0.1.3>,
r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) said:

> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Paedophiles do have preferences, often to the point of
>> fixation. But they are not a deviant form of homosexuality
>> as is often claimed by the Catholic propaganda machine.
>> They lust after a kid not because it's a boy or a girl but
>> first and foremost because they are children.
>
> classic denial. Heterosexuals humping altar boys instead of
> homosexuals is a laugher.

Translation: "Don't bother me with facts, son. I've made up my mind."

-- wds

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knlckd$5ps$1...@panix2.panix.com>, wds...@panix.com (William

• the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are
defined as bisexuals. One can only assume that there are also trisexuals
and, who knows, maybe even quadrosexuals? Different strokes for different
folks.

[Mason Barge]

On 23 May 2013 11:29:17 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

What facts? All I hear is a lot of people claiming that the truth is
what they want it to be.

Personally, I think it sounds more likely that sexual preference
translates into pedophile preferences. But the point that needs to be
made, I think, is that gay and "molests male children" are not the
same thing.

I'd assume all the defensiveness stems from some lamebrained attack
blaming homosexual men as an entirelty for the molestation of young
boys.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <kijsp89k2ie0n1h71...@4ax.com>, Mason Barge

<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 May 2013 11:29:17 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >In article <r-2205131...@10.0.1.3>,
> >r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) said:
> >
> >> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paedophiles do have preferences, often to the point of
> >>> fixation. But they are not a deviant form of homosexuality
> >>> as is often claimed by the Catholic propaganda machine.
> >>> They lust after a kid not because it's a boy or a girl but
> >>> first and foremost because they are children.
> >>
> >> classic denial. Heterosexuals humping altar boys instead of
> >> homosexuals is a laugher.
> >
> >Translation: "Don't bother me with facts, son. I've made up my mind."
>
> What facts? All I hear is a lot of people claiming that the truth is
> what they want it to be.

• Indeed. Such people even try to adjust the definitions of English
words in their pursuit of Blessed Salvation. Puck was right. .

>
> Personally, I think it sounds more likely that sexual preference
> translates into pedophile preferences. But the point that needs to be
> made, I think, is that gay and "molests male children" are not the
> same thing.

• Correct, however the RC priesthood was around 50% gay when altar-by
diddling was popular, so blaming hetero priests won't float. .

>
> I'd assume all the defensiveness stems from some lamebrained attack
> blaming homosexual men as an entirelty for the molestation of young
> boys.

• Some were hetero, some were homo. However, in LA less than 2% of the
settlement was caused by bi or hetero priests diddling teenage girls.

[linuxgal]

•RLMeasures wrote:
> • the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are
> defined as bisexuals.

Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.

[linuxgal]

•RLMeasures wrote:
> • Did the girl 'toss' the guy before or after her first orgasm?

After of course. Priorities.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <PJadnRpv2vy-eQLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

• I do not understand what "uni" is.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <74ednYufQ_HGbALM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

• If so I guessed right.

[linuxgal]

University. College. Like the one Jason went to that was in a strip
mall between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <J-qdndl4FdPSYgLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> •RLMeasures wrote:
> > In article <PJadnRpv2vy-eQLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> •RLMeasures wrote:
> >>> • the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are
> >>> defined as bisexuals.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.
> >
> > • I do not understand what "uni" is.
> >
>
> University. College.

• tnx

> Like the one Jason went to that was in a strip
> mall between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time.

• would a strip mall be a good location for a strip joint?

[Alex W.]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:05:50 -0700, linuxgal wrote:

> 嚙瘟RLMeasures wrote:
>> 嚙瘟 the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are

>> defined as bisexuals.
>
> Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.

Or prison.

[Alex W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 05:59:22 -0700, 嚙瘟RLMeasures wrote:

> In article <J-qdndl4FdPSYgLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>

>> 嚙瘟RLMeasures wrote:
>>> In article <PJadnRpv2vy-eQLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> 嚙瘟RLMeasures wrote:
>>>>> 嚙瘟 the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are

>>>>> defined as bisexuals.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.
>>>

>>> 嚙瘟 I do not understand what "uni" is.
>>>
>>
>> University. College.
>
> 嚙瘟 tnx

>
>> Like the one Jason went to that was in a strip
>> mall between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time.
>

> 嚙瘟 would a strip mall be a good location for a strip joint?

Any place that preaches stripture is good!

[•RLMeasures]

In article <igkuezxrkde4.8aqimfnju52a$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."
<ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 05:59:22 -0700, ĄERLMeasures wrote:
>
> > In article <J-qdndl4FdPSYgLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ĄERLMeasures wrote:
> >>> In article <PJadnRpv2vy-eQLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >>>

> >>>> ĄERLMeasures wrote:
> >>>>> ĄE the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are

> >>>>> defined as bisexuals.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.
> >>>

> >>> ĄE I do not understand what "uni" is.
> >>>
> >>
> >> University. College.
> >
> > ĄE tnx

> >
> >> Like the one Jason went to that was in a strip
> >> mall between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time.
> >

> > ĄE would a strip mall be a good location for a strip joint?

>
> Any place that preaches stripture is good!

*** scripture is manmade.

[Alex W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:18:01 -0700, •RLMeasures wrote:

> In article <igkuezxrkde4.8aqimfnju52a$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."
> <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 05:59:22 -0700, ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>
>>> In article <J-qdndl4FdPSYgLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>>>> In article <PJadnRpv2vy-eQLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>>>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>>>>>> ¡E the fact is that people who have sex with males and with females are

>>>>>>> defined as bisexuals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.
>>>>>

>>>>> ¡E I do not understand what "uni" is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> University. College.
>>>
>>> ¡E tnx

>>>
>>>> Like the one Jason went to that was in a strip
>>>> mall between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time.
>>>

>>> ¡E would a strip mall be a good location for a strip joint?

>>
>> Any place that preaches stripture is good!
>
> *** scripture is manmade.

... but stripture is woman-made (unless we're talking about
the Chippendales)!

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1b41ezxaijxr4$.ntumfhi3...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."

• bananas

[Alex W.]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:18:26 -0700, •RLMeasures wrote:

> In article <1b41ezxaijxr4$.ntumfhi3...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."
> <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:18:01 -0700, •RLMeasures wrote:
>>
>>> In article <igkuezxrkde4.8aqimfnju52a$.d...@40tude.net>, "Alex W."
>>> <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 05:59:22 -0700, ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <J-qdndl4FdPSYgLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>>>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <PJadnRpv2vy-eQLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>>>>>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ¡ERLMeasures wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ¡E the fact is that people who have sex with males and with

> females are
>>>>>>>>> defined as bisexuals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily. What happens at uni stays at uni.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> ¡E I do not understand what "uni" is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> University. College.
>>>>>
>>>>> ¡E tnx

>>>>>
>>>>>> Like the one Jason went to that was in a strip
>>>>>> mall between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time.
>>>>>

>>>>> ¡E would a strip mall be a good location for a strip joint?

>>>>
>>>> Any place that preaches stripture is good!
>>>
>>> *** scripture is manmade.
>>
>> ... but stripture is woman-made (unless we're talking about
>> the Chippendales)!
>
> • bananas

ah, nuts.