Hey duke and Ed are all these people liars also.
brian
http://www.surfsup.net/cathar/quebec/duplessis02.htm
This is snap link I think
http://www.teleport.com/~snapmail/index.html
http://gut.it.emerson.edu/courses/SUM1JR595/stories/priest_story.html
http://caller-times.com/texas/tex2289.html
http://www.glade.net/%7Ecarrier/kycxnews/03-1998/03-25-1998/stories/catholic.html
http://generation-y.com/stories/032998/LG3035.001.shtml
http://www.jrnl.com/news/98/Apr/jrn111210498.html
http://www.rentapriest.com/healing.htm
and the Children in Australia who were supposed orphans after world war
2 were sent over to Australia by the RCC and there they were forced to
build church buildings.
And on and on and on.
duke
brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
Brian:
Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
their young son's genitals in just the wrong way - only now to have to
stand accused of a charge of sexual molestation of children. Child
molestation, as you know, is typically the unwarranted touching of the
genital area, not rape.
Something to think about. Anyway, please note the following:
1. Have you ever seen me deny occurrances that have been proven? No,
you have not.
2. Have you seen me acknowledge that there are priests that have most
certainly molested people/children in the past? Yes, you have.
3. Have you noticed that arcers pronounce guilt, based on accusation
only, before a case has been made. Yes, most assuredly you have.
4. Have you noticed that the Canadian government will be half of the
guilty party if true in the Duplessis case? Not that the Canadian
government and some priests are not guilty as sin.
5. Have you noticed that you listed the same Dallas case 3 times.
6. Have you noticed that the West Texas accusation was not even made
until 4 years after the priest died and well after the events in
question. Gee, I hope he can defend himself.
7. Have you noticed that the 3 daughters (jrnl) were "molested" 40-60
years ago when they were 5-14 years old. Remember, children never lie,
they just don't recognize the truth.
8. Have you noticed that the British government and the PM are half
the guilty party in the Australian case. This one was exposed 6 months
or so ago and died in the news media like a falsehood immediately there
after. Is it true? I don't know - it's another one of those 50-60
year old remembrances. Why don't we wait and see. In this case the
entire world news media may be guilty of a coverup because it sure has
been a quiet subject in the media lately.
And on and on and on - ABBA.
duke
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Darklady
news:862mmv$qs3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>
> Brian:
>
> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way - only now to have to
> stand accused of a charge of sexual molestation of children. Child
> molestation, as you know, is typically the unwarranted touching of the
> genital area, not rape.
Excuse me, could you please tell when when it's appropriate for a father
to ever pinch his daughter's breasts?
You are such a piece of filth to attempt to lump all accusations of
molestation in with the few false accusations.
> Something to think about. Anyway, please note the following:
>
> 1. Have you ever seen me deny occurrances that have been proven? No,
> you have not.
You simply refuse to believe that any have been proven.
> 2. Have you seen me acknowledge that there are priests that have most
> certainly molested people/children in the past? Yes, you have.
But you always find a way to spin the blame to the victim or alleged
victim and to justify lack of response from the church.
> 3. Have you noticed that arcers pronounce guilt, based on accusation
> only, before a case has been made. Yes, most assuredly you have.
No. No one has done this. The only time this has happened has been
when people come to the group and tell their stories. It is assumed and
hoped that the stories are true. As we get to know more about one another
we learn more about what happened and how.
> 4. Have you noticed that the Canadian government will be half of the
> guilty party if true in the Duplessis case? Not that the Canadian
> government and some priests are not guilty as sin.
And have you noticed that the Canadian government was condemmed in this
newsgroup as well as the church? No, because all you care about is your
rabid defense of all things RCC to the exclusion of all other information.
Does the crime of the secular government somehow lessen the crime of the
One True Church?
> 5. Have you noticed that you listed the same Dallas case 3 times.
>
> 6. Have you noticed that the West Texas accusation was not even made
> until 4 years after the priest died and well after the events in
> question. Gee, I hope he can defend himself.
It's not uncommon for victims of molestation, rape and assault to wait
until they feel safe coming out with their stories. The children being
raped can't defend themselves, but we're supposed to cry over a dead priest
who will experience no personal sorrow. And it's not like the man has a
wife and kids to worry about. If he's innocent then I hope that comes
forth. If he's not then I hope there's a special place for people like him
in any afterlife he may find himself in.
> 7. Have you noticed that the 3 daughters (jrnl) were "molested" 40-60
> years ago when they were 5-14 years old. Remember, children never lie,
> they just don't recognize the truth.
So does the length of time between molestation and exposure indicate how
important the trauma was? Do you figure that since they waited so long they
should have just kept their mouths shut? Shall veterans not tell their war
stories if they exceed a certain length of time after the event?
I'm less concerned about the number of years a person kept quiet and
more concerned about whether their story is consistent, can be substantiated
in any way, if they have a history of telling tall tales, can be placed at
the locations they claim during the times they claimed, etc.
> 8. Have you noticed that the British government and the PM are half
> the guilty party in the Australian case. This one was exposed 6 months
> or so ago and died in the news media like a falsehood immediately there
> after. Is it true? I don't know - it's another one of those 50-60
> year old remembrances. Why don't we wait and see. In this case the
> entire world news media may be guilty of a coverup because it sure has
> been a quiet subject in the media lately.
And, as I mentioned earlier, had you been paying attention instead of
foaming at the mouth, you'd have seen many posts condemning the government,
as well. However, we don't play the "oh, the RCC can't be held responsible
because they weren't the only ones being bad" philosophy. We let the moral
giants like you do that.
--
Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
Karen H Jarvis
Darklady <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:3884...@news.nwlink.com...
Victims of abuse say settlement is a `disgrace'
More than 260 men abused as boys by a Catholic teaching order are to receive
damages of A$3.5 million (£1.7 million) in a settlement they condemned as "a
national disgrace".
A spokesman for the victims, Mr John Hennessey, described it as "outrageous"
and "an insult" to the men who had claimed compensation for years of
physical, mental and sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of the
Christian Brothers.
After a three-year action, the 263 ex-students will be paid at least A$2,000
each for abuse dating back to the 1930s, with payments of up to A$25,000 in
severe cases.
They attended schools in Western Australia, but because of the statute of
limitations there, the case was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court,
Sydney.
The major feature of the out-of-court settlement, announced yesterday, was a
A$3.5 million "reconciliation trust fund" set up to assist the ex-students.
Christian Brothers spokesman, Brother Julian McDonald, said the brothers
were "shocked and disgusted" by the cases of physical and sexual abuse, but
maintained the leaders of the order had not been negligent. The order might
take out a loan to meet the commitment but would not sell properties, he
said.
However, Mr Hennessey said: "We are hurt that the Christian Brothers hid
behind the law so they can pay out the minimum compensation possible.
"They avoided the moral Christian compassion and the hurt we are still going
through today."
He said child sexual and physical abuse had been treated very cheaply,
adding: "What they taught us as little children concerning Christian ethics,
morality and compassion seem today to have gone out the window."
Mr Hennessey said his own pronounced stutter resulted from being flogged by
a "16-stone, sixfoot, wild Irish Christian Brother when I was 12 years old".
The only consolation to come out of the case was that "at least as victims,
we have been vindicated for the claims that we have been making for the past
30 or 40 years", he said. - (AFP)
Want any more information on Australia, Canada, Ireland - you name it.
Karen
andy-j
"Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:3884...@news.nwlink.com...
> duke <duk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:862mmv$qs3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
> > brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
> >
> > Brian:
> >
> > Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
> > daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
> > their young son's genitals in just the wrong way - only now to have to
> > stand accused of a charge of sexual molestation of children. Child
> > molestation, as you know, is typically the unwarranted touching of the
> > genital area, not rape.
>
> Excuse me, could you please tell when when it's appropriate for a
father
> to ever pinch his daughter's breasts?
> You are such a piece of filth to attempt to lump all accusations of
> molestation in with the few false accusations.
>
Gee, DL, my mother never touched my genitals in the "wrong" way and my dad
never pinched my sisters' budding breasts. I wonder if dukey boy grew up in
an abusive household. That might explain his unorthodox positions on sexual
abuse. At any rate, I'm glad we have level headed people here who can see
right through the anomalous rationales behind his apologetics. I feel very
sorry fo dukey. He is sounding very sick. I hope kids around him can be
protected from his less than balanced mental state. Do you think he is
losing it? Maybe he is just running out of things to say so he'll say just
anything. No... I think he's just sick.
<snipped dukey ranting and DL's good responses>
> And, as I mentioned earlier, had you been paying attention instead of
> foaming at the mouth, you'd have seen many posts condemning the
government,
> as well. However, we don't play the "oh, the RCC can't be held
responsible
> because they weren't the only ones being bad" philosophy. We let the
moral
> giants like you do that.
He is certainly good at apologetiquing for a most morally bankrupt
institution. He likes to wallow in the same cesspool of filth his most
beloved church has created for itself.
Andy-J
>
> --
> Darklady
> http://www.darklady.com
>
>
>
>
>
brian
Karen H Jarvis wrote:
> Snip
Thank you Karen this helped. Do you have any info on the kids that were sent to
Australia from England and helped build Churches and other buildings after world
war two ? Is the above case part of this group of Children.
Karen H Jarvis
brian <br...@brian.net> wrote in message news:38850652...@brian.net...
>
> Even larger snip
> Karen H Jarvis wrote:
>
> > Snip
>
> Thank you Karen this helped. Do you have any info on the kids that were
sent to
> Australia from England and helped build Churches and other buildings after
world
> war two ? Is the above case part of this group of Children.
>
The article was about the boys in Western Australia who were used as child
slaves to build Bindoon. If you want any more information, I can gladly
supply it. I have a personal interest in this. Please feel free to contact
me privately if you need to.
duke
"andy-j" <and...@home.com> wrote:
> Gee, DL, my mother never touched my genitals in the "wrong" way and
my dad never pinched my sisters' budding breasts.
Are you sure? You don't have the foggiest idea what went on with you
as a young child or with your sister(s) when you were young, or to them
when you were not in their presence.
Your own mom and dad may well be child molesters, not necessarily by
intention but guilty of doing the very same thing that an "outsider" is
crucified for. Remember, child molestation is "typically" the touching
of the child's genital areas.
> At any rate, I'm glad we have level headed people here who can see
right through the anomalous rationales behind his apologetics.
Yeah, right, level-headed people. Pardon my laughing my butt off.
> I feel very sorry fo dukey. He is sounding very sick. I hope kids
around him can be protected from his less than balanced mental state.
Do you think he is losing it? Maybe he is just running out of things
to say so he'll say just anything. No... I think he's just sick.
Don't feel sorry for me. You just never realized what may well have
happened in your own family.
> He is certainly good at apologetiquing for a most morally bankrupt
institution. He likes to wallow in the same cesspool of filth his most
beloved church has created for itself.
Personally, I much prefer to be where I am than to be where you're
trying so hard to go.
duke
duke
"Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
> Excuse me, could you please tell when when it's appropriate for a
father to ever pinch his daughter's breasts?
> You are such a piece of filth to attempt to lump all accusations
of molestation in with the few false accusations.
Never said it was - only a fool fails to understand that a lot of
fathers teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
their sons. It's called child molestation outside the family unit.
> > 1. Have you ever seen me deny occurrances that have been proven?
No, you have not.
> You simply refuse to believe that any have been proven.
dl, you have never, ever seen me deny proven guilt. Accusations don't
make people guilty. Except if you're an arcer. Then no further legal
steps need be taken. Tie him to a post and light the fire.
> > 2. Have you seen me acknowledge that there are priests that have
most certainly molested people/children in the past? Yes, you have.
> But you always find a way to spin the blame to the victim or
alleged victim and to justify lack of response from the church.
BS. Do I automatically believe 60 year old rememberances, or 4yr?
Absolutely not. But you arcers automatically blame the church with the
slightest accusation if they reject a claim. Certainly the Church can
never prove to be the real truth - oh no, not the RCC.
> > 3. Have you noticed that arcers pronounce guilt, based on
accusation only, before a case has been made
> No. No one has done this. The only time this has happened has
been when people come to the group and tell their stories. It is
assumed and hoped that the stories are true. As we get to know more
about one another we learn more about what happened and how.
Sure, let's list the same Dallas thing 3 times. Let's nail the bishop
to the fence because he finds fault with the accusation. No charges
are placed, but crucify the priest anyway. You better look back again.
4. Have you noticed that the Canadian government will be half of the
guilty party if true in the Duplessis case? Not that the Canadian
government and some priests are not guilty as sin.
> And have you noticed that the Canadian government was condemmed
in this newsgroup as well as the church? No, because all you care
about is your rabid defense of all things RCC to the exclusion of all
other information.Does the crime of the secular government somehow
lessen the crime of the One True Church?
Did you bother to read my statement #4 above, 2nd sentance? Are the
Canadian Gov and the RCC guilty - only if they acted in an official
capacity following orders to so molest others. If it's just
individuals acting, then I say no to the orginizations being guilty.
> > 5. Have you noticed that you listed the same Dallas case 3 times.
(no comment on no comment)
> > 6. Have you noticed that the West Texas accusation was not even
made until 4 years after the priest died and well after the events in
question. Gee, I hope he can defend himself.
> It's not uncommon for victims of molestation, rape and assault to
wait until they feel safe coming out with their stories. The children
being raped can't defend themselves, but we're supposed to cry over a
dead priest who will experience no personal sorrow.
Nor can said accused defend himself very well. Amazing how all those
ages-old remembrances keep showing up lately. Perhaps your good name
is meaningless to you, but I work hard to keep mine clean, dead or not.
> And it's not like the man has a wife and kids to worry about. If
he's innocent then I hope that comes forth. If he's not then I hope
there's a special place for people like him in any afterlife he may
find himself in.
Waiting for him to die is certainly a good way to drill him in the
heart, guilty or not. As 1/2 of the equation, he certainly can't
defend himself.
> > 7. Have you noticed that the 3 daughters (jrnl) were "molested" 40-
60 years ago when they were 5-14 years old. Remember, children never
lie, they just don't recognize the truth.
> So does the length of time between molestation and exposure
indicate how important the trauma was? Do you figure that since they
waited so long they should have just kept their mouths shut? Shall
veterans not tell their war stories if they exceed a certain length of
time after the event?
Or how expanded and distorted the story could become. There is a
reason children are generally not put on witness stands. Children
never lie, they just don't recognize the truth.
> > 8. Have you noticed that the British government and the PM are half
the guilty party in the Australian case. This one was exposed 6 months
or so ago and died in the news media like a falsehood immediately
thereafter. Is it true? I don't know - it's another one of those 50-
60 year old remembrances. Why don't we wait and see. In this case the
entire world news media may be guilty of a coverup because it sure has
been a quiet subject in the media lately.
> And, as I mentioned earlier, had you been paying attention
instead of foaming at the mouth, you'd have seen many posts condemning
the government, as well. However, we don't play the "oh, the RCC can't
be held responsible because they weren't the only ones being bad"
philosophy. We let the moral giants like you do that.
And I don't play the "oh, the RCC can't possibly be innocent" game
either.
Strange how your dl cofessions don't just jump out of the screen -
maybe I'm not anymore observant than you are when we admit that guilt
may very well be there - let's just you and I get past the accusation
stage before we condemm.
Do I believe the RCC promotes sexual molestation of anyone - absolutely
not. Do I believe that there were/are priests guilty of such -
definitely yes. Should they be punished - definitely yes. Do I
believe the RCC is guilty because a priest did it - absolutely not,
unless he did it as a church directive (try and find one like that if
you can). Do I believe the RCC desires/does coverup provable events -
no. Should the RCC unilateraly accept accusations - absolutely not.
Are 4-60yr old remembrances real - some may be, some may not. Do dads
& moms teasingly touch their kids - yes. Is it a crime outside the
family - hell yes, as it should be.
Darklady
> In article <3884...@news.nwlink.com>,
> "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
>
> > Excuse me, could you please tell when when it's appropriate for a
> father to ever pinch his daughter's breasts?
> > You are such a piece of filth to attempt to lump all accusations
> of molestation in with the few false accusations.
>
> Never said it was - only a fool fails to understand that a lot of
> fathers teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
> their sons. It's called child molestation outside the family unit.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
You seem to have this sick idea that fondling a child is somehow a
normal parental activity. Touching a child's genitals is pretty inevitable
during their earliest years but there's a difference between doing it in a
"wrong" way and doing it in a necessary way. I can't think of any time when
pinching a daughter's breasts is appropriate, however. I think it's sick
that you can.
BTW -- molestation is molestation, regardless of whether it's inside the
family unit or outside of the family unit.
And I still can't believe you're defending child molestors.
> > > 1. Have you ever seen me deny occurrances that have been proven?
> No, you have not.
> > You simply refuse to believe that any have been proven.
>
> dl, you have never, ever seen me deny proven guilt. Accusations don't
> make people guilty. Except if you're an arcer. Then no further legal
> steps need be taken. Tie him to a post and light the fire.
But you deny that anyone has "proven guilt." Nothing anyone here has
ever done has passed your muster. I don't think you'd believe anyone unless
the priest in question confessed to you that he'd done something -- and then
you'd probably still find some way to blame the victim.
> 4. Have you noticed that the Canadian government will be half of the
> guilty party if true in the Duplessis case? Not that the Canadian
> government and some priests are not guilty as sin.
>
> > And have you noticed that the Canadian government was condemmed
> in this newsgroup as well as the church? No, because all you care
> about is your rabid defense of all things RCC to the exclusion of all
> other information.Does the crime of the secular government somehow
> lessen the crime of the One True Church?
>
> Did you bother to read my statement #4 above, 2nd sentance? Are the
> Canadian Gov and the RCC guilty - only if they acted in an official
> capacity following orders to so molest others. If it's just
> individuals acting, then I say no to the orginizations being guilty.
(sigh)
When the Church goes out of its way to cover up a crime then it should
accept its responsibilty and guilt.
It requires more than that from its members.
> Do I believe the RCC promotes sexual molestation of anyone - absolutely
> not. Do I believe that there were/are priests guilty of such -
> definitely yes. Should they be punished - definitely yes. Do I
> believe the RCC is guilty because a priest did it - absolutely not,
> unless he did it as a church directive (try and find one like that if
> you can). Do I believe the RCC desires/does coverup provable events -
> no.
Well, the court system consistently disagrees with you.
--
Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
"Morals tomorrow, comedy tonight!"
andy-j
> > "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Excuse me, could you please tell when when it's appropriate for a
> > father to ever pinch his daughter's breasts?
> > > You are such a piece of filth to attempt to lump all accusations
> > of molestation in with the few false accusations.
> >
> > Never said it was - only a fool fails to understand that a lot of
> > fathers teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
> > their sons. It's called child molestation outside the family unit.
>
> You seem to have this sick idea that fondling a child is somehow a
> normal parental activity. Touching a child's genitals is pretty
inevitable
> during their earliest years but there's a difference between doing it in a
> "wrong" way and doing it in a necessary way. I can't think of any time
when
> pinching a daughter's breasts is appropriate, however. I think it's sick
> that you can.
> BTW -- molestation is molestation, regardless of whether it's inside
the
> family unit or outside of the family unit.
> And I still can't believe you're defending child molestors.
>
This thread is revealing the real duke. He's got some sick deviant ideas
that underly everything he says. He never had any credibility, but this
time he has put the Nail in his credibility's coffin. I am not surprised,
for there has never been a religious nut I've ever met who didn't wind up
revealing just how sick he/she really was. He has the gall to insinuate
that my own parents "must" have behaved the way he sees as normal parental
behavior when I was too young to be aware of it. And he seems to think that
it would be OK. What a sicko!!! Any parent who behaves that way toward a
child who is too young to be aware of the ramifications of such an act, such
parent is guilty of an even more contemptible act of molestation, for it is
taking advantage of the defenseless. And dukey pukey seems to think it's
all OK as long as it is in the family. He's not only sick. He's evil. I
shudder at the thought that there might be children living in his house.
Andy-J
<snipped dukey ranting and DL's level headed responses>
arjay
> Darklady wrote:
<snip>
> 4. Have you noticed that the Canadian government will be half of the
> guilty party if true in the Duplessis case? Not that the Canadian
> government and some priests are not guilty as sin.
>
> > And have you noticed that the Canadian government was condemmed
> in this newsgroup as well as the church? No, because all you care
> about is your rabid defense of all things RCC to the exclusion of all
> other information.Does the crime of the secular government somehow
> lessen the crime of the One True Church?
>
> Did you bother to read my statement #4 above, 2nd sentance? Are the
> Canadian Gov and the RCC guilty - only if they acted in an official
> capacity following orders to so molest others. If it's just
> individuals acting, then I say no to the orginizations being guilty.
Did you bother to check the facts, dux?
It is not the Canadian government which is involved in this case.
It is the Quebec government.
Would you have people hurl bricks at Washington because of the shady dealings of
Huey Long?
Maurice Duplessis was Premier of Quebec when this stuff occurred.
He may have been the closest thing to Huey Long Canadian politics ever produced.
The Province of Quebec was priest-ridden in those years. It had Canada's
highest birth rate, highest number of deaths from back-street abortions, highest
per-capita church attendance records, highest per-capita number of alcoholics,
ditto gamblings addicts (Bingo!).
Official, governmental apologies were recently offered to the "Duplessis
orphans."
Those apologies were issued by the current Quebec government, not the Canadian
government.
If the RCC has made similar apologies, I missed them.
arjay
arjay
> andy-j wrote:
>
> > Gee, DL, my mother never touched my genitals in the "wrong" way and
> my dad never pinched my sisters' budding breasts.
>
> Are you sure? You don't have the foggiest idea what went on with you
> as a young child or with your sister(s) when you were young, or to them
> when you were not in their presence.
If someone remembers an incident of childhood molestation, but years after the
fact -- when the statute of limitations dictates there can be no legal
redress -- then, according to il duce, that is a false memory, a fabrication, a
lie.
If the perpetrator was a clergyman, then it's an assault on Holy Mother Church.
Meanwhile, if someone remembers that there was *no* inappropriate sexual
touching in his family, then *that* is a false memory. A convenient fork.
> Your own mom and dad may well be child molesters, not necessarily by
> intention but guilty of doing the very same thing that an "outsider" is
> crucified for. Remember, child molestation is "typically" the touching
> of the child's genital areas.
And if it occurs after the child has learned effecting bathing and personal
hygiene, it is inexcusable.
> > At any rate, I'm glad we have level headed people here who can see
> right through the anomalous rationales behind his apologetics.
>
> Yeah, right, level-headed people. Pardon my laughing my butt off.
Laughter, dux? Or have you been eating pickled eggs again?
> > I feel very sorry fo dukey. He is sounding very sick. I hope kids
> around him can be protected from his less than balanced mental state.
> Do you think he is losing it? Maybe he is just running out of things
> to say so he'll say just anything. No... I think he's just sick.
>
> Don't feel sorry for me. You just never realized what may well have
> happened in your own family.
But we are beginning to get a picture of what goes on in your family, douche.
> > He is certainly good at apologetiquing for a most morally bankrupt
> institution. He likes to wallow in the same cesspool of filth his most
> beloved church has created for itself.
>
> Personally, I much prefer to be where I am than to be where you're
> trying so hard to go.
Fine. Stay in Baton Rouge.
arjay
duke
"Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
> Where do you get this nonsense from?
sorry dl it ain't nonsense.
> You seem to have this sick idea that fondling a child is somehow a
normal parental activity. Touching a child's genitals is pretty
inevitable during their earliest years but there's a difference between
doing it in a "wrong" way and doing it in a necessary way. I can't
think of any time when pinching a daughter's breasts is appropriate,
however. I think it's sick that you can.
Normal activity?? No, I said common activity.
And why is it you arcers immediately read "appropriate" into my
comments when I point out something. Because you're trying so hard. I
never said appropriate. I said it happens on a regular basis. And I
said it was a teasing act by a father/mother, not a molesting act. Yet
a family outsider that does the same thing goes to jail.
> BTW -- molestation is molestation, regardless of whether it's
inside the family unit or outside of the family unit.
> And I still can't believe you're defending child molestors.
And I still can't believe you trying to be so big an asshole. You know
good and well I'm not defending child molesters. It's just that many
parents would be rather shocked to find they themselves could be
accused of child molestation for something they have/may have playfully
done with their kids.
> But you deny that anyone has "proven guilt." Nothing anyone here
has ever done has passed your muster. I don't think you'd believe
anyone unless the priest in question confessed to you that he'd done
something -- and then you'd probably still find some way to blame the
victim.
Did you see me deny the Duplessis case - no. Did you see me deny the
Dallas case - no. Do I automatically believe 60 years old
rememberances from three girls 5-14 yrs old. Only a stupid person
believes such a thing without an investigation.
Did you see me deny the Jarvis case - no. Problem is that to date I
still have no idea what happened to her. Just...something did!!
> (sigh)
> When the Church goes out of its way to cover up a crime then it
should accept its responsibilty and guilt.
> It requires more than that from its members.
Having to fight off arcers and their like who declare "guilt until
proven innocent" is reason enough to go on the defensive.
> >Do I believe the RCC desires/does coverup provable events - no.
> Well, the court system consistently disagrees with you.
Only in your fondest dreams.
duke
"arjay" <ar...@nonline.net> wrote:
> Did you bother to check the facts, dux?
> It is not the Canadian government which is involved in this case.
> It is the Quebec government.
Gee you must be a pretend washington lawyer. You nickle-and-dimers
sure can find the most insignificant things to point out.
> Would you have people hurl bricks at Washington because of the shady
dealings of Huey Long?
If this guy did wrong, why not?
> The Province of Quebec was priest-ridden in those years. It had
Canada's highest birth rate, highest number of deaths from back-street
abortions, highest per-capita church attendance records, highest per-
capita number of alcoholics, ditto gamblings addicts (Bingo!).
Haven't I heard something on this ng lately that now it has a runaway
prostitute problem. Must be because they have so many priests also.
> Official, governmental apologies were recently offered to
the "Duplessis orphans." Those apologies were issued by the current
Quebec government, not the Canadian government.
> If the RCC has made similar apologies, I missed them.
Maybe the actions were official governmental directive but the priests
were acting on their own.
Of course darklady will drill me thru the heart for saying such a
thing, so I must say that personally I think the RCC should stand
behind their priests in their official capacities and offer an apology
also.
Karen H Jarvis
illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only one
(1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it spelled out
in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
> > (sigh)
> > When the Church goes out of its way to cover up a crime then it
> should accept its responsibilty and guilt.
> > It requires more than that from its members.
>
> Having to fight off arcers and their like who declare "guilt until
> proven innocent" is reason enough to go on the defensive.
>
> > >Do I believe the RCC desires/does coverup provable events - no.
> > Well, the court system consistently disagrees with you.
>
> Only in your fondest dreams.
>
Darklady
news:867hag$cfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3886...@news.nwlink.com>,
> "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
>
> > Where do you get this nonsense from?
>
> sorry dl it ain't nonsense.
>
> > You seem to have this sick idea that fondling a child is somehow a
> normal parental activity. Touching a child's genitals is pretty
> inevitable during their earliest years but there's a difference between
> doing it in a "wrong" way and doing it in a necessary way. I can't
> think of any time when pinching a daughter's breasts is appropriate,
> however. I think it's sick that you can.
>
> Normal activity?? No, I said common activity.
You're such a prize, Duke.
You could clarify. You could have even written clearly in the first
place, given what provocative information you were putting forth. But nah.
Again you place the responsibility for your own sloppiness at your
audience's feet. You ARE a good Catholic, aren't you?
But even beyond that, I don't think you're correct.
I don't think that touching sons in the "wrong way" is "common." I also
don't think pinching the nipples of daughters is "common," either. I will
agree that sexual abuse is *more common* that most of us probably realize
and fare more common than it should be. I have no doubt that awkward
sexuality exists in most any house with an adolescent, but that doesn't mean
the behavior you so blythely report is "common."
*****It also doesn't mean that your smoke screen is effective. This is
a newsgroup that discusses abuse performed by the Catholic Church and its
representatives. No matter how valid a discussion of family of origin abuse
might be it is NOT appropriate for this newsgroup unless it somehow involves
Catholic teaching or a Catholic angle.*****
> And why is it you arcers immediately read "appropriate" into my
> comments when I point out something. Because you're trying so hard. I
> never said appropriate. I said it happens on a regular basis. And I
> said it was a teasing act by a father/mother, not a molesting act. Yet
> a family outsider that does the same thing goes to jail.
You write from both sides of your mouth, Duke. You claim you're not
defending these actions as "appropriate" and then call them "teasing" which
suggests that you -- at the very least -- don't find them *inappropriate.*
Then you muddy the water further by bringing in this nonsense about how
someone outside of the family will (unfairly, it appears in your view) be
punished for doing the same thing. Do you think outsiders should be able to
touch boys genitals in the "wrong way" and that they should be able to
"teasing(ly)" tweak the nipples of girls?
I'm confused as to what your point really is. If you have one.
> > BTW -- molestation is molestation, regardless of whether it's
> inside the family unit or outside of the family unit.
> > And I still can't believe you're defending child molestors.
>
> And I still can't believe you trying to be so big an asshole. You know
> good and well I'm not defending child molesters.
Not at all. In this post you keep suggesting that you're not defending
them but then you turn right around and defend their actions. I'm not being
an asshole. I'm responding to what you wrote. Defend it or explain it but
stop trying to put the responsibility on my shoulders.
It's just that many
> parents would be rather shocked to find they themselves could be
> accused of child molestation for something they have/may have playfully
> done with their kids.
There have unquestionably been times when innocent actions resulted in
undeserving trouble. Photos of kids in bath tubs, for instance. You know,
laws strongly supported by people like your good buddy Ed who sees "filth"
in everything. But that does not justify abuse or molestation by anyone --
inside the family or outside of the family. Obviously families allow
behavior to occur within them that they would condemn outside of them. Do
we really want strangers changing our children's diapers or wiping their
butts in the bathroom? I find it a bit amusing that you're suggesting that
this is some sort of unfair discrimination against outsiders... how would
you feel about one having sex with your wife (if you ever had one)? At
least that would have a chance of being fully consensual and informed.
> > But you deny that anyone has "proven guilt." Nothing anyone here
> has ever done has passed your muster. I don't think you'd believe
> anyone unless the priest in question confessed to you that he'd done
> something -- and then you'd probably still find some way to blame the
> victim.
>
> Did you see me deny the Duplessis case - no. Did you see me deny the
> Dallas case - no. Do I automatically believe 60 years old
> rememberances from three girls 5-14 yrs old. Only a stupid person
> believes such a thing without an investigation.
You belittle the role the RCC took in those cases. It's nearly as bad
as denying they happened.
And accepting that ONE case happens hardly balances out the majority of
cases that you've cruelly ridiculed. You don't even entertain the
possibility that these other cases might be genuine. Instead, you
immediately begin condemning and insulting those making the accusations.
I am always skeptical of claims of abuse, rape, molestation, etc. and
always want more information. But I feel that those making the accusation
must at least initially be treated with some respect as the investigation is
done. I also believe that the RCC has earned a reputation for not
responding properly to abuse that has been found within itself. This makes
me more likely to take accusations of abuse seriously, especially when the
stories are independently substantiated and bear such strong resemblences to
one another *and* refer to situations that are entirely believable. This
isn't a bunch of pre-schoolers claiming that their teachers dug tunnels and
killed dogs and flew in hot air balloons and sacrificed to the devil. The
claims being made are not generally outrageous or unbelievable (although
they are heartbreaking and not what we'd like to believe).
> Did you see me deny the Jarvis case - no. Problem is that to date I
> still have no idea what happened to her. Just...something did!!
"... the Javis case?"
Karen's not a human to you. She's a "case," eh?
You don't have to "deny" anything (although I believe you've tried to
goad her). You have an arsenal of childish skills at your ready to show in
what low esteem you hold anyone who's claimed to be abused by clergy. You
seem to have this idea that this newsgroup exists for your personal reading
enjoyment. That our lives and most intimate details should be placed before
you in big letter type so that you can casually browse our deepest hurts and
bloodiest emotional cuts and scars. Your posts serve as a constant reminder
to those who have been hurt that there are, unfortunately, carrion eaters
such as yourself who like to circle those in pain in the hopes that they can
lap up a little for their personal satisfaction.
> > >Do I believe the RCC desires/does coverup provable events - no.
> > Well, the court system consistently disagrees with you.
>
> Only in your fondest dreams.
Not in my dreams. In the legal system, Duke. Judges who have ruled
against the RCC have said as much.
Darklady
> In article <aPyh4.5462$S64.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
> "arjay" <ar...@nonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Did you bother to check the facts, dux?
> > It is not the Canadian government which is involved in this case.
> > It is the Quebec government.
>
> Gee you must be a pretend washington lawyer. You nickle-and-dimers
> sure can find the most insignificant things to point out.
Translation: Duke is sloppy with his facts yet again but, instead of a
gracious "ooops," he attacks the person with more accurate information.
Pretty typical, actually.
I guess Duke doesn't see a difference between the United States of
America and the state of Texas.
> > The Province of Quebec was priest-ridden in those years. It had
> Canada's highest birth rate, highest number of deaths from back-street
> abortions, highest per-capita church attendance records, highest per-
> capita number of alcoholics, ditto gamblings addicts (Bingo!).
>
> Haven't I heard something on this ng lately that now it has a runaway
> prostitute problem. Must be because they have so many priests also.
Nope. Not Quebec.
Oh, but you don't care. Quebec = Victoria = Alberta = Ontario = Yukon =
Nova Scotia = Manitoba = Saskatchewan = British Columbia = New Brunswick =
NW Territories = Canada. It's all the same to Duke apparently.
I'm sure someone would be happy to tell you which province it did happen
in, but we've seen how polite you are to people who know something you
don't.
> > Official, governmental apologies were recently offered to
> the "Duplessis orphans." Those apologies were issued by the current
> Quebec government, not the Canadian government.
> > If the RCC has made similar apologies, I missed them.
>
> Maybe the actions were official governmental directive but the priests
> were acting on their own.
"Maybe."
You're suddenly willing to make a decision based on a "maybe."
But only in favor of the RCC. How telling.
course darklady will drill me thru the heart for saying such a
> thing, so I must say that personally I think the RCC should stand
> behind their priests in their official capacities and offer an apology
> also.
Of course Darklady will do that, Duke.
I was raised by an old school Roman Catholic mother and a Southern
Baptist father who was a career NCO in the US Army. After serving as a drill
sergeant at Fort Leonard Wood he willingly did a tour of Viet Nam and would
have happily done another if marital difficulties (his Catholic wife wanted
a divorce for "mental cruelty") had not brought him back home. I was raised
in a family that didn't take any crap, although it dished out its own unique
blend. I'm a lot more reasonable and a lot more self-controlled than any
other member of my family. But I don't take much crap myself, Duke.
Especially not from people whose views I hold no respect for and whose
behavior makes it difficult for me to extend them the courtesies I prefer to
extend to those with whom I converse.
Having said this, allow me to further say that I am glad to see the
words I've quoted above. They reassure me that there is some shred of
humanity and responsibility within you. I just wish that you could move
beyond your own anger to see that there exists shreds of humanity in the
a.r.c. regulars. I think that our rejection of the RCC's theology has made
it difficult for you to see that the vast majority of us are interested in
justice, not revenge.
It's one of the things I rejected when I left the RCC. I may sometimes
have vengeful feelings but I don't give in to them. Punishment must have
meaning and purpose and must be in balance with the offense committed. Thus
I reject the RCC, Christianity and the concept of "original sin," the need
for a sacrificial savior or reconciliation with any god or gods.
duke
"Karen H Jarvis" <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
link on Brian's list. You are an editor, at least apparently in
title. What 4 stories. How many cases is the duplessis case -
1,2,3,4? How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
You must be the biggest jerk around. because all you do is try to
make trouble over the least important points. Did you see the
threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
Why don't you practice your clarity of response. You jumped my case
once for not including the author line in my responses. So why don't
you p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e what you preach and be clear about what the point
is that you're trying to make.
Karen H Jarvis
FAME at long last! I'm a CASE. I'm not human - please can I be a little
bittie doggie then. A Basset Hound - I already have the droopy ears and
woebegone expression.
Karen - laughing at this one. Thanks, really cheered me up
(tongue firmly in cheek).
Alan Ferris
>And why is it you arcers immediately read "appropriate" into my
>comments when I point out something. Because you're trying so hard. I
>never said appropriate. I said it happens on a regular basis. And I
>said it was a teasing act by a father/mother, not a molesting act. Yet
>a family outsider that does the same thing goes to jail.
Probably because people like myself still consider such behaviour
inappropriate, even by parents. I know I would never behave in such a
way, nor my fiancee with her children.
>And I still can't believe you trying to be so big an asshole.
Did you need this insult. It immediately has weakened your argument and
made it more likely that people would ignore the remainder of the
paragraph.
>You know good and well I'm not defending child molesters. It's just that many
>parents would be rather shocked to find they themselves could be
>accused of child molestation for something they have/may have playfully
>done with their kids.
This is quite right. Would you not prosecute a father who regularly
stroked his daughters genitals. He may consider it normal practice and
not molestation, but that does not mean that it is not.
>Did you see me deny the Duplessis case - no. Did you see me deny the
>Dallas case - no. Do I automatically believe 60 years old
>rememberances from three girls 5-14 yrs old. Only a stupid person
>believes such a thing without an investigation.
And these cases and many others are investigated. But why, why, does the
church refuse to aid investigations, surely it would want to know the
truth. In England the Catholic church was censored by the government for
actively trying to prevent investigations, actively trying to coerce
witnesses, actively putting obstacles in the way of police investigations
and actively covering up known cases.
>Did you see me deny the Jarvis case - no. Problem is that to date I
>still have no idea what happened to her. Just...something did!!
Have you bothered to try and find out what happened, or are you not
bothered to try and clean up your church.
>Having to fight off arcers and their like who declare "guilt until
>proven innocent" is reason enough to go on the defensive.
No, but many of us keep up to date on the current events. We tend to try
and discover what evidence is available and what the verdict of the court
was. Something that the churches try to suppress.
I personally think that innocent until proven guilty is fine, but the
church seems to think that innocent after proof, as long as the proof can
be suppressed. Many of these cases where known to the church years before
it became public knowledge in a court of law.
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
EAC(UK) "Son of Perdition" Ironic Torture Dept.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the only colour is black -
the only sound
the broken bell
THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Fishy things: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/
ICQ UIN: 12811297
Darklady
message news:867u20$r2v$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Darklady <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
> news:3887...@news.nwlink.com...
> > duke <duk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:867hag$cfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > Did you see me deny the Jarvis case - no. Problem is that to date I
> > > still have no idea what happened to her. Just...something did!!
> >
> > "... the Javis case?"
> > Karen's not a human to you. She's a "case," eh?
>
> FAME at long last! I'm a CASE. I'm not human - please can I be a little
> bittie doggie then. A Basset Hound - I already have the droopy ears and
> woebegone expression.
>
> Karen - laughing at this one. Thanks, really cheered me up
> (tongue firmly in cheek).
Got a nice crunchy treat here for Darklady's a.r.c. puppy girl.
And a nice scratch behind the ears.
Darklady
> In article <867nrq$moo$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Karen H Jarvis" <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
> illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
> one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
> spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
>
> What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
> link on Brian's list. You are an editor, at least apparently in
> title. What 4 stories. How many cases is the duplessis case -
> 1,2,3,4? How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
> remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
Duke. You're doing it again. You goofed and you're blaming it on
someone else.
Are you out of Xanax?
Karen posted two links. One went to a site containing four stories, one
of which was hers. The other went to the Survivors Network of those Abused
by Priests (http://www.snap-net.org:/).
Unfortunately I don't have the URL for Karen's story, although I'm sure
we could find it if we did a search.
She posted these at least twice if not three times. You've just ignored
them.
You might want to make sure you're clean before you start calling other
people dirty.
> You must be the biggest jerk around. because all you do is try to
> make trouble over the least important points. Did you see the
> threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
> you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
Amusing that she's the jerk for pointing out four elements relating to
her "case" but you're not a jerk for bringing in several points that have
nothing to do with the discussion.
But then, why not? I mean, you fucked up regarding Joe's story and now
you're fucking up regarding Karen's. You're doing fine, Duke. Keep up the
good work.
arjay
> arjay wrote:
>
> > Did you bother to check the facts, dux?
> > It is not the Canadian government which is involved in this case.
> > It is the Quebec government.
>
> Gee you must be a pretend washington lawyer. You nickle-and-dimers
> sure can find the most insignificant things to point out.
I'm not a "pretend" anything, dux. I don't even hide behind Deja.com when I
post something.
In a country like the U.S.A., where the issue of "States' rights" is raised
every few years, are you going to pretend that there is no difference between a
state legislature and the federal congress? That a state's governor is the
equivalent of the Chief Executive? That federal agencies must take
responsibility for the deeds or misdeeds of state agencies?
Is the difference between the government in Albany, New York and the government
in Washington, D.C. "insignificant?"
Canada doesn't have states, dux, but provinces and territories, all with their
own governments, all empowered to control certain things within their own
boundaries -- things like law enforcement, education, sales taxes, a level of
income tax, vehicle licensing, labour regulations, hospital administration and
the administration and regulation of social welfare --
_without_interference_from_the-federal-government_.
That federal government is in Ottawa, btw, not Washington.
FYI, six of our ten provinces are somewhat large. Three are larger than Texas.
The State of Louisiana could fit into the Province of Manitoba five times over.
The Province of Quebec is bigger than Alaska.
> > Would you have people hurl bricks at Washington because of the shady
> dealings of Huey Long?
>
> If this guy did wrong, why not?
Are you even aware of who "this guy" was?
Huey P. Long, Governor of Louisiana (1928-32) and U.S. senator (1932-35), the
fabled "Kingfish," who was shot dead in Baton Rouge in 1935. He lined his
pockets while Governor of the state. He was shot because of something he did
while governor.
Does the government in Washington have the power to remove state governors if
they are corrupt? I don't think so -- or they would have pulled the plug on the
Kingfish's younger brother when *he* became governor of Louisiana.
You remember the brother, dux? EARL K. Long?
> > The Province of Quebec was priest-ridden in those years. It had
> Canada's highest birth rate, highest number of deaths from back-street
> abortions, highest per-capita church attendance records, highest per-
> capita number of alcoholics, ditto gamblings addicts (Bingo!).
>
> Haven't I heard something on this ng lately that now it has a runaway
> prostitute problem. Must be because they have so many priests also.
You heard something about the city of Vancouver, dux. Just a city on the west
coast, not a province, and it's half a continent away from Quebec. Trying to
connect the two would be like saying a city on the U.S. west coast (pick any one
at all) has problems because of the number of priests in Maine.
> > Official, governmental apologies were recently offered to
> the "Duplessis orphans." Those apologies were issued by the current
> Quebec government, not the Canadian government.
> > If the RCC has made similar apologies, I missed them.
>
> Maybe the actions were official governmental directive but the priests
> were acting on their own.
We are not talking about individual priests, you miserable squirmer, but whole
organizations and religious communities.
In the case of the Duplessis Orphans, the wrongdoing began at the *Quebec*
government level. The social structure of Quebec at that time virtually
dictated that all the non-governmental agencies complicit in the wrongdoing were
administered by or affiliated with the RCC.
Socially unacceptable babies (mostly bastards) were labelled as mentally
defective while they were wards of the government and in the care of RCC-run
orphanages. Their lives were blighted.
Priests acting on their own could not have involved entire orphanages staffed
and run by members of lesser religious orders. Authority for these actions
could only have come from the diocesan level, or above. The Duplessis
government did not make deals with small fry.
> Of course darklady will drill me thru the heart for saying such a
> thing, so I must say that personally I think the RCC should stand
> behind their priests in their official capacities and offer an apology
> also.
I notice you limit the liability to an apology, and make no mention of
compensation.
It was priests, lay brothers and nuns, dux. And note, please -- I have not said
that the RCC has *not* apologized for its part in this particular horror -- only
that *if* such an apology has been made, it did not receive the press coverage
of the apology duly given by the current government of Quebec.
arjay
>
> duke
Karen H Jarvis
duke <duk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86870d$tnc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <867nrq$moo$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Karen H Jarvis" <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
> illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
> one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
> spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
>
> What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
> link on Brian's list. You are an editor, at least apparently in
> title. What 4 stories. How many cases is the duplessis case -
> 1,2,3,4? How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
> remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
>
> make trouble over the least important points. Did you see the
> threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
> you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
>
> once for not including the author line in my responses. So why don't
> you p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e what you preach and be clear about what the point
> is that you're trying to make.
>
> duke
>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7763/survivors.htm
I am not 'trying to make a point'. I leave foolish thoughts like that to
you. I will not lower mysel to your level; that of a pusillanimous pillock.
Karen
Karen H Jarvis
> news:86870d$tnc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <867nrq$moo$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "Karen H Jarvis" <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
> > illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
> > one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
> > spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
> >
> > What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
> > link on Brian's list. You are an editor, at least apparently in
> > title. What 4 stories. How many cases is the duplessis case -
> > 1,2,3,4? How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
> > remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
>
> someone else.
> Are you out of Xanax?
> Karen posted two links. One went to a site containing four stories,
one
> of which was hers. The other went to the Survivors Network of those
Abused
> by Priests (http://www.snap-net.org:/).
> Unfortunately I don't have the URL for Karen's story, although I'm
sure
> we could find it if we did a search.
> She posted these at least twice if not three times. You've just
ignored
> them.
> You might want to make sure you're clean before you start calling
other
> people dirty.
>
> > make trouble over the least important points. Did you see the
> > threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
> > you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
>
> her "case" but you're not a jerk for bringing in several points that have
> nothing to do with the discussion.
> But then, why not? I mean, you fucked up regarding Joe's story and
now
> you're fucking up regarding Karen's. You're doing fine, Duke. Keep up
the
> good work.
>
Karen
Karen H Jarvis
> message news:867u20$r2v$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Darklady <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
> > news:3887...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > duke <duk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:867hag$cfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > > still have no idea what happened to her. Just...something did!!
> > >
> > > "... the Javis case?"
> > > Karen's not a human to you. She's a "case," eh?
> >
> > FAME at long last! I'm a CASE. I'm not human - please can I be a
little
> > bittie doggie then. A Basset Hound - I already have the droopy ears and
> > woebegone expression.
> >
> > Karen - laughing at this one. Thanks, really cheered me up
> > (tongue firmly in cheek).
>
> And a nice scratch behind the ears.
>
Karen
arjay
> Karen H Jarvis wrote:
>
> > You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
> illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
> one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
> spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
>
> What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
> link on Brian's list.
Why go to any of those, il duce? Karen said, clearly, THE web page.
She has posted only one link.
Find Karen's message 85nu9h$ouk$1@newsg@.svr.pol.co.uk .
Find the link in that message.
Too hard for you?
Here is is, you wretch:
www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7763/survivors.htm#storyindex.
You should find four stories, with only one involving a female victim.
But, on the basis of your past performances, I would not be surprised if you
declared they were all fiction and written by the same author.
> You are an editor, at least apparently in
> title.
You are an adult, at least by self-description. Act like one.
> What 4 stories.
See the link.
> How many cases is the duplessis case -
> 1,2,3,4?
THREE THOUSAND, douche!
All were denied contact with family.
None were educated.
Some were forcibly lobotomized.
If you had actually read the pages at brian's links, instead of counting the
number of times Kos was mentioned, you would know that!
> How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
> remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
Can't you read, at all? It must be your teachers who are at fault. They didn't
explain English to you properly. Yes, that must be it.
> You must be the biggest jerk around. because all you do is try to
> make trouble over the least important points.
Karen is making trouble only for you. She makes it by helping you trip over
your own feet.
You have said you are willing, nay, eager, to bear the cross of "arcer" calumny.
Try carrying the cross of fact and accuracy -- just once?
> Did you see the
> threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
> you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
We all saw them, dupe. Did you READ any of them?
> Why don't you practice your clarity of response.
Why don't you set us all a good example?
> You jumped my case
> once for not including the author line in my responses. So why don't
> you p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e what you preach and be clear about what the point
> is that you're trying to make.
She's clear enough. Unless Ed (who has been in my killfile for months) is out
there in the fog with you, you are the only one who doesn't understand Karen.
arjay
> duke
arjay
>
> Darklady wrote ...
> > duke wrote ...
> > > Karen H Jarvis wrote:
> > >
> > > > You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
> > > illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
> > > one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
> > > spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
> > >
> > > What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
> > > title. What 4 stories. How many cases is the duplessis case -
> > > 1,2,3,4? How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
> > > remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
> >
> > someone else.
> > Are you out of Xanax?
> > Karen posted two links. One went to a site containing four stories,
> one
> > of which was hers. The other went to the Survivors Network of those
> Abused
> > by Priests (http://www.snap-net.org:/).
> > Unfortunately I don't have the URL for Karen's story, although I'm
> sure
> > we could find it if we did a search.
> > She posted these at least twice if not three times. You've just
> ignored
> > them.
> > You might want to make sure you're clean before you start calling
> other
> > people dirty.
> >
> > > threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
> > > you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
> >
> > her "case" but you're not a jerk for bringing in several points that have
> > nothing to do with the discussion.
> > But then, why not? I mean, you fucked up regarding Joe's story and
> now
> > you're fucking up regarding Karen's. You're doing fine, Duke. Keep up
> the
> > good work.
> >
> Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
Karen --
I started tangling with douche last October -- & in my first post I asked him
whether he was naturally think, or worked at being so.
Oddly enough, he has never addressed that question.
arjay
Dave Snowden
message
> Do I believe the RCC promotes sexual molestation of anyone - absolutely
> not. Do I believe that there were/are priests guilty of such -
> definitely yes. Should they be punished - definitely yes. Do I
> believe the RCC is guilty because a priest did it - absolutely not,
> unless he did it as a church directive (try and find one like that if
> you can). Do I believe the RCC desires/does coverup provable events -
> no.
WRONG AGAIN
The Bishop of Fall River continually promoted Father Porter from 1
church to a church of a higher rating after Porter was found playing
with the altar boys in his room, and it wasn't checkers. The Bishop
did this several times.
Then there is Archbishop Sanchez of Santa Fe who dallied with the
female altar servers.
Just to name a few that have made it to the courts.
I looked this up and I told you this 4 years ago when you were here
under a different name and you were in denial then, too. People gave
you court dockets and you called them liars.
We gave you proof.
It is YOUR problem that you can not read and grasp the FACTS.
END OF DISCUSSION
=============================
Redondo Beach, California
USA
Darklady
Regarding Our Boy Duke:
> Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
>
> Karen
He rides the short bus.
AMBAN
"Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
> Karen H Jarvis <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:8691dc$9p$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Regarding Our Boy Duke:
>
> > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
> >
> > Karen
>
> He rides the short bus.
>
The record is spinning but no one is there to listen.
AMBAN
Miranda Writes
<amban...@home.com> wrote:
> "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
> news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
> > Karen H Jarvis <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> > message news:8691dc$9p$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Regarding Our Boy Duke:
> >
> > > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > He rides the short bus.
> >
> The record is spinning but no one is there to listen.
> AMBAN
>
He's one beer short of a six-pack.
M/M
"When my cats pissed on the furniture, I didn't condemn them to an
eternity of torment. This makes me objectively kinder than the
Christian God......."
Eric 1/5/00
arjay
> Karen H Jarvis wrote ...
<snip>
> > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
>
> Karen --
>
> I started tangling with douche last October -- & in my first post I asked him
> whether he was naturally think, or worked at being so.
> Oddly enough, he has never addressed that question.
>
> arjay
Oops. Sorry about the typo.
That first response to douche asked: "Are you congenitally thick, or do you
work at being so?"
Far be it from me to imply, even accidentally, that il duce can *think*.
And he still hasn't addressed that question.
arjay
>
> > Karen
Darklady
news:Br3i4.2913$xC4....@news.rdc1.ct.home.com...
>
> "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
> news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
> > Karen H Jarvis <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> > message news:8691dc$9p$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Regarding Our Boy Duke:
> >
> > He rides the short bus.
> >
> The record is spinning but no one is there to listen.
> AMBAN
The lights are on but there's nobody home.
Dr. Sidethink
( Whazzapenin' ?? Gilberto finally got a tough short!!!)
Earlguydook has a one way ticket to LA-LA Land.
( I don't live there , but I vizit often )
Nicolas Demers
wrote:
>
>
> "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
>news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
>> Karen H Jarvis <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:8691dc$9p$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Regarding Our Boy Duke:
>>
>> > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
>> >
>> > Karen
>>
>> He rides the short bus.
>>
>The record is spinning but no one is there to listen.
>AMBAN
His walls don't go all the way up to the ceiling.
--
Nicolas P. Demers
http://users.imag.net/~van2334/
"Sometimes you have to die a little
to find a place where you can really live."
andy-j
> > news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > Karen H Jarvis <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> > > message news:8691dc$9p$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Regarding Our Boy Duke:
> > >
> > > > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
>
> > >
> > The record is spinning but no one is there to listen.
> > AMBAN
>
>
>
pumpkin will eventually get a light in it.
Andy-J
AMBAN
"andy-j" <and...@home.com> wrote in message
news:uqhi4.3078$xC4....@news.rdc1.ct.home.com...
>
> > --
> > Darklady
Before you criticize someone walk a mile in his shoes. That way when you
criticize him you will be a mile away and you will have his shoes!
AMBAN
Oldguyteck
Darklady <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
> AMBAN <amban...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Br3i4.2913$xC4....@news.rdc1.ct.home.com...
> >
> > "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote in message
> > news:3888...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > Karen H Jarvis <khja...@convent-childermas.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> > > message news:8691dc$9p$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Regarding Our Boy Duke:
> > >
> > > > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
>
> > > He rides the short bus.
> > >
> > The record is spinning but no one is there to listen.
> > AMBAN
>
> The lights are on but there's nobody home.
>
>
that matches........
Ed........................(Oldguyteck) ô
Medieval Knievel
Nicolas Demers <n...@imag.net> wrote in message
> His walls don't go all the way up to the ceiling.
He's a couple of cussards short of a gang-bang.
--
Medieval Knievel-sold more albums than Elvis and the
Beatles combined! ULC ordained minister.
ICQ# 26667824 aa# 1552
Remove NOSPAM from the e-mail address to reply
Cut toenails straight across to avoid ingrowth
Friends don't let friends sign up for AOL
andy-j
"arjay" <ar...@nonline.net> wrote in message
news:J0zh4.5463$S64.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> Meanwhile, if someone remembers that there was *no* inappropriate sexual
> touching in his family, then *that* is a false memory. A convenient fork.
>
> > Your own mom and dad may well be child molesters, not necessarily by
> > intention but guilty of doing the very same thing that an "outsider" is
> > crucified for. Remember, child molestation is "typically" the touching
> > of the child's genital areas.
Right on, arjay. The idiot goes to great lengths to call proven victims of
molestation liars, then summarily accuses my parents of having molested me
and my sisters when we were wee babies. The stupidity reflected in his
belief that what he accuses my parents of having done is common in families
is beyond words. Surely he can'te so dense as to no see how ridiculous his
posts have been.
>
> And if it occurs after the child has learned effecting bathing and
personal
> hygiene, it is inexcusable.
>
> > > At any rate, I'm glad we have level headed people here who can see
> > right through the anomalous rationales behind his apologetics.
> >
> > Yeah, right, level-headed people. Pardon my laughing my butt off.
>
> Laughter, dux? Or have you been eating pickled eggs again?
>
> > > I feel very sorry fo dukey. He is sounding very sick. I hope kids
> > around him can be protected from his less than balanced mental state.
> > Do you think he is losing it? Maybe he is just running out of things
> > to say so he'll say just anything. No... I think he's just sick.
> >
> > Don't feel sorry for me. You just never realized what may well have
> > happened in your own family.
>
> But we are beginning to get a picture of what goes on in your family,
douche.
Ain't that the truth! Anyone who talks the way he does betrays past
experiences that have left an unsavory mark on their personality.
Andy-J
>
> > > He is certainly good at apologetiquing for a most morally bankrupt
> > institution. He likes to wallow in the same cesspool of filth his most
> > beloved church has created for itself.
> >
> > Personally, I much prefer to be where I am than to be where you're
> > trying so hard to go.
>
> Fine. Stay in Baton Rouge.
>
> arjay
>
> > duke
Thomas P.
wrote:
snip
>> > Darklady
>
>Before you criticize someone walk a mile in his shoes. That way when you
>criticize him you will be a mile away and you will have his shoes!
I complained because I had no shoes. I then met a man who had no
feet. It was easy to steal his money and buy a pair of shoes.
>
>AMBAN
>
>
It is not the atheist who insults God.
Dave Snowden
WAFFLE ALERT
>
>Maybe the actions were official governmental directive but the priests
>were acting on their own.
>
>Of course darklady will drill me thru the heart for saying such a
>thing, so I must say that personally I think the RCC should stand
>behind their priests in their official capacities and offer an apology
>also.
I ain't Darklady but I will DRILL your heart. That is if any one can
find it. You certainly do NOT have one.
This is the FIRST time duckie admits that the priests should receive
support from the rcc. It (duckie) has NEVER before admitted that a
priest is a part of the rcc.
ONE GIANT STEP FOR MANKIND ..................
AMBAN
"Thomas P." <tony...@post6.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:3889e8d9...@news.inet.tele.dk...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:34:47 GMT, "AMBAN" <amban...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
> >> > Darklady
> >
> >Before you criticize someone walk a mile in his shoes. That way when you
> >criticize him you will be a mile away and you will have his shoes!
>
> I complained because I had no shoes. I then met a man who had no
> feet. It was easy to steal his money and buy a pair of shoes.
>
ROTFLOL I can't even think of a come back that was so fuuny!
AMBAN
Dave Snowden
>arjay wrote ...
>> Karen H Jarvis wrote ...
>
><snip>
>
>> > Is it me, or is he intellectually challenged?
>>
>> Karen --
>>
>> I started tangling with douche last October -- & in my first post I asked him
>> whether he was naturally think, or worked at being so.
>> Oddly enough, he has never addressed that question.
>>
>> arjay
>
>Oops. Sorry about the typo.
>That first response to douche asked: "Are you congenitally thick, or do you
>work at being so?"
>Far be it from me to imply, even accidentally, that il duce can *think*.
>
>And he still hasn't addressed that question.
Karen, he won't answer your question because he does not see questions
directed to him. He might correct your grammar but he won't answer
them.
I even put the word QUESTION with arrows in front of it and he still
could not find it.
IT can't even see the lines that it types. The dumbfuck LIES from one
line to the next.
Don't loose sleep waiting for its answer!!!!!!!!!!! And I know you
haven't lost any sleep over dipshit.
Dave Snowden
<smell_of_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Nicolas Demers <n...@imag.net> wrote in message
>
>> His walls don't go all the way up to the ceiling.
>
>He's a couple of cussards short of a gang-bang.
His elevator doesn't stop at all the floors nor does it reach the top.
Karen H Jarvis
Dave Snowden <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ufpl8ss4u2p569u1d...@4ax.com...
toooooooo much to hope for that he has suffered an 'unfortunate' accident?
(Begone impure thoughts).
Correct my grammar? Woe betide anyone who dares even think of such an
abominable act. I haven't an English 'A' level for nothing!!!!
Karen - being extremely modest!
Oldguyteck
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 07:12:46 -0600, "Medieval Knievel"
> <smell_of_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Nicolas Demers <n...@imag.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> His walls don't go all the way up to the ceiling.
> >
> >He's a couple of cussards short of a gang-bang.
>
> His elevator doesn't stop at all the floors nor does it reach the top.
>
>
>
> Redondo Beach, California
>
> USA
>
Is the elevator at the beach [OUT OF ORDER] Rumor has it, that elevator
was shut down due to bottoming out.
Ed.........................(Oldguyteck) s
Oldguyteck
>
> Redondo Beach, California
>
> USA
>
Ed............................(Oldguyteck) ç
OldFryteck
duke
"Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
> Translation: Duke is sloppy with his facts yet again but,
instead of a gracious "ooops," he attacks the person with more accurate
information.
> Pretty typical, actually.
> I guess Duke doesn't see a difference between the United States of
> America and the state of Texas.
Unlike arcers, I discuss the important points, I don't try to
make "hay" over the insignificant meaningless details.
I'll just leave the remained of this post so everyone can see the bs
being shoveled out.
> Nope. Not Quebec.
> Oh, but you don't care. Quebec = Victoria = Alberta = Ontario =
Yukon =
> Nova Scotia = Manitoba = Saskatchewan = British Columbia = New
Brunswick =
> NW Territories = Canada. It's all the same to Duke apparently.
> I'm sure someone would be happy to tell you which province it did
happen
> in, but we've seen how polite you are to people who know something you
> don't.
>
> > > Official, governmental apologies were recently offered to
> > the "Duplessis orphans." Those apologies were issued by the current
> > Quebec government, not the Canadian government.
> > > If the RCC has made similar apologies, I missed them.
> >
> > Maybe the actions were official governmental directive but the
priests
> > were acting on their own.
>
> "Maybe."
> You're suddenly willing to make a decision based on a "maybe."
> But only in favor of the RCC. How telling.
Just the way I read the article, lady.
> Of course Darklady will do that, Duke.
> I was raised by an old school Roman Catholic mother and a Southern
> Baptist father who was a career NCO in the US Army. After serving as
a drill
> sergeant at Fort Leonard Wood he willingly did a tour of Viet Nam and
would
> have happily done another if marital difficulties (his Catholic wife
wanted
> a divorce for "mental cruelty") had not brought him back home. I was
raised
> in a family that didn't take any crap, although it dished out its own
unique
> blend. I'm a lot more reasonable and a lot more self-controlled than
any
> other member of my family. But I don't take much crap myself, Duke.
> Especially not from people whose views I hold no respect for and whose
> behavior makes it difficult for me to extend them the courtesies I
prefer to
> extend to those with whom I converse.
> Having said this, allow me to further say that I am glad to see t
the
> words I've quoted above. They reassure me that there is some shred of
> humanity and responsibility within you. I just wish that you could
move
> beyond your own anger to see that there exists shreds of humanity in
the
> a.r.c. regulars. I think that our rejection of the RCC's theology
has made
> it difficult for you to see that the vast majority of us are
interested in
> justice, not revenge.
Humanity in rude, sj, ds, etc etc etc - surely you jest. Ask thomas
why he carefully hid from the whole Joe story.
> It's one of the things I rejected when I left the RCC. I may
sometimes
> have vengeful feelings but I don't give in to them. Punishment must
have
> meaning and purpose and must be in balance with the offense
committed. Thus
> I reject the RCC, Christianity and the concept of "original sin," the
need
> for a sacrificial savior or reconciliation with any god or gods.
Rejecting it does not eliminate it.
Darklady
> In article <3887...@news.nwlink.com>,
> "Darklady" <dark...@darklady.com> wrote:
>
> > Translation: Duke is sloppy with his facts yet again but,
> instead of a gracious "ooops," he attacks the person with more accurate
> information.
> > Pretty typical, actually.
> > I guess Duke doesn't see a difference between the United States of
> > America and the state of Texas.
>
> Unlike arcers, I discuss the important points, I don't try to
> make "hay" over the insignificant meaningless details.
*snicker*
I see. When you make a mistake it's just "insignificant meaningless
details" but when someone else makes a goof it "discredits" them.
You're a real prize. Under prize see "booby."
You lose points for thinking about breasts, Duke. ;)
> I'll just leave the remained of this post so everyone can see the bs
> being shoveled out.
Oh? You mean FACTS?
> > Nope. Not Quebec.
> > Oh, but you don't care. Quebec = Victoria = Alberta = Ontario =
> Yukon =
> > Nova Scotia = Manitoba = Saskatchewan = British Columbia = New
> Brunswick =
> > NW Territories = Canada. It's all the same to Duke apparently.
> > I'm sure someone would be happy to tell you which province it did
> happen
> > in, but we've seen how polite you are to people who know something you
> > don't.
<snip>
> Humanity in rude, sj, ds, etc etc etc - surely you jest. Ask thomas
> why he carefully hid from the whole Joe story.
You deny the humanity of the people in this newsgroup? Thanks for
proving (once again) was a sociopath you are.
Thomas never hid from the "whole" Joe story. You're the one
persistantly refusing to read or absorb the initial and repeated posting of
Joe's years of recieved abuse as a child.
You appear to have no ethics at all. It doesn't matter to you what Joe
suffered -- it only matters to you that he won't accept responsibility for
it.
youngbl...@gmail.com
> In article <867nrq$moo$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>
> > You must be the biggest idiot around, or are suffering from selective
> illiteracy. Go to the web page. You will find four (4) stories. Only
> one (1) pertains to a female. Can you understand or do you want it
> spelled out in words no larger than one (1) syllable.
>
> What web page. Can't you explain your self clearly. I went to each
> link on Brian's list. You are an editor, at least apparently in
> title. What 4 stories. How many cases is the duplessis case -
> 1,2,3,4? How many kids and of what sex were involved in the 60yr
> remembrance case? Can't you write clearly?
>
> make trouble over the least important points. Did you see the
> threepeat of the Dallas story. Did you see the duplessis case. did
> you see the sudden remembrance case of the dead priest.
>
> once for not including the author line in my responses. So why don't
> you p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e what you preach and be clear about what the point
> is that you're trying to make.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Roman_Catholic_cases
In the late 1940s, American Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete, a religious order that treats Roman Catholic priests who struggle with personal difficulties such as substance abuse and sexual misconduct. In a series of letters and reports to high-ranking Catholic leaders starting in the 1950s, Fitzgerald warned of substantial problems with pedophile priests. He wrote, for example, "[sexual abuse] offenders were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry." He discussed the problem with Pope Paul VI (1963 – 1978) and "in correspondence with several bishops".[54]
In 2001, the Vatican first required that sex abuse cases be reported to the Rome hierarchy; before that, it left management of the cases to local dioceses.[12] After the 2002 revelation by the Boston Globe that cases of abuse were widespread in the Church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, The Dallas Morning News did a year-long investigation.[1] It reported in 2004 that even after these revelations and public outcry, the institutional church had moved allegedly abusive priests out of the countries where they had been accused but assigned them again to "settings that bring them into contact with children, despite church claims to the contrary".[1] Among the investigation's findings was that nearly half of 200 cases "involved clergy who tried to elude law enforcement."[1]
The cases received significant media and public attention in the United States, Ireland (where abuse was reported as widespread), and Canada, and throughout the world.[12] In response to the attention, members of the church hierarchy have argued that media coverage has been excessive and disproportionate.[7][not in citation given] According to a Pew Research Center study, media coverage was generated mostly in the United States, beginning in 2002, with a Boston Globe series that published hundreds of news reports. By contrast, in 2010 much of the reporting focused on child abuse in Europe.[9][10]
http://www.bbc.com/news/10407559
UNITED STATES
Over the past two decades, the Roman Catholic Church in the US - with the archdiocese of Boston in particular - has been embroiled in a series of child sex scandals.
There was public outrage after abuses in the 1990s by two Boston priests, Paul Shanley and John Geoghan, came to light, with suspicions that Church leaders had sought to cover up their crimes by moving them from post to post.
In 2002 the then-Pope John Paul II called an emergency meeting with US cardinals, but allegations continued to emerge.
Despite an apology and pledge to take a tougher line, Archbishop Bernard Law resigned over the scandal at the end of the year.
In September 2003, the Boston archdiocese - the fourth-largest in the US - agreed to pay $85m to settle more than 500 civil suits accusing priests of sexual abuse and church officials of concealment.
A report commissioned by the Church the following year said more than 4,000 US Roman Catholic priests had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years, in cases involving more than 10,000 children - mostly boys.
A series of huge payouts has been made by US diocese to alleged victims of abuse - the largest being some $660m from the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 2007.
During a tour of the US in 2008, the Pope met privately with victims of abuse by priests and spoke of "the pain and the harm inflicted by the sexual abuse of minors".
In March 2010 documents emerged suggesting that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope, failed to respond to letters from US clergy about cases of alleged child sex abuse by a priest in Wisconsin.
Archbishops had complained about Fr Lawrence Murphy in 1996 to a Vatican office led by the future Pope, but apparently received no response.
Fr Murphy, who died in 1998, is suspected of having abused some 200 boys at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, between 1950 and 1974.
One of his alleged victims told the BBC the Pope had known for years about the accusations yet failed to take action.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/father-farrell-paedophile-church-cover-up/7372026
http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/08/catholic-church-priests-raped-children-philadelphia-725894.html
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-church-abuse-charges-20170629-htmlstory.html
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/roman-catholic-church-sex-abuse-cases
tesla sTinker
And to ask a liar, is like to get a lie for your answer. Of course
anyone with half a brain would not bother to do so. Same as what you
would call a pope, is of course not one.
On 2/11/2018 4:12 PM, youngbl...@gmail.com scribbled:
notg...@yahoo.com
> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>
> Brian:
>
> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
What the fucking hell is wrong with you? Those aren't things ANY normal and decent parent does. Those are molestation, plain and simple.
Mike Colangelo
> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>
> Brian:
>
> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
Mike Colangelo
BeamMeUpScotty
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, duke wrote:
>> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
>> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>>
>> Brian:
>>
>> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
>> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
>> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
>
> What the fucking hell is wrong with you,
--
That's Karma
duckg...@cox.net
your infant son or daughter"s clothing, do you ............ wonder?
the dukester
duckg...@cox.net
wrote:
the dukester
Ted
Rudy Canoza
Unless you're a pedophile, which it sounds like you are.
>
> the doucher, smug fat prick http://tinyurl.com/ya5pcpf5 and congenital liar
>
Rudy Canoza
>
I think we have a pretty good idea. Douche is a pedo.
Ted
Rudy Canoza
Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
Ted
really rape.
https://tinyurl.com/ycvggll2
Rudy Canoza
> You didn't think it was anything special, perv. Some Catholic you are.
> I wonder if it's still in the archives. Whether it is or not, I'm
> certain that I'm not the only one who remembers your posting about it.
> Ask.
What the effing hell...are you saying Douche admitted to molesting his
niece? About when was this, and in what groups?
duckg...@cox.net
the dukester
duckg...@cox.net
the dukester
duckg...@cox.net
the dukester
duckg...@cox.net
the dukester
duckg...@cox.net
the dukester
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza
Apparently you did worse than that with your infant niece, by your own
admission.
Ted
Ted
Ted
Rudy Canoza
Ted
here too stupid to know that's precisely what he just told us.
Rudy Canoza
rapist/molester priests. It probably explains Patsie's, too.
Ted
there's no question that he's a pedo.
%
Rudy Canoza
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:52:48 -0700, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, duke wrote:
>>>> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
>>>> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Brian:
>>>>
>>>> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
>>>> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
>>>> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
>>>
>>> What the fucking hell is wrong with you, you sick perverted fat fuck?
>>> Those aren't things ANY normal and decent parent does. Those are
>>> molestation, plain and simple.
>>
>> Then again, it was a question posed long ago, not an event. So if you change
>> your infant son or daughter"s clothing, do you ............ wonder?
>>
I still want to know more about what Douche Weber wrote regarding his
possible molestation of his infant niece.
* when was his post (approximate time frame)
* what did he say
* what groups was it in
Rudy Canoza
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 05:50:03 -0700 (PDT), "malkinm...@gmail.com"
> <malkinm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 7:02:35 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:23:17 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@idiocracy.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/19 1:58 AM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, duke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
>>>>>> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
>>>>>> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
>>>>>> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
>>>>>
>>>>> What the fucking hell is wrong with you,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, atheists are short on morals.
>>
>> The list comment was directed at you, Earl.
>
> Yes, atheists are short on morals.
People who sexually molest and abuse their infant niece are short on morals
and also are criminals, as are Catholic priests who commit *any* sexual
abuse of children at any time (no, nothing changed in the "1980s").
Rudy Canoza
> <malkinm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 7:01:37 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, duke wrote:
>>>>> In article <3881F826...@brian.net>,
>>>>> brian <br...@brian.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their young
>>>>> daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female parents "touch"
>>>>> their young son's genitals in just the wrong way
>>>>
>>>> Those aren't things ANY normal and decent parent does. Those are
>>>> molestation, plain and simple.
>>>
>>> Then again, it was a question posed long ago, not an event. So if you change
>>> your infant son or daughter"s clothing, do you ............ wonder?
>>>
>
Bullshit. It was your admission of what you did.
>> You didn't think it was anything special, perv. Some Catholic you are.
>> I wonder if it's still in the archives. Whether it is or not, I'm
>> certain that I'm not the only one who remembers your posting about it.
>
It wasn't a "what if", you lying greasy fat fuck. It was an
autobiographical admission.
Rudy Canoza
acts on it, one becomes a child molester. Pedophilia - having the
attraction - isn't a crime, but acting on it is - always.
There was a weird, mentally defective woman who used to post in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and talk.politics.animals up to about 2005 or
2006 named Karen Winter who once wrote:
I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate with
the responsible pedophiles I met.
Karen Winter - 11 July 1999
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.politics.animals/gjr5CeM9LLY/HujBzgYADfYJ
Karen really was a mental defective. She was very bitter and angry that
someone as smart as she claimed to be had to live such a materially
impoverished life. She claimed to have quite a lot of formal education,
and I believed her on that, but she clearly had a lot of emotional and
mental disabilities that kept her from succeeding. I commented at length
about one of these that was apparent to me, and in attempting to deny it,
she basically confirmed it. I told her she was in a vicious
marginalization-alienation cycle of her own creation. She held lots of
weird views, like the one above regarding "responsible" pedophiles in whose
care she would have left her young son, and those views led to her
marginalization by the rest of society. Being marginalized, in turn, led
her to feel alienated, but she perversely *enjoyed* this feeling of
alienation, which she took as "evidence" that her views were correct, so
she developed and propounded more sick views that led to further
marginalization, which led to further feelings of alienation, etc. etc.
etc. I know that I'm right in that analysis, and as I said, she basically
confirmed it.
Ted
It's revealing that Duke was well aware of the change, just as it was
revealing when he insisted that anal sex unavoidably causes bleeding.
Rudy Canoza
to the 1980s. Instead, I think people were less aware of it and even more
*in denial* of it. The issue really began to be publicized then, and could
no longer be denied.
But Douche Weber keeps saying that something changed legally in the 1980s,
and that's just a fucking lie. Nothing changed. Pedophilia - the sexual
attraction to children - was never and is not today criminal. *Acting* on
it - raping children, sexually molesting them - has *ALWAYS* been criminal.
Nothing changed in the 1980s. If a priest raped or engaged in *any*
sexual activity with a child before, during or after the 1980s, it was
*ALWAYS* criminal act.
Douche keeps bullshitting about some fictional contrast between "statutory
rape" and "pedophilia". First of all, it's just rape; putting "statutory"
in front of it changes nothing. The notion of "statutory" rape is to cover
penetrative sex with minors, who by legal definition cannot give consent.
In popular imagination, this is to cover (usually) an adult male having sex
with a teenaged female under the age of 18, although the sexes can be
reversed, or can even be same sex. The idea is that it may not have been
violent, but it is still illegal because legal consent cannot be given.
But priests fucking young children is just rape, plain and simple. *NONE*
of those children gave anything remotely like "consent" - they yielded out
of fear. Those were acts of violence.
Secondly, and getting away from the penetrative sex, priests sexually
molesting children - fondling their genitals, forcing the children to
fondle the filthy priests' genitals, forcing the children to perform oral
sex on them, or performing oral sex on the children - is not "pedophilia".
It is sexual abuse and molestation, and it always was criminal. Nothing
changed legally about it in the 1980s. Douche is simply lying about that.
> It's revealing that Duke was well aware of the change, just as it was
> revealing when he insisted that anal sex unavoidably causes bleeding.
I'm pretty sure Douche is a queer, so he probably knows a lot about anal
sex. I can find nothing to suggest he was ever married or has any
children. He seems to have nieces and nephews, but no kids of his own.
When you do a people search on him and find pages like White Pages or
Spokeo on him, none suggest he is married or has children. It's possible
he was married and his wife died, but usually those sites have a lot of old
information in them that doesn't get updated, and I would expect to find a
reference to a wife if there ever had been one.
Yep - Douche is almost assuredly a queer who knows quite a lot about anal sex.
Gordito Bruno
you posting to alt.checkmate? I surmise that when newsgroups were
first created there was this excitement and comaraderie that sadly
soon turned to shit and piss fits because the troll nature of humanity
came out in all its fetid delightfulness and is still with us today.
You can't have a decent exchange here as an example because of this.
Now, FUCK OFF, EAT SHIT, AND DIE! Get my point brainless tard?
Checkmate
Checkmate! In article <k1ciae50617pgdg92...@4ax.com>,
d...@tripper.com says...
reason and sanity on Usenet!
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2019
all rights reserved
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
Peter Pan
I'll bet a six-pack he really did it.
Ted
though, and it isn't tough to figure out why.
>
>> It's revealing that Duke was well aware of the change, just as it was
>> revealing when he insisted that anal sex unavoidably causes bleeding.
>
> Goddamn - he really said that about anal sex?
find with Forte Agent.
>
> I'm pretty sure Douche is a queer, so he probably knows a lot about anal
> sex. I can find nothing to suggest he was ever married or has any
> children. He seems to have nieces and nephews, but no kids of his own.
> When you do a people search on him and find pages like White Pages or
> Spokeo on him, none suggest he is married or has children. It's possible
> he was married and his wife died, but usually those sites have a lot of
> old information in them that doesn't get updated, and I would expect to
> find a reference to a wife if there ever had been one.
>
> Yep - Douche is almost assuredly a queer who knows quite a lot about anal sex.
homosexuality isn't sinful unless acted out. Again, it's easy to understand
why.
Rudy Canoza
lying about that.
>>
>>> It's revealing that Duke was well aware of the change, just as it was
>>> revealing when he insisted that anal sex unavoidably causes bleeding.
>>
>> Goddamn - he really said that about anal sex?
>
> He did. It was within the past year or so, and would be relatively easy to
> find with Forte Agent.
>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Douche is a queer, so he probably knows a lot about anal
>> sex. I can find nothing to suggest he was ever married or has any
>> children. He seems to have nieces and nephews, but no kids of his own.
>> When you do a people search on him and find pages like White Pages or
>> Spokeo on him, none suggest he is married or has children. It's possible
>> he was married and his wife died, but usually those sites have a lot of
>> old information in them that doesn't get updated, and I would expect to
>> find a reference to a wife if there ever had been one.
>
> No, Duke's never had a woman.
>
>>
>> Yep - Douche is almost assuredly a queer who knows quite a lot about anal sex.
>
> No question about it. Another of his favorite assertions is that
> homosexuality isn't sinful unless acted out. Again, it's easy to understand
> why.
pedophile - that is, to be sexually attracted to small children - but it is
a crime to act on it. The church teaches that it isn't a sin to have
homosexual urges, but it is a sin to engage in homosexual sex. Being
Catholic, Douche engages in the sin, then goes to confession and considers
himself off the hook. That was what my mom detested about the Catholic
church - they could whore and fornicate and engage in any manner of sin all
week long, but as long as they went to confession they figured they were
absolved. That's why Douche is such a shitbag.
Ted
between Catholics and Protestants.
Rudy Canoza
wrong things. Catholicism says, do as much bad and wrong shit as you want,
just come in once a week and say you're sorry for it. Catholicism is wrong.