CBS Smacks Catholic Church Over New Clergy Sex Abuse Report
CBS's Elaine Quijano filed a slanted report on Wednesday's Evening News about the new report on the Catholic priest child sex abuse scandal. All but one of the sound bites which Quijano played during the segment either leaned negative against the Catholic Church or completely slammed the religious body.
Anchor Katie Couric heralded the negative reaction about the report from some quarters in her teaser for Quijano's report at the very beginning of the half-hour program: "Tonight, a report commissioned by the Catholic Church claims to know why the child sex abuse scandal happened, but victims' groups aren't buying it." A minute later, the correspondent picked up where Couric left off in her introduction: "For survivors of clergy sexual abuse, today marks another deep disappointment."
After playing a clip from victim David Lorenz, who unsurprisingly attacked the Catholic bishops in the U.S., Quijano explained that the "new report, five years in the making, was commissioned by...[the] bishops, and conducted by researchers from New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It partially blames the clergy sex abuse crisis on the sexual revolution that began 50 years ago." She then played a sound bite from Dr. Karen Terry, the chief investigator for the report, who was the only person featured in the report who didn't lean negative against the Church.
Later, the CBS reporter turned to liberal former prosecutor Linda Fairstein, who skewered the report in consecutive sound bites. Quijano added her own unfavorable language as she introduced Fairstein:
QUIJANO: In addition to social influences, the report cites poor seminary training and isolation of priests. But for former New York City sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, blaming the culture rings hollow.
LINDA FAIRSTEIN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: These crimes occurred for decades, if not centuries, before there was a sexual revolution. That's a fact.
QUIJANO: The Church provided the information for analysis, and makes a controversial decision to label priests pedophiles only if they molested children age 10 or younger. By their standards, only 5% of the priests fit the pedophile profile.
FAIRSTEIN: That's such a false standard- such a false definition by which to look at pedophiles. Most of the kids that the clergy have access to alone are going to be in the 9, 10, to 15, 16-year-old category. It's illegal to engage in sexual contact with them. So, it's a very artificial thing. It's semantics to just say we're talking about under 10.
Near the end of the segment, the correspondent added a final clip from a Catholic churchgoer. Despite the negative-leaning assessment from the person she interviewed, Quijano introduced the bite as an example of the "mixed reaction from Catholics leaving church today" to the report's findings.
The following morning, Thursday's Early Show ran a slightly modified version of the correspondent's report. Just over a year earlier, on the April 13, 2010 edition of the morning program, Quijano highlighted a Catholic priest from Massachusetts who is a "longtime critic of the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal," but didn't mention the cleric's dissenting positions from Catholic teaching.
The full transcript of Elaine Quijano's report from Wednesday's CBS Evening News:
06:30 pm EDT
KATIE COURIC (teaser): Tonight, a report commissioned by the Catholic Church claims to know why the child sex abuse scandal happened, but victims' groups aren't buying it.
(....)
06:31 pm EDT
COURIC: When the sex abuse scandal involving priests first made headlines, Catholics in this country- and that's nearly one out of four adults- were horrified: trusted members of the clergy abusing children, church leaders covering it up. It was a betrayal, a breach of faith, and it would cost American churches nearly $3 billion in legal settlements. Many Catholics demanded to know how it all happened. Today, an answer came in a report commissioned by America's Catholic bishops.
But Elaine Quijano reports, it was not the answer many of the victims were hoping for.
ELAINE QUIJANO (voice-over): For survivors of clergy sexual abuse, today marks another deep disappointment.
DAVID LORENZ, VICTIM OF CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE: These are the bishops who lied to us about transferring priests- these are the same bishops who continue to lie to us.
QUIJANO: The new report, five years in the making, was commissioned by U.S. bishops, and conducted by researchers from New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It partially blames the clergy sex abuse crisis on the sexual revolution that began 50 years ago.
KAREN TERRY, PHD, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, CLERGY SEX ABUSE REPORT: The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s is consistent with patterns of increased deviance in society during that time. The social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of some individual priests.
QUIJANO: In addition to social influences, the report cites poor seminary training and isolation of priests. But for former New York City sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, blaming the culture rings hollow.
LINDA FAIRSTEIN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: These crimes occurred for decades, if not centuries, before there was a sexual revolution. That's a fact.
QUIJANO: The Church provided the information for analysis, and makes a controversial decision to label priests pedophiles only if they molested children age 10 or younger. By their standards, only 5% of the priests fit the pedophile profile.
FAIRSTEIN: That's such a false standard- such a false definition by which to look at pedophiles. Most of the kids that the clergy have access to alone are going to be in the 9, 10, to 15, 16-year-old category. It's illegal to engage in sexual contact with them. So, it's a very artificial thing. It's semantics to just say we're talking about under 10.
QUIJANO: Researchers also concluded there was no way to identify potential abusers ahead of time, and said homosexuality, celibacy, and an all-male priesthood had no bearing on the crisis.
Today's report got mixed reaction from Catholics leaving church today.
HEATHER IVASHIN, CHURCHGOER: It's kind of like asking the fox as he comes out of the henhouse, how many chickens were in there before you went in, you know? So it's a step in the right direction, but obviously, we also need independent surveys, reviews, and in-depth coverage.
QUIJANO (on-camera): Now, today's report does not address the problem of bishops who covered up for priests, and comes just days after the Vatican issued new guidelines for dealing with priests who sexually abused children. But those guidelines are not mandatory, and there are no punishments for bishops who don't comply. Katie?
COURIC: Elaine Quijano- Elaine, thanks so much.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Funny as hell that CBS and
Submitted by TE on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 7:35pm.
Funny as hell that CBS and other leftist political advocacy/lobbying groups claim that "homosexuality ... had no bearing on the crisis."
81% (EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT) of all of the reported abuse involved homosexual priests abusing other males. CBS thinks that heterosexual priests were sexually abusing other males?
Not to mention...
Submitted by adamsmith on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 11:29pm.
There was a movement in the '50's to enter the priesthood if you were into young boys, as the church lowered investigative standards. Priests didn't become perverts, perverts became priests. I don't know what happened with all the coverups, but I know it broke Pope John Paul II's heart. That man worked his whole life to bring the positive message of Christ to the people, and to have to see that that kind of human filth was going on,...I felt for him. The media will just put it any way that suits them anyway......
Well, OK. If "victims"
Submitted by jdhawk on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:14am.
Well, OK. If "victims" groups are angry at what the Catholic has or has not done, they should turn to their local, county, state, and federal representatives and urge that there be no statute of limitation for this crime of child molestation and rape. Further, that those found guilty of these crimes serve a life sentence. Of course, that's not what they are after. They are after a payday. The left is after expugning Catholism and any and all religions from the public square with the possible exception of Islam. Note, that conventiently, the civil suits seem to always be filed after the criminal statue of limitations have ended in which prosecution can be sought for these heinous crimes.
Unfortunately, it has been a win/win/win. The victims are getting their payday, the left is causing Catholics to question and in some cases leave this religion, and the predator homosexuals that target these young boys with molestation are getting off scott free.
The actual victims face a terrible existence for the rest of their days for the abuse that was done to them. Nothing is really be done about their plight , they are not being avenged, and nothing is being done about future incidents of this type regardless of where it may happen.
to put it bluntly, she's full of shit (pardon my French)
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 9:09am.
"These crimes occurred for decades, if not centuries, before there was a sexual revolution. That's a fact."
Centuries?? If Linda is talking about the phenomenon of pedophilia in general, then heck, it's a behavior that has probably been around longer than just centuries -- but of course, in ancient pre-Christian civilizations they were not considered "crimes." But, I suspect she is implying that it's a "crime" that has been in the Church for "centuries," and I ask: As a "prosecutor," does she have any hard evidence to back up that slanderous claim? Otherwise, it's just that: Slander, motivated by an overt anti-Catholic agenda.
"That's such a false standard- such a false definition by which to look at pedophiles."
Uh, no it's not -- that's the very definition of "pedophilia," which has to do with adult sexual contact with a non-sexually mature child. Indeed, this is they very connotation of the word -- when one thinks of "a pedophile," one immediately thinks of an adult with a 10 year old girl or boy. But, according to her "logic," a 17 year old who has sexual relations with a 15 year old is a "pedophile."
Right
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:12am.
And following the Church's logic, a 40 year old having sex with an 11 year old isn't a pedophile.
Yes Dead Angry Black Man Zippers. We get it.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:19pm.
You are obsessed with pedophilia. It is all you have talked about over the course of your 25 accounts. Lord help us if the topic is Christians. Then you practically salivate over shoving your Anti-Catholic bigotry in our faces.
Go Away 25 time retread troll.
The retread thing.
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:44pm.
And how many accounts have you had here JWF? Are you going to fess up, or do I have to start stalking you the way you now stalk balboa??
buttercup---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 8:17pm.
get to it.
Prove you ain't just another alligator-mouthed, hummingbird-assed troll.
MD
Get to what.
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 8:30pm.
The Vet claims that so-and-so is a 25 time retread of some account. As if multiple accounts were a crime against humanity. I just want The Vet to come clean and admit he is/was JWF.
I will admit this is not my first account...my memory goes all the way back to a critter known as realAmericanPVC...now there was a character!!!
Oh look. An admitted retread troll is telling me to jump.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 9:39pm.
You wait for an anwser from me. OK little retread troll. Next step --- You start demanding an answer. You are trollie. You deserve answers from people you insult.
And you keep acting as though you accomplished something by having an anonymous moniker. No one else has managed to do that. Just you trollie. Just you. You be proud that you are hiding your identity. Tell us with nearly every post. And you put those triple bangs in there as much as possible. We can't tell you are excited with just one.
Nice dodge there JWF
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 9:51pm.
Tell you what. You admit that you were JWF and I'll go away forever. That's all I ask. I'm sure most NB's would want that!!!
You are not very bright are you?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:32pm.
I tell you 5 times now that no one cares who you are or used to be. And you bounce right back with more Stupid. And you think we are having a conversation. Really Stupid.
Put your money where your mouth is, buttercup troll---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:01pm.
Start stalking The Vet like you threatened.
Multiple accounts may not be a crime against humanity, but it is my understanding that maintaining more than one open account at a time is not kosher.
"I just want The Vet to come clean and admit he is/was JWF."
What kind of lame assed throw down challenge is that?
Everyone here knows that; it has never been hidden.
You think The Vet is gonna jump through some stupid hoop for you because you have decided you are the second coming of "Shlock" Holmes and peeled back the layers of some deep mystery?
You are a dork.
MD
MD
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:06pm.
If everryone knows it, they why won't he admit it? That way I can just go away..I prefer not to do the stalking thing because I have better things to do and yes I am a dork.
In other words, buttercup---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:26pm.
You are all show, no go.
All talk, no action.
See, the thing about multiple account types, like you, is that they are poseurs. Phonies. Prevaricators.
The only possible reason I can see for multiple accounts is that the procurer of same knows going in that he is intending to be disruptive and multiple accounts is a hedge against being dismissed forever.
Being disruptive while argumentative is one thing during a debate, but just being disruptive, period, is the strategy of a troll, not someone who truly wants to discuss "issues".
Oddly enough, most all trolls claim to be here just to debate or discuss certain issues rationally; and then can't get out of their own way because of the liberal blinders they wear.
Being dishonest going in, by having multiple accounts, means a poster is not trustworthy.
QED
MD
What's your point buttercup?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:10pm.
Unlike trolls, The Vet posted to all NBers that he was changing his post name and why he was doing it. He never hid his identity from anyone nor did he keep multiple accounts. When honesty is a primary value, we have NBers. When lies and insults are primary, we have a re tread troll.
canjun
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:21pm.
No point really. I just wanted to see him say it since he's one that always goes on about "retread trolls". Anyway, yes I have had multiple accounts and I am a troll..but I never had more than one account at a time..too many passwords to remember.
Sorry buttercup*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:33pm.
No one wants to tax your memory. Just look at my post name, its spelled cajun You have spelled it canjun before in your previous persona.
The Vet knows we here at NB occasionally like a good laugh. You ranting about JWF has been hilarious to those of us in on the joke.
As we southerners say,, "You so pretty!"
And just how, exactly,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 10:35pm.
does changing one's username, one time, when the person is a regular and all posters are made aware of the name change, equate to being a "retread troll"?
Other than in your strange reality?
I can see the name change to buttercup, especially if you were once 007memo.
I figured he was light in his loafers.
MD
Told you. Not very bright.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:49pm.
A bunch of people changed their names when they had a chance during the changeover to the new NewsBusters. New name. Same account. And it ain't that hard to check. Only an barely functional idiot like flutterbutt nunner 815 is too stupid to look. Hell, I almost showed the idiot how to look. Nah, let's keep the idiot in the dark whining about whether or not I am a retread.
Oh idiot. You are starting to show your true colors. You are putting people's names in the subject line just like you used to do. That is not what it is for. You really are quite stupid.
Yes I am
Submitted by buttercup815 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:05am.
But I have had a lot of fun. Now, your variation of my name "flutterbuttnunner815" was quite clever, but not as good as "clutterbut". That was good..Anyway, I think I'll disappear for now and maybe resurface as "stinker bell" See Ya ;)
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:10am.
TIme for you to watch some Fox News on DVR. Catch up on the recordings. Huh?
Irish, Fair enough point
Submitted by JoeBob on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:32pm.
Irish,
Fair enough point about ages, but don't necessarily blame it on the Church. While this was a commissioned report, and much of the data for analysis was provided by the Church, I doubt that the definition of pedophilia being age 10 and under was constructed by any other than John Jay, the reporting university. CBS's blaming of this definition on the Church and casting doubts on the integrity of the report (due to Church influence) is just so much more anti-Catholic bias that we've already seen from the MSM.
No, it's not
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:45pm.
See comment below.
Wrong
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:46pm.
On all counts. I present the above as Exhibit A that the media slander is not without effect.
First off, it is not "the Church's logic" -- the study was conducted by the John Jay College Research Team and presented to the US Bishops; it is not the logic of either the Vatican, or even the US Bishops themselves.
But more importantly are the actual findings of the study itself, which the media has already distorted, and which this particular "prosecutor" has blatantly lied about:
What a riot!
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 1:08pm.
Okay then. By YOUR logic, it's okay for adults to have sex with children as long as the child has reached sexual maturity. That's a pretty skewed understanding of pedophilia, as well as statutory rape.
non sequitur
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:08pm.
This comment has absolutely zero relevance to the one that preceded it. Congratulations on your holding a conversation with yourself.
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the earlier comment that even suggests anything remotely close to you just claimed. However, I was concerned about the distortion of word definitions in an effort to blur the line between fact and myth. "Pedophilia" is defined as adult relations with prepubescent children. That there's a difference is not to condone one or the other, but the difference is nevertheless relevant to the issue at hand.
But, all this is a deliberate side tracking from the facts itemized in the post above, which you deliberately chose to ignore.
Keep backtracking
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:19am.
Or keep on justifying that one must only desire children 10 and under to be a pedophile.
when one thinks of "a pedophile," one immediately thinks of an adult with a 10 year old girl or boy. But, according to her "logic," a 17 year old who has sexual relations with a 15 year old is a "pedophile."
No, actually when one thinks of a pedophile, one immediately thinks of an adult with a prepubescent child regardless of age.
From the report:
Despite this widely accepted statistic on victim gender, recent studies of sexual abuse of minors within institutions have shown a higher percentage of male than female victims. Most sexual abuse victims of priests (51 percent) were between the ages of eleven and fourteen, while 27 percent were fifteen to seventeen, 16 percent were eight to ten, and nearly 6 percent were under age seven. Over 40 percent of all victims were males between the ages of eleven and fourteen. It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as “pedophile priests,” pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent chil- dren. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent.
4% sure seems like a small number of pedophiles until you consider 22% of the victims were 10 and under, and 73% were under 15.
Using the new definition of pedophilia (only children 10 and under), yes, less than 5% of priests qualify. However, when looking at the generalist category of those priests who had at least one victim 12 or under and one 15 or older the statistic jumps to 30.2%. Hard to argue the 12 and under offense doesn't qualify as pedophilia. Looking at other generalists, priests with multiple victims regardless of age, 42.1%. Considering at least some of those victims were in the pedophilia age range, the 4% statistic you quoted in misleading and inaccurate.
Nobody's backtracking here, pal
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 6:34pm.
You've quoted me. And there's nothing to backtrack from. "Pedophile" has a specific legal and clinical meaning. The general connotation of the word is in agreement with that meaning: An adult with a 10 yr old (or 9 yr old, or 7 yr old, or 11 yr old, etc.). One does not generally think of a man in his 20s with a 16 year old, which is considered "statutory rape" (except, according media standards, if you're a priest -- then it's "pedophilia"...... "loosely defined").
The 4% quote is "inaccurate"? Specifically how so?
Facts are not "misleading." They are what they are. If you can't deal with them, then go back to fantasyland where nobody is abused.
The overall rate of priestly abuse of minors (i.e., persons under 18 years of age) was 4% of the total number of priests. That's the fact.
Using the 10-year-old age cutoff, which is a nothing more than a threshold for delineating cases of real pedophilia from other forms of abuse, the rate of confirmed pedophiles was 0.04 x 0.22 = 0.0088 = 0.88%.
Using your cutoff of 15 years old (feeling sorry for the rare boy who hasn't begun puberty by that point), the rate of abuse, including young teenagers, was 0.73 x 0.04 = 0.03 = 3%.
Now, if you wanna talk to me about the fact that 0.88% is still too high, then fine. But don't tell me that the media, specifically this particular interview, isn't complicit in slander when they deny that "5%" [sic] is the rate of abuse of all minors.
It's possible
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 1:06pm.
We're arguing 2 different sets of statistics. Just so we're clear, are you stating the following:
The number of accused priests is equivalent to 4 percent of priests in ministry. This number accounts for all cases of abuse with minors.
An analysis of data on accused priests and victims of sexual abuse from the Nature and Scope study revealed that, if pedophilic behavior was defined as the exclusive presence of two or more victims under the age of eleven, then ninety-six priests, or 3.8 percent of those who were reported to have had two or more victims, could be classified as pedophiles.
If 3.8% accused are pedophiles, and 4% of priests in ministry have been accused, the percentage of "pedophile priests" in ministry is .152%.
Priests with at least one victim 12 or younger and at least one victim 15 or older (considered generalist offenders) account for 30.2%.
A total of 34% of accused priests have abused children under 12.
1.36% of priests in ministry have sexually abused children under 12.
Tell him about your arrest and conviction.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 1:27pm.
You were arrested and convicted for sodomizing a miniature donkey in 1978. You admitted to in on your 15th account.
OK
Submitted by lotr on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 2:48pm.
Without cross checking all the numbers, those statistics appear to be correct.
In that case
Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:42am.
Call it a truce? I've got nothing to argue either. ; )
good with me
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 12:33pm.
.... and let's just leave it at that!
Lotr, What's the
Submitted by JoeBob on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 3:35pm.
Lotr,
What's the prob? You reinforced my statement that it was not the Church that defined the age for categorization as pedophilia.
With regard to Irish's example, as a father, it doesn't matter to me where the age for pedophilia is defined; any 40-year messing with my 11-year old child will shortly be missing any and all offending extremities.
With your posting of the findings, yes, I am aware of them. But while not being aware of the methodology used, I am also aware of the conclusions that John Jay College came to; namely, that while pedophilia was not a major factor in the abuse of minors by priests, neither was homosexuality. They concluded that male minors were most opportune for abuse, and therefore homosexuality was not a statistical factor. I'm sure our rainbow-colored brethren are thrilled by this finding ("see, we said they were just a bunch of dirty old priests"), yet, by the same statistics, John Jay also concluded that celibacy was not a factor.
But let me go to a final point for Irish. While emotionally I may agree with the 40/11 vs. 17/15 rebuttal, the same methodology that concluded that homosexuality and celibacy were not statistical factors also demarcated pedophilia at age 10. To arbitrarily accept some conclusions of a methodology while deriding others is bias. And, to debase the integrity of both John Jay and the Church (as CBS did) is slander.
Libel, but whatever
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 5:23pm.
Redefining words for the sake of a report doesn't actually change the meaning of the words. Statistically I don't give a crap about this story, but for someone to defend clergy as non-pedophiles for having sex with children over 10 is pretty vile.
What's the defense? He's not a pedophile because the little boy was only 12? Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, something age does not define.
Seriously, how stupid are you?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:12am.
guttermouth AKA The Irishman: Additionally, I don't give a crap...
Wow. You sure do know a lot about pedophiles. Hey, remember that time you kept on talking on and on and on and on about another poster's children and someone said to knock it off because you sound pedophilish and you popped a rivet and spent the next 2 days telling everyone how upset you were because you got called a pedophile?
YOU have ZERO room to talk about pedophiles after the horrendous performance of your early accounts. Constantly talking about other people's children then turning around and harping on pedophiles is friggin' CREEPY.
Knock it off.
Is that what happened?
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:20am.
In your creepy little brain?
No. And you know it.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:09am.
You spent account after account going after women by concentrating your every post about their children. So much so people started to compare your speech to that of a pedophile. But as usual, you hide behind your anonymity to cover your past behavour. It is what you do best. Act up the troll. Get banned. Come back with a new moniker and new history. Get discovered. Act up the troll. Get banned.... Over and Over.
Even now. Doing the same thing. Playing it up like you are a new personality. Pretending to be someone else. Acting all butt hurt about all those that call you out. Oh, u iz crazee monkeyman, iz not trollie. iz brand new shooz. u dah creepy. U dah nasty mean wurd bulliz. Yeah, I am crazy all right. But I have never changed my history. Never claimed to be someone else. Never changed anything about my style here IN RESPONSE TO YOU. But you, little milquetoast mollycoddle, you have changed due to the actions of others. All because of the word bullies, The Vet, SickofLibs, and others. You lamely attempt to fill in the subject line. You stopped with the double tapping the space bar between sentences. You have had to stay away from your favorite insults and phrases. So you keep pretending like it is the trolljegerens that have modified their behavour and actin' all the meaniez. OK? You keep acting like we are nothing but little nuisances that pick on innocent little eerishesmanz. We have changed nothing about our style in response to you. But you, the biggest diaper wearing sissy, have done everything you can to change in response to us. Who has the little no nads brain. Huh?
I still say you.
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:37am.
Yes indeed. You would be the one with the "little no nads brain." Whatever that means. But I'm honored by this lie of a post. So sweet of you.
Whatever nwahs. Now I am convinced it is not you.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:45am.
Act stupid. That has worked so well for you over the past 10 accounts.
1. Ignore the word bully.
2. Claim over and over it ain't you. Word bully is wrong.
3. Act like the word bully is accusing all the trollz of being someone else and izza confuzed.
4. Act Stupid and insulting.
5. Get hostile.
6. Get banned.
preposterous
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 11:55am.
Another nutty, disjointed vacation from reality
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:13pm.
Still no compunction about trolling up the place with denial after denial by acting as though it all hangs on the word bullies.
By the way, what were you talking about again? Oh wait, it has turned into another Deddy Zippers me me me snitstorm again. I forgot.
Says the guy
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:06pm.
Who stalks and stalks
From thread to thread
He has no facts
Just personal attacks
He thinks I'm nwahs
Zippers, Garlock and balboa
You won't have to ask
Because the Vet will show ya!
Over and over and over and over and...
De-railed again. Congratulations.
You really are not bright at all.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:24pm.
Did you forget? You already have rhymes about me.
#90Hush little
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:47pm.
Hush little troll-stomper
Don't say a word
Teddy's gonna buy you
A trolly nerd
If that nerd won't play with you
Teddy's gonna buy you
A red balloon
And here - 12 Days of Christmas (Newsbusters version)
On the first day of Christmas, Duh Vet gave to me
A nickname that has nothing to do with me.
On the second day of Christmas, Duh Vet gave to me
Two inner chuckles and a nickname that has nothing to do with me.
On the third day of Christmas Duh Vet game to me
Three new lies, two inner chuckles, and a nickname that has nothing to do with me.
On the Fourth day of Christmas Duh Vet gave to me
~ ~ ~
Actually
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:38pm.
I'd say it more creative and less stupid. But that's just me.
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:43pm.
Still no compunction about spamming up the joint.
Look at me. I iz 25 times here. I get to do ennyting izwant.
Where do you get 25?
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:44pm.
And where do you still get nwahs? And Garlock? And balboa?
By the way nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:47pm.
You have had so many accounts you forget how to act. Real people with real first accounts, when confronted with someone accusing them of being a return troll talk like real people. "Dude, you got the wrong guy." "Dude, I am just a newbie here" "Dude, really, I am going to report you to the Admins" "Dude, please, you got the wrong guy" And they send PM's, and say "Dude, honest, what can I do to prove to you that you got the wrong guy"
But then you do have 2 strikes against you. You are quite stupid. You forgot what it is like to have just the one account at a site.
Yeah nwahs. You truly forgot what it was like.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 1:07pm.
You can't go to the Admins. You know PM'ing is useless. So all you got is the desperate clinging hope that you can portray the word bully as a noodle. And I say desperate because it is your only ammunition. That and going uber hostile, but you know that only portends your ultimate doom as it brings the attention of the Admins, something you really really try to avoid.
So you keep it up. Shoot the only wad you got. Uz is crazee wurd bulliz. Ezzyonez noes it.
There was no problem
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:19pm.
I just wanted to alert you to my post -- that it may have been a "concise" response was not to imply that I was being curt.
I pretty much agree with you. I just take issue with emotionalism and outright slander perpetuated by the media and those brainwashed by it -- they're not even covert about it anymore. But level heads can and will prevail.
Cool. No prob here, either.
Submitted by JoeBob on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:11pm.
Cool. No prob here, either. Just didn't want to be misunderstood.
JoeBob
Liberal Pedophile Preists
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:21am.
What's the difference between secular pedophiles and Catholic church preists? Christianity. The liberals are so anti-Christian, they will not give the preists the same defense they give other pedophiles. Just as counterintuitive as being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
And so is.
Submitted by buttercup815 on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 1:28pm.
You said,
"Just as counterintuitive as being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty."
I submit that the following is also counterintuitive,
Pro-life and Pro-death penalty.
If someone commits a capital crime..then just throw the monkey in a cage till it dies of old age..or the other monkeys get to it.
Both "positions" appear
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:54am.
Both "positions" appear counterintuitive to the "other side." However, fact is both positions have an inner logic. Those of "liberal persuasion" don't regard the human being in utero as a "person," whereas the conservative view is that it's wrong to kill someone who is innocent (e.g., babies in the womb), but the guilty may deserve it or it may behoove the State to protect more innocents from a deranged killer by executing the killer (e.g., Osama Bin Laden).
Now, I believe that the one side (liberal) has it wrong about abortion, and also believe the conservative position is theoretically correct. But that said, I now find myself generally against the death penalty provided that a non-political criminal is instead given a life sentence without possibility for parole. Prisons these days are secure, so it's not like there's any danger to the public, but at least this provides the criminal with time to recant and repent. If they don't, then their punishment in the afterlife will be infinitely greater, but at least they were given ample opportunity by a just and merciful State. But all bets are off for mass murderering tyrants, terrorists, insurrectionists and those guilty of war crimes -- Bin Laden, Mussolini, Saddam, etc. all got what they deserved.