Horror Show Wednesday: Victims Blast Massachusetts’ Church over Predator Priest

Edward LetticWelcome to Horror Show Wednesday, part of my week-long orgy of stories on the horrors of religion.  It’s always the ones most in danger that are the last to know.  Catholic officials in Massachusetts have told the police about the actions of Father Edward P. Lettic.  They’ve told the Vatican.  The one group they didn’t bother to inform was Lettic’s congregation at the Immaculate Conception Parish in Lancaster, Massachusetts.  This makes a lot of people mad and rightfully so.

It’s pretty typical for Catholic spokesmen to say when the abuse took place but they virtually never tell people how long the Catholic Church had that information before bothering to hand it over to the authorities.  This keeps people from being upset that the Church had this information for many months or years and didn’t bother to warn the parishioners that they were in any kind of potential danger.  While Father Lettic is now on administrative leave, who knows how long he was allowed to remain in the church, actively working with children, while the RCC putzed around trying to put themselves in the best possible light before admitting they have yet another pedophile priest on their hands.

That seems to be an unintentional theme for this week, various religious groups denying accountability and pointing fingers at others because they don’t want to be implicated or culpable for the system that they put in place, a system which is producing demonstrably bad results.  They’re more interested in keeping their public face clean, they don’t worry about actual people getting hurt and these stories have demonstrated that over and over again.

If there’s one group that deserves to know before anyone else, it’s the potential victims.  If a priest is even suspected of being a pedophile, they ought to be yanked out of the church immediately, the allegations checked and if there’s any validity at all, the church told of the suspicions so that victims can come forward and no one else will be harmed in the interim.  Sure, this might harm the reputation of the priest but too bad.  I understand there may be false allegations but the church is in so much trouble now, I’d rather see priests disgraced than actual victims harmed.  Besides, if the priest is found to be innocent of the charges, they can be returned to another church somewhere with an open and squeaky clean record, I know that, if I was a Catholic, I’d be more comfortable having my children around a priest that has had his background gone over meticulously and found to be fine than one who could have been doing anything and had never been checked out.  If you do it for babysitters, why don’t you do it for priests?

So that’s another entry in Religious Horror Show Week, what do you think?  See you tomorrow.


565 thoughts on “Horror Show Wednesday: Victims Blast Massachusetts’ Church over Predator Priest”

          1. Let us know when you actually have objective evidence that heaven is real, otherwise it's just as empty as claims of Valhalla.

          2. There is objective evidence that mankind is rather 'short on the humanities'.
            That backs up my statement.

            Of course, if you can show that mankind doesn't have a rather 'primitive' drive towards violence then I'd love to see your evidence, even if it's antidotal.

          3. Which still doesn't support any of your claims, you just keep sidestepping the questions that are being posed to you, as you always do.

          4. Sidestepping?

            That is formally known as the Roger Russell Two-step.

            He graduated from the Aurthur Murray School of Dance.

          5. And you stood in the cold looking in, dreaming that some day….

            I offered my opinion with the evidence I see to back it up.

            If either of you have evidence to contradict my views I'm here waiting for it.
            Cephus, at least he's series. You? Not so much.

          6. That's not an opinion. You don't the difference between theory, fact, opinion. You don't know anything. The only thing you DO know, is how to be a troll.

          7. Sure I do. Do you? What was this comment that you made before?

            42 minutes ago @ http://912wolverines.com/ – growl · 0 replies · 0 points
            We want to see israel destroyed. Israel is coming apart at the seams! They can't even manage gaza. You know gaza? That open air concentration prison camp? Well israel can't beat hezbollah, can't manage gaza and they want to get into a war with Iran? HA! What a joke. I hope israel does try something stupid like that because that will be the end of israel.

          8. It does. Of course if you would like to show my point is wrong, I'd love to hear your thinking on how good people are.

          9. The goodness or badness of people is not evidence for the existence of heaven. How people behave is totally irrelevant to this claim.

          10. The goodness or badness of people is an indicator of many things.

            If a system of belief thinks people are evolved slime (primordial ooze) is a chance occurrence and there is no reward for good, how can you expect them to find a reason not to go for immediate pleasure over long term 'goodness'?

          11. Didn't you know that Roger likes using big "multi-sill-ob-bal" [sic} words to impress people?

            His anecdotal antidotal antihistamines are a bane to us all. A recipe for antidepression.

            Now if you'll please excuse me, I'm going to go beat my head against a wall.

          12. Not based on your comments.

            Yet again the posse of trolls takes a discussion on an important topic and tries to make it about personality.

            Typical, predictable. And pathetic.

          13. I realize you're not here for actual discussion or debate.
            I realize you are a vlie cretin that just wants to stop actual exchange of ideas.

            This story is about a horrible abuse that needs to be addressed.
            The 'real' people may disagree on the fundamental trigger for abuse, you are the one pretending it's more important to attack on personality over discussing the issue.

          14. Attack on personality? You'd have to have a personality to do that. I was correcting your spelling and sentence structure so you didn't continue to look irrelevant.

          15. There you go, proving my point.

            Still nothing on the topic, nothing but a thread derailer.

            It's all you have.

            And the abuse doesn't seem to effect you at all. At least a vast majority of religious people would find it offensive. The non religious site admin did.

            And to you? It's just an excuse to come and troll.

          16. You mean the same site admin that asked you back up your claim regarding heaven that you not so cleverly avoided? That site admin? I'm willing to get on topic, please prove there is a heaven.

          17. Still avoiding the topic of the story and the discussion about it?

            All you can do is derail and insult, it's all you have. A sad one pony show.

          18. Derail? The site administrator himself asked you to support your claim. I'm pretty sure he doesn't derail his own website. Now, about that proof of heaven…..

          19. And I asked him to show why he doesn't support my views.

            Now about that proof that you can understand or even discuss the issue. The story isn't 'about heaven.

            You haven't shown any proof to show that mankind can't exist outside our planet. And you once more are a sad one pony show.

          20. I'm pretty sure the site administrator gets to pick the topic, but in this case it was YOU that brought up heaven, nobody else. So, you really only have yourself to blame for "derailing" the topic. Why would I show proof for a claim I have never made? I'm agnostic so I don't know if there is a heaven or not. You say there is, so I asked you to provide support to your claim. Do you have any support to your claim or not?

          21. I just read the story. The use of the word "heaven" doesn't appear there. It was first brought up by you. Now, do you have any evidence of heaven's existence or not? Why is that a difficult question for you to answer?

          22. Do you have evidence that your demand is linked to the story? My comment was linked to the story, so unless you can do the same why not crawl back under your bridge?

            Can you prove that there is no possibility of survival for humanity off our native planet?

          23. Why not answer the question regarding evidence of heaven? You know, the same question that the author of this article asked of you. Any no, I cannot prove we can exist off of this planet. That is why I didn't make that claim, otherwise I would feel compelled to provide evidence. Why don't you feel compelled to provide evidence?

          24. You haven't answered my question.

            Why don't you show evidence that mankind can't survive off it's native planet, that would be proof that heaven can't exist.

          25. Why would I try to provide evidence for a claim I haven't made? Now if I did make a claim about heaven I would feel compelled to provide evidence, otherwise nobody would take my claim seriously. Know what I mean?

          26. Evidence of what? You want proof from me for something I never claimed? How odd. Now if I HAD made a claim, I would be more than happy to support it because otherwise people would think I was being dishonest.

          27. See, you can't even keep track of your own comments. If you want to put forth the assertion that heaven needs to be debated and proven then you go ahead and offer evidence of your position.

            If you don't have a position or any evidence then you don't deserve my time.

          28. You aren't paying attention. I don't have a position, as I have already said, since I am agnostic. I don't know if heaven is real or not so I thought I would ask someone who has made a claim as to the reality of heaven. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or not?

          29. I'm paying attention.

            And you're keeping up. You have nothing, don't pretend to have any thing and want to make demands.

            Good luck with that.

          30. Thanks, I know I am keeping up but it's always nice to have the positive affirmation. Now, about that evidence to support your claim or should I just assume you made a baseless claim?

          31. Thanks for allowing me yet another opportunity to showcase your dishonesty. You make it so easy.

          32. All you have showcased is that you have nothing and your only goal is to pounce on unsuspecting sites and to stop and erail any intelligent discussion.

            I can show that there might be possible places where mankind fcan survive outside it's native planet. If it is heaven ofr not, who knows. But you can't even do that much.

          33. "If you want to put forth the assertion that heaven needs to be debated and proven then you go ahead and offer evidence of your position. "

            Why do you demand of him that which you are unwilling to do yourself. You made the claim that there is a heaven. Provide the evidence for it.

          34. "Can you prove that there is no possibility of survival for humanity off our native planet?"

            Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding about argumentation. You are the one claiming that humanity can survive "off our native planet." I am assuming this is you way of saying there is a heaven. Thus it is your obligation to provide evidence for the claim. A person challenging the truth of a claim never has the burden to prove the claim is false. The person making the claim has the burden to establish the truth of the claim. You have not done this. And you keep side-stepping all requests that do so.

          35. Again, you keep saying that and still offer nothing to back up anything you assert.

            And I offered links on discovered planets that might support life.

          36. The burden of proof is on YOU to back up what you say. That's me saying I can fly and you have to prove to me why I cant' fly.

            YOU have to provide evidence that there is a god to back up your claim The burden of proof is on you stupid.

          37. I know for a fact without a doubt that you are a sexist pig when you tell a woman to go take another midol, that is sexist. When you talk about bloated ankles and if her boobs sag to her navel, that is sexist.

          38. "And I asked him to show why he doesn't support my views."

            You really don't understand the fundamental rules and nature of argumentation. The burden is always upon the person who makes a claim. You asserted that Heaven exists. It is your logical and intellectual responsibility and burden to provide the evidence that it does. The person challenging the claim is not required to explain why they don't support your view or claim, at least not until you actually demonstrate through evidence and a logically coherent argument that the claim is true.

          39. I do, and I think your comments this morning are BS, you haven't offered any evidence or logically coherent argument that sexaully abusive teachers are all Christians.

            I'm waiting for you to actually do what you demand I do.

          40. You're incapable of answering a simple question, aren't you? What's "antidotal" mean?

          41. "There is objective evidence that mankind is rather 'short on the humanities'.
            That backs up my statement."

            This is not evidence or support of any kind for the claim that heaven exists. And what does "short on the humanities" mean?

            Also, please learn to spell anecdotal correctly. In this day and age, with spell-check so widely available on computers, misspellings of this sort are simply intolerable and reflect sheer intellectual laziness.

          42. In this day and age with all the demands you make, why don't you argue the way you demand I do?

            Just repeating the same demands over and over indicate sheer intellectual laziness.

          43. Can you show heaven exists?

            We have no evidence that is it not real so where is your evidence that it is real?

          44. Can you show that there is evidence and proof that there is no place in the extraterrestrial space that might contain any other human habitable areas?

          45. I just told you we have no evidence it does not exist but you claim it does so prove it

          46. You don't show evidence but seem really fast to demand it from everyone else.

            Why don't you try to live up to your own standards of proof for a change?

          47. You stupid fuck, I just said we have no evidence that heaven does not exist, you claim it does so prove it

          48. Foul language? You know you've lost if you resort to gutter talk.

            And I've used a link to show they have been finding places that might support humanity off our native planet.

            Deal with it, or not. That's your personal issue more than it is anything else.

          49. Language that deserves to be used around you.

            Prove heaven exists. You claim it does where is the evidence?

            Just because life can be supported on another planet does not prove anything about heaven

          50. Prove it doesn't. You can't and I've provided links you ignore.

            What's wrong, can't actually debate or discuss?

            You define heaven how ever you want. I showed the possibilities.

          51. God you're fucking stupid, I just said I can't prove it does not exist and you can't prove it does. You showed possibilities but offered no proof.

          52. He doesn't understand what proof is, any more than he knows how to construct a logical argument. I've pointed it out time and time again, he doesn't listen.

          53. You do constantly. You have in the last half hour.

            Can you prove that what this man did when he abused people was sanctioned or even mentioned as approved by Jesus when He lived as a historical figure?

            Go ahead big guy, you made the claim now prove it.

          54. You didn't answer or prove anything.
            Want to try again?

            You only showed he used tactics to get access to children, pedophiles do that. Jesus never sanctioned those things and it was not Chrsitian teachings that led him too either.

            If you think it die, prove it and show those teachings.

            I'm still waiting. The hate is strong, but it doesn't prove a thing. You should know that by now.

          55. I just proved he a christian and I never claimed the church condoned it or that christ teachings lead him to do that but that is not how your religion work. if you only follow his teachings to be christian can you show how he taught you to drive a car and degrade women like you did to Poof?

          56. You can prove he was a minister, you can't prove he followed the teachings of Christ.

            That is exactly how my religion works.

            Deal with it. you seem to confuse that with your more familiar sharia values that mean you are stuck in the 8th century in most things.

          57. Which means he is a christian and more christian than you since he is one of your leaders

          58. Which means once more you haven't shown that he followed any doctrine or teaching of Christianity and you are still floundering.

            He isn't one of my leaders and even leaders are Christians if they follow the teachings of Christ, something you haven't shown led him to this abuse.

            I'm still waiting for it, you seem so sure it can't be that hard, why not just go ahead and list the proof that his doctrinal foundations as a Christian gave him no choice but to commit abuse to maintain his Christian walk.

            I'm waiting…..

          59. No, you haven't

            You keep circling around and pretending things.

            You have not proven your point, you have simply name called and insulted without showing Christinaity condones or approves of this behavior, that there is any teaching at all that would lead anyone to come to that conclusion.

            And I have proven that it happens more in a secular non religious setting.

          60. "And I have proven that it happens more in a secular non religious setting."

            First, you have not proven this since you have as of yet failed to provide the evidence that it does happen more frequently in secular settings. The one article to which you provided a link is not evidence that this happens more often in secular settings.

            Secondly, no one is making the claim that the tenets of your religious belief condones or approves of child molestation or sexual abuse. We are simply challenging your assertion that the person who committed this crime is not a christian. He is.

            Lastly, since you are so adamant about demanding that people prove things, how about you prove, with evidence embedded in logical coherent argument, that child abuse results from non-belief and is more common among non-believers.

          61. Yes, I can. But it sounds like you're asking me for some sexually explicit pictures to prove it, and that's pretty disgusting, even for you.

          62. And based on your past comments, you are a paid hack here to say what ever your handlers wants you to say, sort of a 'rented mouth'.

          63. I'm cracking up here reading this. I and another commenter have been after Rog for 2 weeks now asking for him to post any kind of proof for something he claimed was true, he continues to dodge, make further false claims and outright lie. And now he's claiming that you get all upset when called on? Hahaha! His hypocrisy runs deep.

          64. I'll just say point blank if all women were the harpies you are, there would be more bachelors.

            You have proof that I call you on being cranky and unreasonable.

          65. You may, and you're welcome to it.

            I prefer women that actually are smart and don't feel threatened by those who disagree. And of course women that are graced enough and feminine enough to act as ladies.

          66. Roger, I thought you didn't talk about this type of stuff on forums. If you are willing to discuss the type of woman you like, why have you never mentioned anything about having a girlfriend? Are you lying?

          67. I know I love good smart women. You feel threatened by those who disagree so much that you degrade and make sexist comments to women

          68. You know you say that.

            You feel threatened by my standing up to an unreasonable woman, calling her what I did is just treating her as an equal, any man that was that unreasonable and that much of a jerk would be treated about the same.

            Ask keithisgreat.

          69. You can keep saying it, repeating that intentionally to cause me distress. But it still isn't true since responding to her in kind due to her being unreasonable wasn't sexist, it was treating her equally.

            You can't show my motivation wasn't her insults and lies, and simply because of her gender.

          70. Standing up to an unreasonable person isn't sexist.

            And your lying about it seems to be a pattern of conduct, one designed to deliberately case emotional distress .

          71. I am not lying you have made sexist comments. You are to cease any communication to me from here on out. I don't talk to sexist pigs and your degrading comments towards women are causing emotional distress to me and damaging her reputation

          72. You keep claiming that, but it's not true, can you show that her gender is the reason I made replies that matched the tone she set?

            Well? I'm waiting….

            (chirping crickets)

            If she can't take the heat she should have considered that before going off on an unreasonable tear.

            If anyone damaged her reputation it was her by hounding me on something where she was wrong for almost three weeks.

            Deal with it, or not. I don't much care, you're just cranky because you're not able to hide behind her skirts this morning.

          73. It is when you use sexist comments and bring gender into the discussion. Based SOLELY on your comments, I conclude that you are sexist and misogynistic. But let's be real here, you haven't even TALKED to a woman let alone been with one.

          74. Then why do you keep bringing her gender into the mix. You are sexist based on your comments

          75. "When she deserves to be met in kinds her gender isn't the reason, her bad manners are."

            If her gender is not the reason, then stop using insults and words and references in your insults that make an issueof the fact that she is a woman. When you do so you are using sexist language.

          76. If someone seemingly suffers from maladies don't you wn them to seek treatment for them?

            What kind of hater are you?

          77. "Standing up to an unreasonable person isn't sexist."

            This is true. But it is sexist when the form of "standing up" used is sexist language and references. You continually make comments and hurl insults at her sex, rather than making disparagingremarks about her comments. You are engaging in sexist behavior here.

          78. REturnign insult for insult due to her ill mannered comments is only sexist if I treat her differently due to her sex, I treated her the same as I'd treat anyone else, for example it's not sexist to point out you're not using the same standards of proof that you demand from me.

          79. Based on all the evidence I have seen, I theorize that the only women you have even TALKED to, IN PERSON,in the last 10 YEARS, have all been relatives. Your mom, your sister, a cousin or two.

            That's it!

          80. Based on what? The evidence?

            You are paid to drive people away from places like this, islamists in Iran hate free debate and discussion.

            You might as well admit that Cephus would be murdered for his positions if your clerics could get ahold of him.

            Don't forget you made sharia friendly comments like this:

            "that link says nothing on the subject. I attend the mosque where arguments are proven. "

          81. No it is a sexist comment. Telling a woman she has bloated ankles and menopause and telling her you're not like her ex husband and asking if here boobs sag to her knees is sexist.

          82. OF course not.

            If you had an old goat bride (universally accepted in your mind) would you not notice things like that when she was old and worn out?

          83. Yes it is. How is it not sexist? Would you attack a black guy on his race and then say you're not racist?

          84. "Or a kindness if they are feeling bloated and cranky."

            But you don't know that she is actually bloated at this moment. You also have insufficient evidence to establish that she is cranky. Just because she disagrees with you does not make her cranky. Since you don't know either of these things, the only conclusion that fits is that you made the midol reference because she is a woman. It is therefore a sexist remark.

          85. If she is cranky and suffering from possible mood swings, that's a general indicator of a visit by aunt flo, or hot flashes.

            Therefore if she acts that way she opens it up to comments about her state of mind.

            It was not sexist it was returning insult for insult.

          86. You sure do know about women. How come you talk about them so much, yet have never mentioned a girlfriend?

          87. "Don't forget you made sharia friendly comments like this:

            "that link says nothing on the subject. I attend the mosque where arguments are proven. " "

            In what way is this a sharia friendly comment? You are aware, are you not, that not all muslims support the implementation of sharia law? You are aware, are you not, that there are different muslim denominations, just as there are different christian denominations? If you are not aware of this or you reject these two facts then I must conclude that you are in fact a bigot toward muslims.

          88. And I notice you haven't offered any other proof or logical argument.

            I've pointed out time and time again that you don't agree without offering anything to counter it.

            And you don't seem to care or listen when I point that out.
            At least you don't lower yourself to say "God you're fucking stupid…"

          89. And I've pointed out to you time and time again that you're wrong about the shooter's father and you offer nothing to counter it. Well, you say it happened, but your word is as good as….nothing.

          90. You have pointed out time and time again that you think you know more about what I was listening to than I do, You don't.

            You have been pointed to a link on a statement from the shooters father through his attorney and that he was in the area the day of the shooting, not absent as you pretend.

            Yet as the harridan you are you think you can brow beat a man simply with the threat of calling me a misogynist? Nope, I just hate people who are arrogant, rude and stubborn.

            I don't think all women are like that. You are.

          91. I've underestimated the level of your stupidity. THE FATHER OF THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER INTERVIEWED, you raging fool. if he was, you'd be able to provide a link…and he still has not been interviewed. The man wailing that you heard was a victim's father. I provided YOU with the link to the attorney statement, whack-a-do.

          92. I understand the level of your bloated ankles and cramps.

            The father's lawyer made a brief statement.
            Hello, I heard a radio show discussing it. You weren't there, you don't know. You know you're a too stupid to admit you weren't in my car and you don't know.

            Do you pretend to know everything else too? Yep. and that makes you the stupid one in the discussion. Go take another midol.

          93. Two weeks ago you claimed you heard the father of the shooter yelling that his son was a victim. That was your claim. Now you're saying you heard the father's lawyer making a brief statement? So you're finally admitting you were wrong after lying about it for two weeks? Woo hoo!

          94. That was my claim?

            Quote me.
            Then try to prove that a statement from the attorney isn't from and speaking for the father.

            Can you do that? Then why don't you just admit you have been an unreasonable shrew that doesn't have the decency to shut up.

            Woo hoo yourself.

          95. "I listened to the radio to the father of the dead suspect scream and blame everyone.
            He was asking how come nobody did anything.

            Excuse me, he was the father. Why didn't "he" do something more?"
            Shall I continue?

          96. Excuse me, you still don't know when to shut up. Do you have a link, I don't trust you and have no reason to take you at your work with quotes.

          97. Why did you post that link? That's pretty-much the one several of us posted to you. Pehh….as I said elsewhere, I've underestimated the level of your stupidity.

          98. Why? I just showed that you are from the Hillary Clinton school of screeching and that you are wrong, as usual. But you probably hear that a lot.

            You've underestimated your menopausal impact on me.

            You don't know what I was listening to, and you need to just for once try to behave as if you had manners.

            I don't expect you're up to it.

          99. YOU don't know what you were listening to or you'd have posted a link. Every worthwhile radio talk show has on their site links to what they've aired. You are unable to provide such a link, so you provide one that others provided to you. You can't provide a link to what you claimed or you'd have done it two weeks ago. What a fucking weasel.

          100. I know, you don't.

            Your'e wrong. I showed that they wanted to put this off on the sons medical condition and the DJ was playing off that excuse and considered it to be akin to other excuses offered.

            You are a weasel that can't or won't sit down and shut up. But that is probably one of your better qualities. Does it go downhill from there perhaps?

            And someone gave you a link of the foundry, unlike you I'm able to remember that and don't feel you should have browbeat everyone on the same topic as if you never had an answer.

          101. Here is the link to the Heritage site. Have a look. You will see NOBODY provided a link to an interview from the father as you keep insisting. You have already been proven a liar because you denied your claim that poof quoted and linked. Do you even know when you are lying or not? http://dailysignal.com/2014/05/29/gun-control-can

          102. So what I said I supported and proved.

            I got it. You don't.

            You're just here to be a troll, it's all you know.

            You weren't in my car any more than anyone else was. So you don't know what I listened to, and I do.

          103. But I am not a loser that would say something like this:

            1 hour ago @ Big Government – Holocaust Denier Norma… · 0 replies · +1 points
            trying to being down the roman empire rat boy!

            god demands jihad and suicide bombers. Obviously.

          104. This from the guy that thinks goat brides are universally accepted?


            3 hours ago @ KTLA-TV – Local Reaction to Obam… · 12 replies · 0 points
            jews do suicide bombs….

            …marrying goats is universal…"

          105. I understand the level of your bloated ankles and cramps. "

            You proud of that loser ? You 51 year old loser ?

          106. "Keep up, it seems he is talking about the shooter."
            "The father of the shooter thinks he is a victim."
            "You still think that Woof and I who live in that area don't know what we heard?

            You are ignorant and determined to stay that way."
            Shall I continue even more? 'Woof' came back and acknowledged he was mistaken.

          107. You are still unsure about when to shut your mouth.

            Unless everyone with aspergers syndrome does this kind of deed you are wrong, a probable hag and certainly still that shrew low on estrogen.

            I'm not your ex husband and you don't get to nag me to the point where I back down just to make your incessant shrill voice go away.

            You're unreasonable and frankly I'm glad you're not living next door.

          108. Kinda sucked to be proven a liar, didn't it? Don't worry, those little testicles of yours will drop down by morning. Stay away from cold water though….shrinkage is NOT your friend.

          109. You would know, I'm not a liar. So I'll have to take your word for it.

            How are those sagging boobs doing, are they around your naval yet?

          110. You're a proven liar, everyone who's read this thread now knows it for a fact too. Don't worry, I won't out your lying….much. Have a night.

          111. You are only showing you depend on your bad manners to cover up for your failed lies.

            I showed the father's attorney made a statement for him and it included references to things that were excuses for the behavior. You may be used to, and prefer spineless men, I'm not one of them.

            I'm glad that those reading the thread if they can stand your clear dislike for anything reasonable just can't shut up. You expose yourself for what you are.

          112. "Have a night" means I'm done with you for now. Not to worry, I'll beckon you when I feel like chuckling at your lying ways again. Now shooo…..you're really annoying in a stalker sort of way.

          113. Obviously what you meant and what you got are two different things.

            When you have an unrealistic view of what other people are, that probably happens a lot.

            And your version of stalker is amazing considering that's what you've been doing.

            Does this qualify according to your definition?

            10 hours ago @ Storyleak – Holder to Create 'Home… · 32 replies · +3 points
            I've observed him for around 30 months on and off. I'd guess he howls at a full moon, but I really don't care — I don't consider him to be loco, I consider him to be pathetic. 145,000+ times pathetic.

          114. You claimed the father gave an interview. I corrected you and said the father's attorney released a statement to which I linked and quoted. You said I was wrong. NOW you say the attorney released a statement. No shit, that's what I told you 6 days ago. You claimed the father blamed society. In the statement released by the attorney, he clearly made no such claim. Two lies on the same subject? You aren't doing very good.

          115. I claimed I listened to a radio program talking about it, and I proved my point.

            Clearly you're just a troll here attempting to cause problems, it's all you have.

          116. No, you claimed you listened to the father scream. It's just that it didn't happen. Your quote is posted above in case you forgot what you said. Fail.

          117. Still lying? Why yes, yes you are. TNM doesn't need my help. I see him wipe the floor with you daily.

          118. Still calling me a liar even thought I proved my point and that she was wrong?

            You trolls are so similar it's like you're the same person with different profiles, TNM admitted to using multiple profiles once, why shouldn't' I suspect the same from you?

          119. Yep, I have shown he lies before as well. It's funny trying to watch him wiggle out of it

          120. She has shown that she doesn't 'agree with me, and I have shown that I don't much care and I knew what I listened to on the radio.

            I don't have to wiggle out of it.

          121. I dont' wiggle out of things that are true.

            And it's not sexist to treat women as equals.

            Try wiggling out of that.

            Isn't she due to be along like trust to cover for you since you can't really debate issues?

          122. Would you tell a man to shut up and take another midol? WOuld you tell a man that you're not like his ex husband? No you wouldn't. YOu're not being equal. You're being sexist

          123. I'm not your ex husband and you don't get to nag me to the point where I back down just to make your incessant shrill voice go away. "

            That is sexist.

          124. And I'm not your pbxs that can give you better talking points wither.

            Too bad you're stuck with the ones you use now.

          125. "t's sexist when I don't treat her like anyone else making those sorts of insults."

            But you aren't treating her like everyone else. In your remarks and insults directed toward the men in this discussion you have not used insults that make reference to their gender or parts of their anatomy. But you have done this in your remarks to her. Therefore, you are engaging in sexist behavior and language.

          126. Because you are making sexist comments. Everyone on here has explained that to you over and over again

          127. It would be sexist of me to treat her differently based on her possible genitalia.

            That's the very thinking that says Hillary should get elected president since she's a woman.

            Facts are facts and I replied to her insults in kind.

            If you want to point out sexism ask her if she made those comments because she hates men.

          128. You go ahead and say that. It doesn't make it true.

            If they want to be treated as equals then it means they are treated as equals.

            And I don't consider her much of a woman. Not with that harpie attitude.

            Is she going to be along shortly so you can hide behind her skirts again like last night?

          129. Why are you sexist and where did christ teach you to degrade women? Chapter and verse please?

          130. Why is treating a badly behaving person accordingly sexist?

            Treating her differently would be sexist, try to wiggle out of that one.

          131. You are making degrading and sexist comments to women. Chapter and verse please. You realize I got you now right. All these screen shots of you making sexist comments won't look good in court.

            So MR. Fake christian, where does christ teach you to degrade women?

          132. I made appropriate comments responding to an unreasonable person.

            You can insult me and try to emotionally damage me with your spin and twist like you constantly do.

            But you haven't shown I treated her any differently based on genitalia. You realize that you have screen shots proving when she attacked me and called me a liar I proved her wrong, and then responded in kind, as I would do with anyone.

            Her sex wasn't even a consideration in why I responded as I did.

            So, any other lies you want to use to defame my character?

          133. UM screen shots say otherwise.

            Your comments are completely uncalled for and down right disgusting.

            You still have not shown where christ taught you to degrade women

          134. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

            But the problem with your statement is that the comments are still up on this forum and people can read them for themselves.

            You still haven't shown what atheist thing is making you degrade everyone and hide behind the trolls here to cover for you.

          135. ANd people can read for themselves and they will see you are a sexist pig. Funny you are not liked anywhere except CVN and Speak out because people see your comments and see you for who you are

          136. Yes they can, and they'll see poof was unreasonable and I dealt with her in kind. She set the tone and I matched her, that's not sexist and those reading this thread will see that the trolls all seem to cover for you and carry your water. Does it make you feel safer hiding behind their skirts?

          137. What is "harpie"? Do you mean "harpy"? If so, you should probably spell it correctly and use it as the noun it is not as an adjective.

          138. What is a troll? Did I mean "Troll"? Probably I should spell it out.

            You spell it your way, and I'll spell it mine.

            As I used it, even you understood what I meant.

            Of course being a troll you just want to cause problems and can't actually discuss real issues.

          139. You not only spell it incorrectly, you use the word incorrectly. If you are going to butcher my language that is up to you, but don't expect me to ignore it.

          140. And logic seems to be a third language for you, you clearly prefer insults and name calling if this thread is any indication.

          141. You must not either, and speaking the language is a commonly used term for more than actual languages.

            Did you know that? I guess not.

            It is an atheist thing?

          142. Insults? Telling a woman she smells like fish is an insult and degrading. Only a sexist pig would say something like that

          143. Calling me foul was an insult and I replied in kind.

            Don't blame me for her sexism, if you want to apply the term that way.

            It's not the definition of sexism as I understand it, but you and your posse seem to redefine words regularly.

          144. "And logic seems to be a third language for you, you clearly prefer insults and name calling if this thread is any indication."

            You honestlycould not see the hypocrisy in this state before you wrote it and hit the submit button? You engaging in a great deal of insults and name calling yourself,not to mention a failure to present logical arguments supported by evidence.

          145. You're just upset she is smarter than you and puts you in your place. You can't stand the fact that a woman ( a gender you hate and makes sexist comments about) has your number

          146. You pretty much ruined any chance of people thinking you're not a misogynistic sexist pig. You're an ugly mother fucker both inside and out!

          147. Why? This is what you said about that 13 year old rape victim being stoned alive in Somalia.

            "If it's the law of the land then it is the law of the land and is right according to their laws. yes."

            You are islamic, and misogynist by definition.

          148. Because of your comments telling a woman that you're not like her ex husband and how she doesn't know how to shut her mouth. You can make up all the lies you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are a sexist pig

          149. I'm not your ex husband and you don't get to nag me to the point where I back down just to make your incessant shrill voice go away. "

            You would not tell a man that

          150. Starting to use cut and paste now?

            And I would say something equivalent to anyone with manners so coarse.

            You, you just follow orders and post the assigned comments.

          151. There is nothing equivaltent about that!

            That comment you made was without a doubt, unequivocally, sexist

          152. Of course there is.

            Imagine you were talking to someone that insulted you and you insulted them back, insult for insult.

            Do you do so because of their eye color, or foot size? Nope.

          153. You attacked someone solely based on their sex. Telling someone to go take another midol is sexist. And it was unprovoked

          154. I was debating with someone that made her gender part of the debate.

            If you don't like women that are allowed to debate, take it up with her.

          155. I understand the level of your bloated ankles and cramps. "

            This is another example, clear blatant example of you being a misogynistic sexist pig.

          156. If you're saying you're gay and you think you know about women, good luck with that.

            Do you share grooming tips or something?

          157. You must hear that word a lot.

            Do your bosses that pay you to post use it often enough you remember how to spell it right?

          158. Because you're making her gender an issue. You were telling her to take another midol. Clearly a sexist comment. I mean you stupid idiot, you clearly have a whole comment stream of you attacking her because of her gender, nothing else. That's misogynistic and sexist.

          159. You are MAKING her gender an issue by your comments attacking her gender.

            YOu stupid loser

          160. YOU are making her gender an issue by attacking her solely because of her sex. That is sexist. Your are a fucking creep! A gross ugly creep. You're ugly inside and out!

          161. I make her poor manners an issue.

            You want to make it about her genitalia. No thanks. You want to go there, do it without me.

          162. No you don't. You have never even addressed her alleged poor manners. All you have done is make sexist comments towards her. unprovoked too.

          163. "Prove it doesn't."

            I have thus far refrained from joining in the chorus in calling you stupid Roger, but to quote the fictional character Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." And you keep making stupid remarks. No one here has to prove the claim that heaven does not exist, since no one here has made such a claim. What has been demanded is that you provide evidence for your claim that heaven does exist. The rules of logic and argumentation require that the person making the claim provide the evidence for that claim. You have offered as evidence for the existence of heaven the fact that planets beyond our solar system exist. But this is only evidence for the existence of planets. It is not evidence for the existence of heaven. Heaven, if it exists, is an ethereal, non-material realm, or least this is how it has traditionally been described in Christian theology. So it can't be a planet. And therefore, the existence of planets can not and does not provide evidence for the existence of heaven. Planets provide evidence only for material locations where humans might be able to live. And by the way, I place emphasis on the word "might" in the "might be able to live" portion of that sentence. The mere existence of these others planets does not mean they are habitable by humans.

          164. You just stepped in stupid.

            I don't have to prove all historical claims and thoughts on heaven,only the evidence there is a possibility of what I actually said. And I've done that.

            If you want to prove that what I actually said about heaven is false, then go for it. Unless you're too much of a Forrest Gump.

          165. Still at it? All name calling, all vitriol.
            And you have never given evidence or links to support anything so why do you pretend you have a dog in this fight?

          166. I am not making any claims like you are but when I do make a claim I back it up with facts.

            You're still at it with all insults all the time. I see you managed to bring down LRC.

          167. I showed evidence to back what I actually said.

            You make claims constantly and refuse to back it up.
            As an example there is this old comment.

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO

          168. We also don't have proof that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist, but one would have to be an idiot to think that they do. Rational people only believe in things because there is objective evidence that they actually do, not because of a lack of evidence that they don't.

          169. I'm not aware that calling YOU stupid is foul. Accurate, maybe. But foul? Nah — it's just what you are.

          170. Another degrading comment towards women. Tell us rog where does christ teach to be degrading towards women? I mean it must be a teaching of chirst if your doing it

          171. It was another comment that met her where she was coming from.

            She called me foul and I returned the compliment.
            You still hiding behind her possible skirts?

          172. You know what, Rogie? I may be all of the disgusting things you claim, but I sure have your undivided attention, don't I? Sucker.

          173. Nope, I've been responding to everyone on this thread and two others as well.

            A little too ego driven for the facts? Bloated fool.

          174. I'm sure you are entitled to your own opinion.

            And that it doesn't really effect my reality at all.
            That must anger you no end, you seem to remind me of a particular bull dyke that never would admit any man was ever correct. I may be wrong of course, but the resemblances are amazing.

          175. Does your mom know you refer to her as a bull dyke? Can't comprehend there'd be any other women in your life.

          176. Your mama may have been your role model, and you probably have it spot on.

            My mother was a lady. You could learn a lot from one, if they could stand to be in the same room with you.

          177. I must hand it to you Roger.
            It took 146,730 posts, but the real Roger is finally shining forth. Nasty little phucker, aren't you?

            I'll bet you even pick you nose.

          178. I'll have to hand it to you.
            You're still a coward and still unable to discuss anything of merit outside of insults.

            I met her where she was at. In kind, as she deserved.
            If you find that offensive then suggest that she behaves like a lady if she wants to be treated as one.

          179. I returned insults with someone who happened to be an ill mannered woman, perhaps. Since we haven't met I can't be certain.

            And that's your problem you can't imagine in the western culture the sexes mingling.

          180. "I met her where she was at. In kind, as she deserved. "

            Please refer me to the scripture that says it is your christian duty to reply to an insult with an insult? Afterall, you keep implying that you are living a christian life and following christian rules and principles as articulated by Christ. So where in the Bible does Christ tell you to return an insult with an insult?

          181. Please refer to me the reason you think the book you consider mythical, is something you think I should have limit my ability to post on an atheist site?

            How does that make any sense to a liberal that mocks religion at every turn?

          182. I haven't forgotten that you think goat brides are universally accepted. Is that the mother figure you grew up with?

          183. How degrading.

            Is degrading women one of Christ's teachings? I looked in the bible and could not find it. So by your logic you are no christian

          184. How insulting. It is a teaching and doctrine/dogma of atheists to be insulting and by your logic you are an atheist because you assume the worst about folks?

          185. Well you are insulting and making sexist comments to a woman and I want to know which one of christ's teachings that is. You claim to be a christian and follow the teachings of christ so where does he teach to degrade woman and make sexist comments?

          186. We don't have a belief system.

            Can you show where christ teaches you to degrade women?

          187. Then why are you being so insulting, and if you blame my religion then I'm blaming yours.

            And why do you think treating women as equals is racist? I'm waiting, if you're going to keep lying and name calling I'm going to keep asking you why, are you just here to deliberately misrepresent my comments to cause emotional distress?

          188. I never said it was racist moron. I said it was sexist.

            I don't have a religion. Your comments speak for themselves and I have screen shots of all of them

          189. And it's not either one, you can't show I replied due to her gender or was motivated by it.

            You have a system of belief labeled as atheist. Don't blame me.

            And having screen shots will only show you're lying, hide behind the other two trolls here and frankly keep lying about me knowing your points aren't true.

            Keep those shots!

          190. Lying, you can't point to a single comment that wasn't a reply in kind, one made simply based on her gender instead of her conduct.

            Treating her differently due to gender would have been sexism, treating her like I would have anyone else making those sorts of unreasonable comments isn't.

            So, yes you are lying about them.

          191. When you told her to take another midol, when you asked if her boobs sag down to her navel. Those are all sexist comments. When you attack someone based on their sex that is sexist. Why take it to that level? She never insulted you.

          192. They were insults returned in kind.

            Perhaps you didn't read the threads you're referring too.

            She did her best to try and insult me.

          193. Sure she did.

            Check her comment stream, you don't need to believe me.

            Are you allowed to go to a comment stream of a woman not related to you?

          194. You wouldn't ask a man to check his estrogen levels, or to sit down and shut up, or saying you're not his ex husband or to take a midol.

            Those are sexist comments.

          195. How do you know that?

            And even if I did, why would you want to discuss it here?

            Would that be in line with you saying this?

            22 minutes ago @ Antiwar.com Original A… – Israel Walls Itself In · 1 reply · +1 points
            "I am not a paid troll. You can say it a million times but it still won't be true. I think WTE should do that and embarass you in your own community. Nowadays Roger, people can monitor your every move. No your name, your kids names, where you live, where you work, your credit history, your criminal record. WTE can easily link your profile to your preacher and expose you."

            Your handlers, they don't like me much, do they?

          196. Then another troll using the profile you are now assigned to did.

            If you don't like the comments associated with the profile you're using start another.

          197. Nope, I can't make up things that previous trolls have posted on your profile.

            The stupid is strong in your handlers.

          198. Nope, I wouldn't even try to make up the things your profile has had trolls saying in the past.

            Read the comment stream yourself.

          199. I don't have to, they've had stupid trolls working the profile you're assigned to now, they have made some serious blunders. Why don't they let you start a new profile?

          200. "You have a system of belief labeled as atheist."

            Atheism has no system of beliefs. Atheism simply is the rejection of the claim that God's exist. This not a belief. It is the absence of a belief.

            It is true that atheists do have beliefs. But these beliefs don't stem from atheism. I, for example, am a believer in the philosophy of secular humanism and consequentialist ethics. But the beliefs (better described as principles) contained in these two systems are not derived from atheism. They are at best tangentially and inconsequentially related or connected to atheism.

            It is far more accurate to describe atheism as but one component of the philosophy of secular humanism. It is completely inaccurate to, as you have done, claim that any set of beliefs, secular humanism included, flows from atheism.

          201. "you seem to remind me of a particular bull dyke that never would admit any man was ever correct. I may be wrong of course, but the resemblances are amazing. "

            How is that not a sexist misogynistic comment?

            You're a 51 year old loser!

          202. Nope, she does remind me of that person.

            And you're a 'rented mouth' of sorts here paid to drive folks away.

            6 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com – Protests to greet Ahma… · 1 reply · 0 points
            "I'm like jesus, I'm gonna chase you money changers out of the temple and out of town and of course out of this forum. Me and ohsoquiet and a few other REAL AMERICANS who are being PAID to be here like you Israeli PR men. I'm here to chase you filth out."

          203. Is it because she is a woman or because she is unreasonable?

            Treating all unreasonable people in kind isn't sexist, it's equality.
            She called me foul, I returned the favor. Was her comment sexist?

            You don't care about the facts but just trying to insult and lie about my comment in an apparent attempt to cause emotional distress.

          204. He rightfully pointed out your comment had innuendos of references to genitalia. That causes you emotional distress? Why?

          205. He wrongfully pointed and claimed they were motivated by gender, she called me foul and I replied in kind.

            That is because both of you working hand in hand as a posse can't actually show anything you claim is true so you make things up.

            When you lie and label people with the intention of damaging their reputation that is designed to cause emotional distress.

          206. Your reply in kind used a very well known innuendo regarding her sex. In that sense, I agree with TNM, it was a sexist statement. I think you have earned the reputation you have. What reputation do you think you have online that is being damaged? Whatever it is……it's wrong. In my opinion, you seem very fake, phony, not logical, childish, sexist, and a compulsive liar. I don't say that to damage your reputation but as an observation from my perspective. I hope that doesn't cause you emotional distress.

          207. When someone calls me foul I reply in kind.

            You can have your opinions, but you can't have your own facts. And the fact is I don't care what sex someone is, but what they say. You are not logical, you are childish, sexist, and you are the compulsive liar by insisting things that aren't true.

            Do you realize trolling is a bad thing?

          208. No you didn't. You are attacking her solely because she is a woman. That is sexist. You are a sexist pig. A creep. A loser. 51 years old . loser

          209. Yes, I did. And she started with insults unprovoked. Some people are like that. You for example would you want to be here insulting people even if you weren't paid to do so?

          210. I returned insults.

            You are a paid troll, I'm just wondering why your handlers noticed that in western society there is back and forth between sexes, unlike in your sharia friendly iran.

          211. I returned insult for insult and that person happens to portray themselves as a woman.

            That means if I treated her differently than any other insulting ill mannered boor I would be sexist, I didn't.

          212. If her gender were unknown to you would you have used the specific insults you did, such as the midol comment. the sagging boob comment and the bloated comment?

            I suspect not. I suspect you would have used gender-neutral insults. The fact that you instead used gender-specific insults because you knew her to be a woman, makes the remarks sexist.

          213. She made her gender part of this, she was the one that insisted I understand she was a woman. It didn't become part of the debate on my part, and I tried to ignore it and she insisted.

            You are sexist if you don't treat women by the same standards.

          214. Is it? That insults was something a person would say as part of a continued campaign to cause emotional distress and to damage a person's reputation.

            Oh, it was something said to reply in kind. Treating someone without regard to gender isn't sexist.

            Even if you keep lying about it. Is all that lying and misrepresentation an atheist thing?

          215. And I have mentioned over and over that as long as you lie and attack my religion and values on an open forum set up for intense debate I will disagree with you and defend my values and religion.

            I have explained over and over why you are not representing facts as they are and you continue to do so, why do you think you can decide on this forum who is allowed to debate you?

          216. Leave me alone and get away from me you sexist pig creep. You are giving me unwanted attention and causing me emotional distress

          217. I forgot you don't understand plain English. You pretend you have emotional distress and when I say you are causing emotional distress you claim you are using the system as it was designed for and you can make sexist comments.

            Well I am using the system as it was designed for and you are giving me unwanted attention and causing me to have emotional distress

          218. Cephus said that he wanted you to sue him. So he can laugh his ass off at yr stupidity.

          219. I see you can allege emotional distress all over the internet and clam your reputation is being damaged, but it's ok for you to do it to others?

          220. Well you make up quotes and claim I said them, so that's a lie. You cry about emotional distress. So quit being a hypocrite

          221. This is priceless. Remember back when I said I had your undivided attention and called you a sucker? Ta da. I actually don't care about the rude, sexist things you say to me although I really LOVE it when so-called 'christians' come unhinged and show their true colors. And I'm not going to ask for a biblical reference regarding how sexist men treat women, but I'd love to hear you explain how your constant lying plays out in the bible. You've proven that you initially lied about the Santa Barbara shooter's father, now you're lying more about your lies….is there a double-lie passage in the bible where if you do it twice on the same subject you get a free pass? I'd like a link to that — thank you in advance.

          222. Another lie from you. No one is hiding behind anything, other than you trying to make yourself relevant by claiming your religious superiority to us mere mortals — who don't even believe in your fictional book. You lack even enough respect for your fake religious beliefs to do the right thing even once — be honest and leave people alone when they've asked you to.

          223. Another inconvenient truth you don't want pointed out.

            And now you just admit that you don't believe in a fictional book but seemed to determine that you are the final arbiter in how I have to follow it.

            You just exposed yourself.

          224. You realize you just admitted the bible is a fictional book, right? Here, let me refresh your memory: "And now you just admit that you don't believe in a fictional book …"
            Oops — want a hanky to wipe the egg off your face?

          225. I realize I admitted you think so. And that while you don't believe it, you want to decide how you can impose it.

            Can't read and comprehend?

            Still the troll acting like you're about two hot flashes past menopause?

          226. The Bible is a book of fiction, anyone with half a clue knows that. It's ancient mythology that people are too damn stupid not to realize it for what it actually is.

          227. Do you have evidence and proof?

            Evidence and proof that rises to the same standards you demand from me, of course.

          228. "She called me foul, I returned the favor. Was her comment sexist?"

            No, it was not. Because the term foul is gender-neutral. It makes no reference to whether the target of the insult is male or female.

            However, remarks about sagging boobs, for example, are sexist because they refer to the person's gender.

          229. If she wants to play hardball, she invites insults right back.

            Is it sexist to think that as a woman she is protected from insults?

          230. When you attack someone solely based on their sex that makes you sexist. She never insulted you from what I can see. You CLEARLY crossed the line with those sexist comments.

          231. "That wasn't proof or a logical argument."

            It was in fact a logical argument. Just because you are incapable of recognizing a logical argument does not mean one has not been offered.

            Do you believe in unicorns and leprechauns? If not, then why not? If you are a rational person then you will not believe in unicorns and leprechauns because there is insufficient evidence to warrant such belief. This same standard needs to be applied to the question of the existence of God and heaven. Both have as insufficient a body of supporting evidence as do the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, dragons, fairies, and all other forms of mythical creatures.

      1. 1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
        Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
        Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
        Leviticus 19:11 You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

        There — just proved you're no christian. So why don't you take your sorry butt to a site that accepts liars? You might start with Breitbart and then hit the fundy sites, they all lie too.

        1. There, you know what the Bible says and you still went off last night ranting and raving about a radio show you didn't listen to and calling me a liar in spite of the fact you had admitted to links and sources that the father and his attorney (by extension) used aspergers syndrome as some sort of excuse for the shooter.

          You just proved that you're a sad example for a troll here covering for TNM. Why don't you take your sorry saggy butt and go back to your estrogen bottle?

          1. No you didn't. Making sexist comments is not replying in kind as you stupidly put it. Attacking someone because of their sex is sexist. You wouldn't tell a man to take a midol would you ?

          2. Yes, I did.

            Making insults in my direction usually results in my responding in kind.

            For example if your universally accepted goat bride were to step on my foot I would push her away so she would have to move her hoof off my shoe.

          3. You were not responding in kind as you stupidly put it. Attacking a woman because of her sex is sexist.

          4. Yes, I was.

            Insulting someone that insulted me.

            Were you being a sexist when you said this?

            3 hours ago @ KTLA-TV – Local Reaction to Obam… · 12 replies · 0 points

            "…marrying goats is universal…."

          5. You are entitled to your handler's opinion. That doesn't make it fact.
            And you're a troll, of the worst sort, one paid to make comments which makes you a 'rented mouth' of sorts.

          6. Then why work for a set of handlers?

            Do you really think you can drive anyone out of anything?
            That was the claim in the earlier comment I saved.

      1. Are the other posse members that travel with him going to chime in too?

        There are almost a dozen, I'm just surprised that you two were the only ones that helped him on this thread.

        1. Other than you, who cares? You spend your days and nights attacking people for being trolls following one another — WHO CARES?
          Here, I've done a little research for you of sites where you'd be welcome (until they figure out you're a liar and not a christian). I notice many use IntenseDebate, so you can slither right in. Please, I urge you to leave these good people alone. Tell you what — you go away and I won't go to every story you're posting on and out you as the liar you are, k? Deal. http://www.blogmetrics.org/religion

          1. Other than you? The fact you are here acting badly shows someone cares.

            Too bad you're not worried enough to lay out your positions so they can be debated and discussed.
            It isn't a strong point of the ill mannered trolls such as yourself.

          2. I'm not acting badly and you know that. But anywhooo — my position? The bible's a book of fiction written by common men, interpreted and misinterpreted for centuries to keep people in line. I don't care who believes in it, I don't judge their motives, I point out the hypocrisy of those who use it for their own agenda. That would be YOU. I'll bet you use it to rail against abortion and gay marriage — am I right?

          3. Yes, you are.
            I know you don't take the Bible literally, unless you want to use it against people. That's another example of your acting badly and ill mannered.

          4. I don't take the bible literally or any other way. It's no different to me than "Lord Of The Rings" or "Shades Of Gray" — I don't read fiction. Do you cite either of those to spew your hate?

          5. So now you change your position again?

            You went from it was literal enough to try imposing it on me when you clearly don't follow it, and then it was fictional (in your opinion) and now you don't have a position?

            Do you cite anything to spew your hate?

          6. But he doesn't want to talk about religion, he wants to argue against the non-religious. He's a troll, that's why he's here. He's also a dishonest theist, he can't apply logic and reason to his beliefs, but at least in that, he's not alone, most theists are that way. In fact, I just had a debate with a theist who said he believed in a god he couldn't possibly define because he cannot possibly know anything at all about the god, including whether or not it existed, but he believed in it anyhow. That's some major heavy duty cognitive dissonance there.

          7. He won't back up a single damn thing he says, he just posts lies on top of lies, deflects and evades to try (failing all the while) to keep the attention going. It's really pathetic, I've never witnessed anything like it on any forum I've ever commented on. He reminds me of the Kardashians — nothing of value inside so they over-compensate. In his case, it isn't his looks he over-compensates with, he just types and types and types and types. It's the Roger version of being a media whore.

          8. I know, I've tried, he just shucks and jives and dodges every request to back up his statements, he's the king of shifting the burden of proof and everyone knows he's a fool. He's hardly alone though, lots of theists do exactly the same thing because they can't do anything else. Their beliefs are absurd, they don't understand how logic or reason operates but they're going to cling to their ridiculous faith no matter what becasue it makes them feel good.

            Roger is an idiot but if he wants to stand here and prove he's an idiot, as he does day in and day out, I'm entirely fine with that. It only makes him look bad.

          9. Not just an idiot, but one who can't even live up to his own self-imposed religious mumbo-jumbo. I can't imagine having such a shallow and meaningless life, but I refuse to pity him because he's brought it all on himself.

          10. Most theists can't do it, that's why so many Christians conveniently read the Bible and rationalize away why they don't have to do the things that the Bible clearly says they have to do. Roger is no different but I'm sure he wouldn't recognize his own failings.

          11. You are a psychopath, a text book definition of a psychopath. And therefore unable to recognize your own failings.

            Hence, the mustache.

          12. You ignored my question first, so go fuck your question.

            You are not self aware, therefore can;t recognize your own failings.

            I tried slipping LSD into your Starbucks coffee a month ago, but you were always around a lot of hot young guys.

          13. You asked a question you didn't deserve an answer to.

            I'm aware enough to realize some people aren't asking appropriate questions and this isn't that kind of site.

          14. You commented on your personal failings, so I asked an appropriate question.

            The problem is, you actually don't recognize any of your failings.

            Lying, misdirection, no personal relationships with a woman, hate speech against Muslims, anti-science, propaganda spewer, racist, etc.

            And your mustache.

            And for all you know, I may be Jesus Christ. And DO deserve to know.

          15. You side stepped the question and pretended there was already an answer. Looks like you deserved Cephus's comment more than I do.

          16. I exposed your lie, that you know your own failings.

            And you don't deserve to know why I deserve to know.

          17. It wasn't unreasonable. And I have every right to ask.

            You are incapable of seeing your own failings.

            Your whole life is a fail.
            Tell your lawyer.

          18. It was a perfectly reasonable question, your are trying to trump up a case for your lawyer.

          19. Then stop trying to trump up a case.

            I made a perfectly reasonble queston based on a statement you made, and you are trying to collect comments for your lawyer. This isn't the place for it.

          20. There is no case, he has no lawyer, he's full of shit and this is not the place to talk about Roger and his fantasies. No more please.

          21. He does have a lawyer, and he is trying to trump up a case. He uses this tactic on every site.

            Her name is ATTY – Attorney Prunty, Esq., Jessica C.

            Enter his name, Roger Russell
            and you will see he is suing me for 100,000 dollars, and can add another person onto his lawsuit he feels fit.

          22. But he also may want furthur information and change his policy. If he You are such a kiss ass, There iusn't a moderator's ass you haven't sucked. He may want to know you are ready to add him to your law suit at any time.

          23. Jared Lee Loughner didn't. Anders Behring Breivik didn't. Reg Little didn't. Pedro Alberto Vargas didn't. Kim Jong Il didn't and lots of people thought he was a psychopath. And of course, any of the female mass murderers didn't. Let's not generalize.

          24. Why would you need to please God? Even assuming that God exists, which you've done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate, why would this all-powerful deity care what you do? It makes no sense. But then again, religion makes no sense and you're too blinded to see that.

          25. The evidence is around me, even if you refuse to admit it.

            You have no other explanation for the things I've pointed out in the past. Not even practical theories that can be observed.

            And as for why God would care? That depends on what you see the nature of God as being. If He wants the best for us, (hypothetically) then He would care.

            If all this was an accident of cosmic preportions then being good or evil doesn't make any difference. So, we might as well race towards a mad-max kind of life.

          26. We shouldn't have to keep explaining this, but you've got your eyes clenched tightly closed whenever we do. You are ASSERTING that the things you see around you COME FROM GOD without actually demonstrating that GOD HAS DONE ANY OF IT, or EVEN EXISTS. You cannot rationally claim that anything comes from God until you can prove that God actually exists and you have utterly failed to do that. You're doing logic entirely wrong.

          27. And I shouldn't have to keep explaining this.

            You keep making assertions and make no attempt to offer the same kinds of evidence and proof you demand from me. Fair is fair.

          28. No, you're flogging a straw man, demanding people defend things they never claim in an attempt to avoid defending the things that you actually do claim. Nobody here is saying there is no God. They don't have to defend a claim they didn't make. You believe that God exists. You claim that God exists. Therefore you have to defend the claims that you do make.

            This isn't that hard, Roger.

          29. Ah, you're not saying there is no God.

            Then this is simple. I'll look at complex life and see what I want, and you can look at man and see as little as you want.

            Where have I said "God exists"? I have said I see evidence of intelligent design.

          30. I have demonstrated evidence of it.

            You're just beating the argument because you reject the premise. I'm not going to say out of ignorance, perhaps from personal bias.

          31. No, you have not. You have asserted that things you see are evidence of an intelligent designer. You have not shown that it is actually true. The only way to demonstrate your claim is to prove that an intelligent designer is actually real and actually created things. You have utterly failed to do so and continue to do so. Everyone but you sees the absurdity of your claims. You don't get to just make empty claims without evidence and without drawing a direct causal link to your claimed creator.

          32. Yes, actually I have.
            The endocrine system's complexity is evidence for me that there is an intelligent designer.

            You can't show that the endocrine system isn't complex, you don't challenge what I lay out, just the conclusions I arrive.

            And of course if you can show my conclusions are wrong I'm willing to listen to your side of the debate, if there is one and if you can lay it out.

          33. Silly wabbit The endocrine system is not perfect. You claim to believe in a Christian perfect creator God. Roger, think for yourself just once; your god if he was perfect would be incapable of anything less than perfection. Yet over , and over your god shows himself to be nothing more than a fuck up. Shit! Now I know why you believe in this fairytale god of yours! He is just like you.

          34. It is complicated, and the fact it's not perfect would indicate it hasn't been perfected by evolution.

            You claim to be an atheist, I want you to prove your position. I've never known you as a atheist to prove anything you believe it. Why? If you want to say what I believe you're going to need proof, quote me.

          35. And how does that show the endocrine system is the result of millions of years of selective and brutal survival of the fittest?

          36. Adaptation. Everything adapts. People adapt to their environment and their surroundings. That is a fact! Nothing in this universe was designed perfectly. Organisms adapting is a key component of evolution. and it is a fact! Adapt or die!

          37. Miscarriage, cot death and rectal cancer
            Hardly what could be considered as intelligent design.
            In a less severe case myopia or cataracts
            Why is childbirth for homosapiens torturous and dangerous? Because the development of the human pelvis to allow us to stand and walk on 2 feet makes giving birth more complicated. If we were designed this way, that's some shoddy work.
            Just look how simple it is for gorillas to give birth in comparison.
            I could go on showing just how badly or unintelligently the world is "designed"

          38. Wow, all those problems.

            Could it be evolution is weeding out the people that don't deserve to propagate? Natural selection at work.

            Why do you sound so bitter?

          39. It's been explained many times. Go to the top of the page under "Let's Define Things", it clearly defines atheism there.

          40. So instead of debating said points above maybe with how intelligent design could result in cot death, you provide a throwaway sarcastic remark and then question my mood.
            Hardly serious debate Rog
            Additionally you have highlighted you sheer lack of understanding of natural selection by using the word deserve. There is no moral compass guardian siding over if a species or individual procreates.

          41. Exactly. As I said, it's an emotional thing with theists, not a rational, intellectual thing. They don't care about reality, so long as they get to feel good.

          42. Wow, that was a very emotional rejection from a dogmatic atheist over an intellectual understanding that what I think really doesn't effect you.

            Does it make me feel good?
            That isn't the motive for me, and isn't the outcome more often than not. I'd feel better with a godless hedonist lifestyle.

          43. There's nothing dogmatic about it. It's a recognition that you have nothing objective to confirm the beliefs that you have. You take evidence, then you invent out of whole cloth things that you think that the evidence means. You cannot draw a causal link between the evidence and your conclusion, you simply assert that it's true. I'm pointing out that simple fact, you're assuming that it's some kind of conspiracy, not understanding that you have a fundamental and serious problem with your claims. It's no different than those crazy Bigfoot apologists who think that everyone knows that Bigfoot is real, it's a big conspiracy to keep it from the masses.

            You need to look up the argument from ignorance, you are guilty of it almost continually.

          44. Sure, its' dogmatic. You don't consider the possibility of any other conclusion.

            And I have continued to draw a connection between the evidence I draw attention to and my conclusion.

            Your saying I don't is dogmatic, again.

          45. Sure I do. I accept any conclusion for which there is objective evidence and a rational explanation. You have not provided that. I have no better reason to accept your claims about God than I would if you claimed that the intelligent creator of the universe was leprechauns. You simply haven't presented any reason to take your claim seriously. Do that and I'll acknowledge that it's a reasonable possibility, but not until.

          46. I have provided evidence that I feel leads me to a rational conclusion.

            I have provided that.
            You dogmatically reject it. Fine, you come to different conclusions, but I don't see you laying them out and providing any evidence to back them.

            You simply refuse to admit I have provided any evidence while ignoring the evidence i have provided.

            Why don't you explain why the complicated and fragile endocrine system points towards your conclusions instead of mine?

            Can't you do that as an atheist?

          47. But your conclusion is not rational for reasons I've pointed out time and time again. It's only rational if you can draw a direct causal link between your evidence and your claimed cause. You cannot do so. Therefore, claiming "God did it" is no more rational than claiming "unicorns did it" or "Bigfoot did it". The only way any of those become rational is if you can prove that such things actually exist in reality and that those actually existing entities actually performed the actions that you claim that they did. The best you can do with what you're claiming as evidence is that you cannot imagine any other way for it to have been done, therefore something must have done it. That's the argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Look it up. If you want the answer to your question, I would suggest that you go ask a professional endocrinologist, I'm sure they have an answer for you. You are not an expert, therefore your conclusions are not worth debating, except as a prime example of the argument from ignorance. Evolution does a fine job of explaining it all, I'm sure you can Google how evolution works if you're really interested. Just because it makes you emotionally uncomfortable to deal with reality doesn't stop it from being reality.

          48. It's only not rational if you approach it with a dogmatic rejection for any considerations that might have an intelligent designer.

            And your comment about comfort with reality? I could toss it back at you, it applies. But I'd rather not.

            You just said evolution does a fine job of explaining.

            Since you made an assertion I want to point out now it's your turn to offer evidence and proof to back your statement.

          49. I'm not going to educate you in the basics of science, Roger. Your blatant ignorance is absurd. Go read a book, there are other ones out there besides the Bible.

          50. I'll have to remember that and use it when you make demands from me.

            You have been consistent on standards of evidence and proof for me, and you just failed to live up to it.

            Evolution is a theory, nobody was there to observe it.

          51. hey dumbass I see you managed to get LRC shutdown as far as Intense debate is considered. Another site destroyed by Roger. We will just add this to your list Butt Monkey!

          52. I see you're still a jerk that ignores history and the agenda that your group pushes.
            Alinsky and your crew did it, with hundreds of deletions and including three threads in a row.

            And I'm not making it up. Alinsky brags about, or has in the past.
            2 minutes ago @ http://donbeliveit.blo... – About · 0 replies · +1 points
            "912wolverire is gone because of me."

            1 hour ago @ Conservative Victory 2012 – Florida Attorney Gener… · 0 replies · 0 points
            "Nice to see all the conservative idiots off Breitbart and sucking their toes on websites where no one will ever read them.


            We won!!!

            I still go on Breitbart as an imposter and use all your names."

            We won!"

            When you have nothing to add, don't even care to pretend to disuse things, as you trolls do, then winning is stopping other reasonable people from doing what you can't.

          53. Can you show the endocrine system is not complex?
            Can you show that the moons and planet don't have a retrograde rotation?
            Can you show that there isn't the diversity of life that I mention?

            That's more than bias and by my pointing out I use facts you were just shown to be incorrect and frankly I owned you on it.

          54. Quote me. I claim there is evidence for intelligent design.

            And I have evidence for that in myriads of things from the diversity of life to the indocrine system.

            Can you show there is no God? I mean to the same level of proof you demand from everyone else!

          55. So, you have no evidence?

            Iv'e given evidence to back what I actually said Can you do the same? If so, why don' t you?

          56. There is no evidence "to you". There is evidence and there is not evidence. You don't get to attach your own meaning or desire to the evidence and claim that it somehow makes it more valid. Either you can demonstrate that the conclusions that you draw are logically valid based on the evidence or your conclusions are wrong.

          57. Yes, actually there is.
            Since we attach different conclusions to the very same things.

            Two people can see a tooth brush one may think it's evidence of someone having oral hygiene and the next may see it as evidence of someone who shops for the household.

            I don't agree with your conclusions.

          58. But it only matters if the conclusion is actually true and the only way we determine what is actually true is to test those conclusions based on the evidence. The exact same ideas can result in a ton of different conclusions and if all of those conclusions are just invented and based on emotional comfort, none of them are actually worth believing. You simply cannot show that your conclusion springs from the evidence and only the evidence. It comes from your desire to feel good.

          59. Why do you think it only matters under those conditions?

            Every crime scene has different perspectives from each witness and each perspective can be accurate and true as each person saw it.

            My conclusions springs from my obvious grasp of the evidence I've pointed out.

            And once more, if I just wanted to feel good I'd embrace a godless hedonist lifestyle.

          60. There is no proof that you will be rewarded for your deeds in heaven so you SHOULD just do whatever you want to do.

        1. Well, you absolutely must be aware I don't know who Zebrano is or what the growl is, but I reported Roger to whoever handles this site. He has no business being allowed on a private site for the express intent of doing nothing more than blathering for attention. I reported him not because this isn't a site that doesn't welcome civil discourse, but because this isn't a site that should be destroyed by one booger picker who has nothing else to do (unemployable?) but make others miserable. He's a small little man in every way.

          1. You seem to think you're allowed to do just that.

            You are here on a private site with the express intent of doing nothing more than blathering for attention.
            And in your case it's one step more by being here for the express purpose of showing you're ill tempered and lash out.

  1. Absolutely incredible. Nine days later and what's-his-name is still trolling on trying to somehow prove he's not misogynistic? I'll give myself a pat on the back for getting under his reptilian skin, but at some point isn't enough just that? Enough? 547 comments, I'd guess 80% are his and within the past 5 minutes he's posted at least 5 more, always picking at the scab like a child after skinning his knee. And people who start giving insults back are the bad guys? As I said, absoutely incredible.

    1. Absolutely incredible.

      My not liking an ill mannered shrew and returning your insults doesn't mean I hate women.
      It means either you aren't a real woman or I just have higher standards then you. A personality perhaps?

      In case you don't remember, this wasn't about your gender until you insisted to drag that into the debate.

  2. I'd like to set the record straight and then be done with this. Here is my exact comment where the sexism began. Some may interpret this as me bringing in my gender (??), but he'd just referred to me as a "he" — I was merely trying to point out that I'm a "she":
    1 week ago @ Storyleak – Holder to Create 'Home… · 2 replies · +1 points
    I'm pretty sure I informed you I'm a she, not a he. So you have difficulty identifying gender? How come I'm not surprised? And do tell — how is it things "didn't end so well for him [her] last time"? I'm still here riding your hiney, you're still making ludicrous comments humiliating yourself. Win/win for me, Rog.
    In his VERY NEXT COMMENT, he began with the 'sagging breasts' garbage.
    Done with this craziness.

          1. I'm not a Christian by anyone's definition. Haven't seen where you are either, so we have that in common.

          2. Hey, if he wants to claim to be Christian, that's fine. Christianity, like just about every other religion out there, is multiple choice, people make up their own version and then pretend that everyone else has got it wrong. There isn't a Christian on the planet who actually takes what it says in the Bible seriously, they'd be in a padded prison cell, out of their minds and on death row, if they took even a small percentage of the crap in the Bible seriously.

          3. I'd think that atheists would be there is they thought they were a mere monkey one step removed.

            I'm not supposed to follow the entire Bible. I'm a Christiand taught to follow the teachings of Christ. There is a lot of the Bible that appears to be historical more than anything else.

            And for some reason poof and others think that in order to be a Christian I have to appear to be spineless. I don't.

          4. "I'd think that atheists would be there is they thought they were a mere monkey one step removed."

            Say can you again that.

Leave a Reply to Roger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)