Penn State case was bad, but the Catholic Church's case is worse

[SecularMotion]

I didn't have much sympathy for people who complained about the punishment the NCAA doled out to Penn State, until I discovered how an even larger institution in the Keystone State has escaped punishment for shielding dozens of pedophiles in its midst.

In June, Jerry Sandusky, a longtime assistant football coach at Penn State, was found guilty of raping and sodomizing 10 boys. Top university officials were told of Sandusky's deviant behavior years earlier and did nothing to stop him. They, apparently, were more worried about the damage that exposing him would do to the school's reputation than the harm he was doing to his victims.

For its inaction, Penn State on July 23 was fined $60 million, its football team was banned from post-season play for four years and the games it won from 1998 through 2011 -- the span of time during which university officials were aware of Sandusky's pedophilia and looked the other way -- were wiped off the record books.
Another troubling case

The next day, an even more troubling case of child sex abuse -- given that so many more predators were involved -- played out in a Philadelphia courtroom without any hint that justice would reach beyond a low-level official of that city's Catholic archdiocese.

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20120802/OPINION02/208020308

[zbdent]

1. Didn't Pope "JoePa" Naziberger

also help hide all their pedo priests???

[Eddie Haskell]

2. Good point, but priests have an option.

In the Catholic Church, there is penance and absolution ... Five Hail Marys and an Act of Contrition and all is forgiven.

[JNelson6563]

3. Religion so often gets a pass.

Of course there is a great deal of hatred for Catholicism among Christendom and it pre-dates this nightmare by hundreds of years.

None the less, wanting to avoid legal precedent can make strange bedfellows. A great example is the Jehovah's Witnesses org wrote a brief to the Supreme Court on Jimmy Swaggart's behalf in relation to taxable income for religions.

And yet I have been told in this very group that what we need is more religious influence in government. Yeah.

Julie

[earthside]

4. It is beyond me why folks stay members ...

... of this odious organization.

The Roman church has been responsible for the genocide of millions in its history, from the Cathars to the Muslims in the Levant during the Crusades, to the native Americans in central and south American during the Spanish conquest.

I'm now reading about the Spanish civil war and the Roman church was certainly a key player in the 'Nationalist's alliance with Hitler's Germany in overthrowing the Republic.

And, there is the corruption of the pedophile priests ... that seems to go on and on.

The Roman church is against contraception and equal rights for gay Americans and a host of other progressive values.

Yet some of the same folks who are so upset about Chickfila and the Boy Scouts, still lend their names to the membership list of the Roman Catholic Church.

Furthermore, this institution maintains that the church belongs to God, is governed solely by His representative on earth, the Pope and his minions; it is an authoritarian patriarchy. Therefore, how does a lowly lay member rationalize that it is really their church -- it most certainly is not theologically their church.

I understand family tradition and a reluctance to let go of ritual and memories, but the Roman church has such a uniquely bad role in Christian history, and is apparently keeping up this conservative, regressive behavior even in the 21st century.

In America, we have such a democratic tradition and a deep set belief that a person is free to be or not be associated with anyone or any organization a person they want.

So, I just don't really understand it ... why let your name stay on their membership roles as a tacit supporter of the kinds of things as is mentioned in the news report in the OP?

[cbayer]

5. Have you talked to any Catholics about this?

What kinds of answers do they give you?

I think there are as many reasons for staying in the church as there are members.

Do you think everyone should quit Penn State?

[edhopper]

6. I have

They either feel so attached to the Church because they grew up in it and their whole family is in it that they feel they can't leave.
or they can't separate their belief in God and Jesus with the Church. The completely accept the Vicar of Christ ideology.

As for Penn State. Like Catholics not seeing the Church and God as separate things. All Universities and alumni should not see the learning institution and the Football team as the same thing.

[cbayer]

7. Are those not valid and important reasons?

I find it really arrogant for people outside the church to preach to members about why they should leave or to chastise them for staying.

Don't want to support the Catholic church, fine. But trying to convert members is no better than other kinds of proselytizing, imo.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. They are contributing members of a hate group, I don't see anything wrong with criticisizing that.

Its no proselytizing when we aren't interested in changing people's beliefs, just their actions, especially when it comes to supporting things like the Catholic Church.

My mother is a good Catholic, and by good Catholic I mean she refuses to support the church in any way, and hasn't set foot in one in 20+ years.

[cbayer]

9. But there are beliefs, traditions and rituals unique to the Catholic church, so you

are interested in changing them.

Good for your mother. I am sure that as a thinking adult she was able to make up her own mind about what she would do.

[edhopper]

11. Read Shirley Jacksons "The Lottery"

for my opinion of rituals.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Frankly I'd be satisfied if they just stop donating to their local parishes...

some of that money goes on to fund hate organizations and things like Prop H8 and Amendment 1 in NC.

As long as you are costing the church more by attending and not giving to them, I have no problem with that.

[cbayer]

14. Many people get many things from the church and those that fund it.

While much of what they have done is indefensible, the hole left in the social safety net structure would be very difficult to fill if they disappeared.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Considering the actions of Catholic run charities, not to mention how little of their funding...

is actually from the church itself, they should either reorganize as secular charities, or go the way of Catholic Charities in Mass. and Illinois.

[edhopper]

10. You asked a question, I answered

And yes, in my opinion loyalty to a vile institution is not warranted when they have acted in such a way.
I didn't believe that just because I was American I could support my Government in Viet Nam ( and yes I prepared to leave the country at that time.) or Iraq. I don't believe the Germans did the right thing defending the actions of their country in WWII.
And proselytizing? I am calling that bullshit. I am entering a discussion that everyone else has freely chosen to join into. If you find my arguments harsh, you can either counter them or ignore them.
I don't stand on street corners and shout to people that there is no Kingdom of God. I'll leave the public ranting to the Christians.

[cbayer]

15. Are you really comparing the Catholic church to the Nazis?

What is the difference between those that post full page ads telling catholics to leave their church and those that stand on street corners preaching about the kingdom of god?

[edhopper]

17. And i thought you were asking about my

comments.

I am making a statement about loyalty to a group that does egregious wrong out of tradition.

Metaphor not approximation.

How about southerners who fought for the south, but didn't believe in slavery?

[cbayer]

18. Many in the South didn't think the fight was about slavery at all.

They felt like it was about people trying to take away their rights and their property (land, businesses).

Many still do. I didn't realize this until I did some touring in the deep south.

Look, I am not going to defend the catholic church - not now, not ever. But I am going to defend the individuals who find more good than bad, have personal reasons for remaining and particularly those that are fighting from within.

[skepticscott]

19. So if you think that

the Catholic church is indefensible, why the apologetics for those who DO support and defend it? The whole "change from within" meme is BS. The only "within" is the red hat club.

[edhopper]

21. And they were wrong

As they are today.
i grew up in the south and heard all the "State's Rights" bullshit.

And i will continue to call out those individuals for supporting a criminal, corrupt institution. And to continue to point that they cannot seem to separate their faith from the men who run their organization.

[cbayer]

23. I agree that they were wrong, but it is what they believed.

You can call them out, but not understanding that they do separate their faith from the men that run the organization will most likely make you less effective in getting them to change.

[edhopper]

48. I don't see the Church changing

I see it getting more entrenched. I think that the church goers are deluding themselves if they think they can change the Church. Staying and supporting the Church with their money and efforts only makes them culpable in my eyes.

[cbayer]

50. Tell that to the activist nuns (who I hope will make a big splash this week)

[edhopper]

51. The ones that are probably going to be

excommunicated. I think they prove my point.

Besides, those nuns really don't want to hear what I think of their life choice.

[cbayer]

52. Well, we shall see what happens, but I don't think they will be excommunicated.

And I am certain they don't want to hear from you what you think of their life choice.

But then again, you probably don't want to hear from them either, lol.

[skepticscott]

53. Well, that's the problem

All you can do is wish vainly for change, in hopes that your apologetics will be validated. But you know perfectly well that there is no mechanism for change and absolutely no reason for the red hat club to budge an inch on anything.

[rexcat]

64. Any one who thinks secession from the Union in 1861 was not about slavery...

has not read the articles of secession by all but one of the States and really does not know what they are talking about. Louisiana did not state any reasons in there articles of secession but when they sent an emissary to Texas during the the Texas secession convention that person made it clear that slavery was the primary issue (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). Anyone who is willing to say that slavery was not the primary reason for the southern states to seceded is either lying or trying to revise and distort history. Bad analogy cbayer. Child sexual abuse is one of the the most heinous crimes perpetrated on children. IMO any one in an organization who knowingly hides that information from the authorities is as guilty as the perpetrator.

The lay people in the Catholic Church who think they can change the hierarchy from within are only kidding themselves. History has shown that over and over again. As someone who has worked in pediatrics and seen child abuse this issue really riles me up.

On edit: My father-in-law who is a staunch Catholic was aware that a priest had been transfered to their dioceses and his only comment was " we kept an eye on him." IMO he and the other members of the dioceses who knew about this were totally wrong. But his opinion when it comes to the Church is you don't question the authority of the Church. This is why the Church is so corrupt because there is not enough critical thinking by its members.

[cbayer]

67. You are right. They haven't read it and they have their own (weird) history.

The first time I heard it was on a tourist buggy ride in Vicksburg, MS.

And I didn't make the analogy, the person I was responding to did.

I also have very strong feelings about the sexual abuse of children and have had some dealings with the church on this. I would like to think that I did have some impact and that things did change because of it. Of course it wasn't just me and I was working from the outside, but I was allied with a lot of people from the inside.

Was it enough? Was it done quickly enough? Were the steps taken and sanctions invoked enough? No, no and no, but things did change.

[rexcat]

69. The only thing that made things change...

within the Church is they got caught and it is costing them money and now legal problems. The Church leadership is still trying to make the victims the bad guys.

[cbayer]

70. I agree that that is what made them change, but I fail to see where they are trying

to make the victims the bad guys.

Do you have some evidence of that, because I would like to see it.

[edhopper]

72. Here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/catholic-church-pressures-victims-network-with-subpoenas.html?pagewanted=all

and here:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/13/catholic-leagues-donohue-vows-to-fight-rape-victims-one-by-one/

but I am sure someone is protesting this "within".

[cbayer]

73. Thanks. They've got the bucks for the lawyers, that's for sure.

My support goes to SNAP.

[edhopper]

74. And all the Catholics who give money that goes to those laywers are

culpable.

[cbayer]

75. That's your opinion and we shall just have to agree to disagree here.

It's been a pleasure talking with you, but I think we've reached our impasse.

[edhopper]

76. Oh I agree that

it my opinion.
I believe that was the point of this whole thread.
Obviously you and the Catholic apologist don't agree.

[cbayer]

78. We had gotten so far without name calling.

See you around the campfire.

[edhopper]

79. Apologies

reread my post.
Sounds like I am calling you an apologist.
I meant there are others who would disagree with me. You do for instance.
And Catholic apologist also disagree with me.

[cbayer]

80. Thanks. I really did enjoy talking with you, edhopper.

[edhopper]

90. You are very welcome.

[rexcat]

96. It would appear you have a blind spot...

I did find examples on the internets (sic) and I recall from other sources of the Catholic Church vilifying the victims, but alas I think it important that you find out for yourself, if you chose to do so.

[skepticscott]

13. And are the facts that

the Catholic church is a corrupt, bigoted, misogynistic organization, with an odious history of violence, that has fostered and enabled hundreds if not thousands of child rapes not "valid and important reasons" for not belonging to or supporting it?

The telling point is that some people regard the reasons you think are important for staying as far more important and valid than the reasons for leaving. Those people, and their apologists on this board (I'm sure you know who I mean), most definitely deserve to be criticized. If you choose to label trying to steer people towards greater decency "proselytizing", that's your business and your agenda.

[Angry Dragon]

28. .........

[cbayer]

29. Are you going to share?

[Angry Dragon]

30. That is like saying people stay in the KKK because

their family and friends belong

One form of belief is as good as another



If one stays in an organization when they disagree with the stance of that organization is a pretty poor one.
Jesus said one could talk to him in a closet, a church was not necessary.
So when one supports the Catholic Church with money then they support the stance of the church.

[cbayer]

31. I think the comparison to the KKK (or Nazi Germany, which was also done in this thread)

is not a good one.

The Catholic church is as diverse as it's members. What it is at a local level can be light years away from what the leadership is. What it provides for children, women, the poor, the disenfranchised, the disabled and the addicted. And that's to say nothing of what people feel they gain personally from their faith and their community.

There are many who obviously reject the dictums of the hierarchal leaders, as can be seen in surveys about just about anything. They are pushing back, being led to some degree by the nuns.

Who am I or you to tell them that their only valid option is to leave?

[Angry Dragon]

36. The Catholic Church has no problem telling people of other faiths

that they should leave and come into the Catholic Church

They have had no problem doing this for 100's of years

So under these terms I feel I can do the same thing

[cbayer]

38. Not sure saying that since the Catholic church has done it, then you should to

is your strongest argument here.

[Angry Dragon]

43. I think it is the best one

I said they do it, not just that they have done it in the past.

I see nothing wrong in showing people that there is a better way.
Showing them that if they believe in Jesus they can find him in better places.

What is wrong with that??

[cbayer]

44. Well, I guess if you don't object to others doing it to you....

I am fairly easily put off by people who tell me they have the better way and my way is wrong.

[skepticscott]

55. Not even if

your way involves funding anti-gay bigotry and the enabling of child rape? You're not capable of admitting that "way" is wrong and that you can do better than supporting it?

[Angry Dragon]

58. I have people of different religions knocking on my door all the time

I give them a listen and I tell them I have found what works for me after a 45 year search


Better does not mean you are wrong.

Is there only one way to salvation??

[cbayer]

63. I don't have anyone knocking at my door to do that, but when I did

I either did not answer the door or took their pamphlet and asked them to leave.

So if a catholic tells you that they have found what works for them after a 45 year search, is that any less valid than your position?

If there is salvation, I would totally reject the notion that there is one way.

[Angry Dragon]

66. Their 45 year search is valid

And I would feel free to tell them that they support an organization that hides pedophiles, feel woman are second class citizens, hate gays, and numerous other things I find repulsive.

Many local Catholics do many good things but that does not mean that they can not leave the church.

[cbayer]

68. You can tell them whatever you like, but I am sure they are aware.

Their 45 year search is as valid as yours.

As long as you are willing to leave it a two way street and find people who are willing to discuss it with you and don't maintain that there is only one way, go for it.

[dimbear]

95. Most proselytizing is to benefit a specific church. Trying to sway folk away from the RCC is

selflessly trying to benefit the commonweal.

There's a difference in motivation.

[ButterflyBlood]

97. I don't see them as very valid since they had next to no sway with me

Renouncing the Catholic Church is one of the easiest decisions I've ever done. I did it about age 14 and have never regretted it. It hasn't even been that controversial. Granted my family may not be the most stepped in Catholicism, I'm only 1/4 Catholic by ancestry, my late maternal grandmother was raised a Baptist who converted upon marrying my grandfather, and my father's side of the family has always been Lutheran. Hence only one of my parents is even Catholic. However my mom didn't mind taking us to the nearby Lutheran church as me and my brothers got older, and when I was in high school I basically identified as a cultural Lutheran through that and college. I actually go to a charismatic church now. But this was not controversial, nor was my rebaptism a few months ago.

I should note that amongst the grandchildren on my Catholic side of the family, none who are currently adults are practicing Catholics, and the only two who have any chance of being who are still being raised Catholic are 7 and 10. My cousin from this side was also confirmed in a Lutheran church a few months ago, her mother, my aunt leaving the church too. It is seriously not a big deal or a difficult decision.

[trotsky]

98. You're proselytizing right now, cbayer.

You are arguing for your point of view, and encouraging someone else to adopt it.

Proselytizing. For shame.

[Dawson Leery]

54. Everything you say has much to do with why I am not Catholic.

Granted that I am secular, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the institutions which gives me pause.

Ed Hopper said to read/watch Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" to understand the problem with humans who are unable to evolve past their primitive need for rituals which are illogical(proven to be false).

[Kurovski]

59. +1

I'm a Catholic long gone from it.

The human mind is so good at keeping things from itself. It can hold terrible evil alongside good and make itself belief the balance is fair.

The church is like any other marauding, destructive corporation. A BP for the soul, it has the money and power to convince you it should exist, or wrestle you to the ground in impotent submission.

[pnwmom]

61. Anti-Catholic bigotry has always been a feature of the American landscape.

Catholics are used to being the subject of broad-brushed smears.

[Goblinmonger]

87. Must be tough being a Catholic.

Oh, wait, I was for nearly 30 years and it wasn't so bad.

Saying the church covers up pedophiles is not "broad-brushed smears." It's the truth. If you don't like the fact that the organization you belong to does that, you are free to leave.

[pnwmom]

89. It's a broad brushed smear to condemn all Catholics for the actions of a few.

[Goblinmonger]

91. I went and re-read the article linked in the OP

Didn't see ANYTHING condemning all Catholics. Why don't you point it out to me so we can talk about it?

[pnwmom]

92. I wasn't responding to the OP or the link in it. I was responding to another post. n/t

[cbayer]

20. What possible benefit is there in comparing two heinous crimes against children?

The case at Penn State involved one perpetrator and multiple enablers. The case against the Catholic church involves much, much more. It was easy to get swift and adequate justice for the first. The second is taking much longer and is more difficult because of the number of people involved and the size of the institution.

I applaud every time justice is done and predict it will continue for a long time.

[edhopper]

22. I see no justice being

served to the Church. Individuals, yes, but the organization, no. As far as I can see the chief criminal enabler is still Pope.

[cbayer]

24. Agree and those in Rome seem untouchable.

I'm not sure who would have the jurisdiction to prosecute them. Do you know?

[Humanist_Activist]

25. The Hague would have jurisdiction, but neither child molestation nor hindering the prosecution...

of perpetrators or aiding and abetting said perpetrators are crimes the ICC is authorized to look at. There's some push to add child trafficking(particularity sex slavery) to the list of crimes the ICC can prosecute, and the head of the Holy See would then possibly be vulnerable to prosecution. Unfortunately, the reason all this is necessary is because Vatican is a sovereign nation unto itself.

[cbayer]

26. Great information. I know very little about this aspect.

Thanks.

[edhopper]

49. I would be satified if the

Church in the states was declared a criminal enterprise and prosecuted and dissolved under the RICO act.

[Angry Dragon]

27. I say jail the pope

edit: spelling

[cbayer]

32. As noted above, that is apparently not an option.

He could only be tried under International Laws and has not broken any of them.

Perhaps that will change in the future, but if the information provided is correct, it's just the way it is now.

[Angry Dragon]

37. So hiding pedophiles is not against International law??

[cbayer]

39. See post #25

[Humanist_Activist]

41. Only when it comes to extradition treaties between nations, and both nations have to agree to it...

Think Cardinal Law, who is at the Vatican, the Vatican would have to agree to give him up before the United States can get him back.

Child trafficking between countries MAY become something that is enforceable by the ICC, but as far as I'm aware, no major cases have been brought before it based on that. Its possible the shuffling of priests who were known pedophiles across national borders to avoid prosecution or investigation may constitute a violation of some international laws that may lead to prosecution at the Hague.

Other than that, we have to rely on national, sub-national, and local laws governing the prosecution and detainment of people who both commit the crimes, and cover them up. Unfortunately, their reach is limited.

[HockeyMom]

33. When I went to a local Catholic Food Pantry

when my husband was out of work, the first thing they did was give me an interrogation. What religion are you? Are you a member of our parish? When was your last CONFESSION(??????). I walked out, and went to a Lutheran Church nearby.

"Who is out of work?" "How long?" "Do you have children and how old are they?" That was it. I certainly had no problem answering those kinds of questions. Very relevant. This church pantry did not ask one single question relating to RELIGION.

That is how it SHOULD be. That experience with the Catholic Church was just the icing on the cake fo me. No more.

[cbayer]

34. Wow, that's bad. Where did that happen?

I wouldn't support or work with any charitable organization which did that and would wonder if it's even legal. Was it a test that would determine whether you got services or not?

[HockeyMom]

46. Long Island

A religous test? They only gave food to good, practacing Catholics? The Lutheran panty only asked questions about being out of work and the size of our family. As I said, that is relevant. They did not ask what our religion was, or preach to us.

If somebody is hungry, what does it matter WHAT their religion is?

[cbayer]

47. It should not matter at all and a group who makes it so should be exposed.

[skepticscott]

56. Yes, and those rules against it

sure do keep religious groups from applying religious tests or proselytizing to those they purport to "help". I have total confidence that it could NEVER happen in any of those third world countries where you gush over the RCC's "charitable" efforts. Don't you?

[Dawson Leery]

57. I have heard of many cases regarding catholic charities which are similar to yours.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. None of us should have sympathy for any pedophilia organization, but the problem is that the phrase

Catholic Church is an ambiguous one which can encompass not just the proven pedophiles (and those in the Catholic organization which shielded and protected them), all those with formal titles within the Catholic Church, and anyone who identifies themselves as being members of the Catholic Church.

To attack every member of the Catholic Church would come off as religious bigotry. To attack every member in the hierarchy with formal titles would also come off as religious bigotry.

Based upon the organized protection of the pedophiles over an extended period of time, we know that there is a pedophilia organization. Such pedophilia organization either exists within the Catholic Church contrary to the morals and principles of the Catholic Church, or it exists within the Catholic Church as part of the fabric.

Does this pedophilia go all the way to the top? I can't help but wonder, when looking at the figure of the guy in the center of the hat, whether the figure is supposed to be that of an adult.

[cbayer]

40. We will probably never know due to the shields in place, but it's a good question.

[Leontius]

42. Has anyone read the findings of the US RCC investigation of the crimes of the US priests and the

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

cover up of them by the Cardinals and Bishops involved? For those who haven't save your editorial comments I don't really care what you think of a report you haven't even read.

[cbayer]

45. I have read synopses and have scanned the whole document, but not read it in detail.

[skepticscott]

60. US investigation? That would be the criminal investigation

by the United States Department of Justice, right?

[Leontius]

62. No I was asking about the internal RCC investigation but if DOJ has a report I would be interested

in what you know about it.

[skepticscott]

71. Of course the US Justice Department

hasn't issued a report on this. The point of my post apparently eluded you. Do you have anything to refer to other than a report commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and over which they had the final say as to whether it would even be released?

[Leontius]

82. Not really I just let you go where you needed to go for whatever point you needed

to make. I think DoJ should have taken a lead in this but leaving it to the states attorneys- general was their choice. If you have read the report feel free to discuss its merit, if any, or its failure. If you haven't read it I don't care what your opinion of it is and we're done simple as that.

[skepticscott]

84. Nice dodge, but fail

For those interested in learning about the fundamental flaws and biases of the report, here's a good start (though by no means the only one):

http://mirandaceleste.net/2011/05/24/a-worthless-and-dangerous-report/

Feel free to dismiss that analysis because it isn't mine, but if you have no substantive response to the points raised, everyone reading this will smell your intellectual dishonesty.

Have at it. (and just so you know, repeating "If you haven't read every word yourself, nothing you say means anything" will be considered more fail).

[Leontius]

88. Here we have intellectual dishonesty displayed at it finest

given several opportunities to discuss the failing of a report the poster dissembles, deflects and hides his ignorance of the issue behind someone Else's opinion and even tries to pretend confusion on what report is at issue even though it has been clear to other posters and has been referred to by him in another post on this very sub thread. Sometimes when something smells you just have to say " This smells bad folks".

[skepticscott]

93. In other words

You have NO substantive reply to any of the critiques of the report. Just more attempts to make it about me and not about the RCC's enabling and covering up of child rape. As expected.

Not that I expected (or needed) honest acknowledgement of anything from you. But the sensible people reading the thread know where the truth lies, though I'm sure you'll try to squeeze in the last word begging otherwise.

Thanks for playing. Lame, but amusing attempt.

[mr blur]

65. No, no, you're not allowed to criticize the RCC unless

you've read all its internal reports and heard their side of the story. Court cases and reports from people who have been raped by catholic priests are simply not enough. Don't you know these poor priests were usually seduced by highly-sexed 10-year-old boys? It's true, some bishop said so.

(necessary, sadly).

[Leontius]

77. Have you read their report? Did I say you could not criticize the RCC if you hadn't ?

Does their report say that " these poor priests were usually seduced by highly sexed 10yr old boys"? Do you have anything of merit to add or is this your best? I was actually hoping that informed individuals would comment on their report and offer some insight on whether they thought it was an honest effort to understand what happened and prevent its recurrence or just an attempt to whitewash the whole scandal. Typical of this forum and its regulars of a certain mind set the' braying of asses' as some might say will probably have to do.

[skepticscott]

81. And have YOU read

all of the substantive critiques of the report? Or ANY of them? If so, please favor us with your substantive responses to them. If not, you're ringing pretty hollow here. Again.

[Leontius]

83. That's what I am asking for, those here who have actually read the report "critiques of the report"

ding. You're up guy tell us what you think of it or as I said before we're done here.

[skepticscott]

85. No, that's NOT what you asked for in #42

Backpedaling and lying are not an argument. Try again.

[Leontius]

86. Well I did not think anyone of marginal intelligence would have a problem with

my use of "US investigation" to denote an investigation done in the United States of America. So to amend it for my limited readers understanding I will edit it for you.

[cleanhippie]

99. Seriously? Saying "the US investigation..." wouldn't mean an investigation done by US authorities

but instead means an investigation by some private group located in the US?




Maybe you should go back and think about how much "marginal intelligence" you actually possess before accusing others of not having any.