Files released showing Vatican, Dolan, Archdiocese of Milwaukee, et al PROTECTED child-rapers.

[cleanhippie]

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:07 PM - Edit history (2)

The ENTIRE RCC is complicit in this. There is no longer any denying the extent to which the Catholic Church went to protect itself by protecting and enabling CHILD-RAPERS. Sorry, my Catholic friends, there is no longer any way for you to justify your continued patronage to this terrible, evil organization. IMO, any contribution you make to this horrible institution, be it your time, your money, or your butt in a pew, makes you part of the problem.

For all the alleged good one may be able to cite in other efforts of the Catholic Church, none of it even BEGINS to balance the scales. Justice begins with YOU. Will you stay and stand with your church or will you leave it to rot in the name of justice?

Key Documents

Cemetery Trust Transfer - All Documents

Transfer funds to cemetery trust

Permission to transfer funds

Vatican Responses or Lack of Response to Laicization Petitions Post 2001 - All Documents
John O’Brien Daniel Massie Jerome Wagner Donald Peters Marvin Knighton David Hanser Michael Benham
Daniel Budzynski Ronald Engel Michael Krejci Jerome Lanser Thomas Trepanier John Wagner

Payments to Priests Accused of Molesting Children - All Documents
James Beck Franklyn Becker James Flynt James Jablonowski Jerome Wagner
Michael Krejci John O'Brien Daniel Massie Thomas Trepanier

Perpetrators Allowed to Remain Priests by the Vatican and Archdiocese (Cardinal Dolan and Archbishop Listecki) Despite Substantiated Reports of Child Sex Abuse - All Documents
John Wagner Raymond Adamsky James Beck George Hopf
Jerome Lanser Thomas Trepanier Charles Walter

The Vatican’s Response to Archdiocese’s Concerns About Admitted or Convicted Child Molesting Priests Being in Contact With Children, Despite Restrictions - All Documents
John Wagner
John O’Brien

Vatican Surprise that Archdiocese of Milwaukee is experiencing financial difficulties - All Documents
Surpise with ADOM's finances
Change in Lanser's benefits

Archdiocese Mediation Process - All Documents
Offers in mediation
Knighton
Murphy

Archbishops Cousins and Meyer Did Not Document Reports of Child Sex Abuse - All Documents
Daniel Budzynski Donald Peters Barbara Cusack Deposition Archbishop Weakland Book
William Farrell David Hanser Archbishop Weakland Book

Archbishop Dolan’s Concern About Statute of Limitations Reform - All Documents
Concern about possible legislation John Wagner
Thomas Trepanier Marvin Knighton

Dolan Decision to Release the Names of Priests With Substantiated Reports of Sex Abuse of a Minor - All Documents
Dolan Deposition
Reasons not to relase the names
decision to release made before dolan


Depositions
Cardinal Dolan Deposition Sklba Deposition Wealkand Deposition Budzynski Deposition
Cardinal Dolan Deposition Exhibits Sklba Deposition Exhibits Weakland Deposition Exhibits
Cusack Deposition Reinke Deposition Zimprich Deposition
Cusack Deposition Exhibits Reinke Deposition Exhibits Zimprich Deposition Exhibits


Priest Files
• Adamsky, Raymond J. Timeline
• Arimond, James L. Timeline
• Bandle, Ronald J. Timeline
• Beck, James W. Timeline
• Becker, Franklyn W. [9M] [Also available in Parts 1, 2, and 3 Timeline
• Benham, Michael C. Timeline
• Bistricky, Frederick J. Timeline
• Budzynski, Daniel A. Timeline
• Burns, Peter A. Timeline
• Collova, S. Joseph Timeline
• Doyle, Andrew P., III Timeline
• Effinger, William J. [8M] [Also available in Parts 1 and 2] Timeline
• Engel, Ronald Timeline
• Etzel, George A. Timeline
• Farrell, William J. Timeline
• Flynt, James M. Timeline
• Haen, Edmund H. Timeline
• Hanser, David J. Timeline
• Herbst, Harold Timeline
• Hopf, George S. Timeline
• Jablonowski, James N. Timeline
• Knighton, Marvin T. [13M] [Also available in Parts 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4] Timeline
• Knotek, John T. Timeline
• Krejci, Michael J. [13M] [Also available in Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4] Timeline
• Kreuzer, Eugene T. Timeline
• Krusing, Oswald G. [8M] [Also available in Part 1 and 2] Timeline
• Lanser, Jerome E. Timeline
• Lesniewski, Eldred B. Timeline
• Massie, Daniel J. Timeline
• Murphy, Lawrence G. [Also available in Part 1, 2, and 3] Timeline
• Nuedling, George A. Timeline
• Neuberger, Michael. Timeline
• O'Brien, John A. Timeline
• Peters, Donald Timeline
• Schouten, Clarence J. Timeline
• Silvestri, Vincent A. Timeline
• Trepanier, Thomas A. Timeline
• Wagner, Jerome A. Timeline
• Wagner, John C. Timeline
• Walter, Charles W. Timeline
• Widera, Siegfried Francis [8M] [Also available in Part 1, 2, and 3] Timeline



http://www.andersonadvocates.com/Archdiocese-of-Milwaukee-Documents.aspx

Documents show Milwaukee archdiocese shielded pedophile priests
By Brendan O'Brien and Geoffrey Davidian, Reuters

Roman Catholic Church officials in Milwaukee vigorously shielded pedophile priests and protected church funds from lawsuits during a decades-long sex abuse scandal, according to hundreds of newly released documents.

The documents include letters and deposition testimony from Cardinal and Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan who, during his time as archbishop of Milwaukee from 2002 to 2009, appealed to Vatican on numerous occasions to help address the ongoing fallout from the scandal.

The 6,000 pages of documents related to eight decades of abuse cases showed in great detail the Milwaukee archdiocese regularly reassigned priests who were accused of sexual molestation to new parishes and Dolan himself asking the Vatican permission to transfer $57 million to a trust fund to protect it against court action.

In 2011, the Milwaukee archdiocese filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing the financial drain of settling sexual-abuse claims and acknowledging missteps by the church in dealing with pedophile priests.

The judge overseeing the archdiocese's bankruptcy ordered the documents to be released.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19247832-documents-show-milwaukee-archdiocese-shielded-pedophile-priests

[Skittles]

1. disgusting

they simply moved known pedophiles around - and people "confessed their sins" to these perverts

[dimbear]

2. I want to see Cardinal Dolan get exactly what is coming to him,

even though that is undoubtedly committing a number of sins.

[rug]

3. "terrible, evil organization"?

Do you seriously think it consists solely of corrupt bishops?

Tell me my antitheist friend, do you think, absent the sex abuse scandal, that it is not a terrible, evil organization?

Of course sure you don't.

What is disgusting is using child sex abuse to support an agenda that exists independent of it. It is disgusting as it is dishonest.

[edhopper]

5. Their war on women,

war on homosexuality, denunciation of condoms and therefore helping the spread of AIDS. And that is without going into the abetting of child rape.
That is the modern Church. And I don't even have to go into their evil history.

Also, your response seems to be of the "Well outside of that, did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" variety.

[rug]

6. Do you consider Catholic members to be part of its "evil history"?

While I'm waiting for your answer, I note that your entire critiques (aside from abetting child rape, which is a criminal act having nothing to do with doctrine) is on its doctrines regarding sex. Do you know anything more about it than that simplistic list?

[edhopper]

25. I don't consider Catholic Members to be part of the Church

This is mainly because from what I see, the Church itself does not consider Members to be part of the Church. The Vatican and the Clergy are the Church, the members are the flock. And the vast majority of the time they choose themselves over the members. The child rape scandal is just the latest example of this.

[rug]

27. That's ludicrous.

Canon Law explicitly defines the rights and obligations of Catholics.

Let me ask you this: if Catholics are indeed, um, Catholic, do you direct your litany of offenses to them as well?

[edhopper]

31. Only if they agree with those policies.

I think I have made clear that I don't think those who disagree should continue to support the Vatican, but that is another issue.

[edhopper]

26. Should I care about

the theological permutations the go through to oppress others?

[rug]

28. You should know what you're talking about before you attack something.

[edhopper]

29. You think I don't know the theological reasons

the Church is against homosexuality and Women's Rights? Or why they wish to condemn people to AIDS?

Do you think it matters?

[rug]

30. Because if you want to challenge the action, you have to challenge the reason.

If you don't know the reason, you can't challenge it very well.

[edhopper]

32. You want me to convince them that God

doesn't want them to be assholes?
Yeah, that will work.

[rug]

33. No, I want you to understand the basis for the position.

You don't need to do that just to recognize assholes.

[edhopper]

34. The basis of their position

is their interpretation of the teachings of a God that doesn't exist.

Also the history of the Churches quest for power.

[rug]

35. Ok, just stay back there.

[edhopper]

36. I imaging you are trying to make a point in all this.

What that is I have no idea.

[cleanhippie]

38. It's just another thread-jack to avoid actually dealing with the problem.

Did you really expect something different this time?

[rug]

40. Oh? Do you consider disagreement with your flamebait to be threadjacking?

[edhopper]

42. I still don't understand what you were getting at

asking if I understand the underpinnings of the Churches bad ideologies.

For the most part i do. At least in a general way. I have no interest in angels and pins and whether Jesus laughed.

[rug]

46. It has to do with dignity.

The underpinning of Catholic doctrine on sexuality is the dignity of the human person.

That is the premise behind Humanae Vitae which disapproved contraception. In essence, it holds that the possibility of procreation is one of the two inherent traits of sex. The other being the expression of love between two people. Its argument is that by removing that aspect from sex, it objectifies each partner. You may disagree with that - and it does not consider many other aspects of sexuality -but its conclusion is reached in the context of human dignity. There is nothing inherently misogynist in that.

Personally, I think its entire doctrines on sexuality need to be reconsidered and reexamined. But it is far from a "terrible, evil institution."

[edhopper]

65. That is your interpretation

Or the doctrine you choose to look at. There is a long history of misogyny and sexual repression to contend with.
What you post is only a part of the churches view of sexuality.
The whole concept of sex as sin is problematic.

I do think an organization that hides and abets child rapists is evil. (And we aren't even talking about things like the inquisition)

[rug]

67. That is the doctrine.

The entire doctrine on sexuality is wide-ranging. I'll be happy to discuss it, not in a subthread.

I agree with you on two things:

1) there is indeed a long history of misogyny and sexual repression. My disagreement is that it is not necessarily based on doctrine.

2) the whole concept as sex as sin is indeed problematic. My disagreement is that the focus of bad behavior is not on sex itself but on human uses of sex. It's analogous to the teaching on property. Property is not inherently sinful but how people use it often is.

Again, the RCC doctrines on sexuality need to be reexamined. Certainly its message has been obscured by its messengers and its actions.

[edhopper]

68. Valid points

You could also see how outsiders look more at the behavior of the Church and don't necessarily care about the doctrine or theological reasons for it. You obviously see that they can use the same writings and teachings to behave in a much more progressive way.

As an analogy, I offer the constitutional or economic reasons offered by the GOP is perceived here as a front to enable them to implement a harmful agenda.

[rug]

71. That analogy fits as well.

[edhopper]

78. A problem with religion

or any ideology is how doctrine is used to justify bad behavior.

I know we get on you for your support of the RCC (not to mention the whole God thing) but at least you try to discern what is good and not just what the Church tells you.

The worst of the lot (of any stripe) are the fundamentalist, who won't even acknowledge that they are interpreting whatever the basis for their ideas is.

[rug]

81. This is how I look at it.

I very much agree with Marx's description of how the ruling classes control the superstructures of society: the culture, the media, the ideologies, the literature and so on. Religion is not in the least exempt from that. It's clear from looking at any society in any part of the earth that religion has been harnessed to that goal for thousands of years. It's even happening to the Buddhists in Burma today.

Where I differ is which is the cart and which is the horse. Organized religions have an endless supply of people and leaders all too willing to put the bit between their teeth. Still, I see the propertied classes doing the driving, not the religions. Along with the nonsense, there is tremendous values in religions, even acknowledging that most of their good can be done without a religious matrix.

I just which we could be smarter about who the enemies are and who benefits from yet another line of division.

[edhopper]

92. There is certainly a difference between religious organizations and what they do

and the underlying basis for those religions. While I don't think there is a God or divine from which religion is derived. I also see that as a different issue than what religion (and people acting in the name of religion) do.

I also think that this forum is more contentious (as it should be) than what takes place for us in the real world.

I know who the enemies are in this country, The Republicans, the fundamentalist, and the 1% who are trying to make us a third world oligarchy.

Progressive religious folk aren't on my radar out here.

[Goblinmonger]

7. This post from you

would have more meaning if you actually came out and spoke out against the horrible shit your church did once in a while instead of getting your amazing contortions that say that the church being against gay marriage is a reasonable thing.

The problem with being an apologist is that it is hard to take you seriously about anything regarding the evil history of the RCC.

[rug]

8. The problem with being a bigot is that it's impossible to take anything he says seriously.

Let alone find a honest opinion embedded anywhere within the bias spewed.

And you have no idea what I do or speak out about outside here.

[Goblinmonger]

9. So Dawkins is a bigot?

Yeah, I have no idea what you do or say other than here. Same goes for you toward me.

But I do know that you have:
1. called Dawkins a bigot
2. NEVER called anyone in the RCC a bigot for their views on gay marriage, and have in fact
3. gone out of your way to defend their stance on the issue.

Your declarations of bigotry, I would argue, have no weight behind them.

[rug]

10. Of the first order.

I really don't think of or care what you do elsewhere.

Or here, for that matter.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Wow

Somebody piss in your cereal this morning?

[rug]

14. No, but somebody is pissing in this thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The 'he' in that post title appears to refer to cleanhippie

and so you appear to be calling cleanhippie a bigot. Will you take this opportunity to rephrase this, so we can find out who you are calling a bigot, and make sure it's not a DUer?

[rug]

12. It's a generic he.

Now, who do you think he's referring to as an "apologist"?

Will you take this opportunity to inquire, so we can find out who he is calling aan apologist, and make sure it's not a DUer?

[Goblinmonger]

15. I am calling you, rug, an apologist.

I have said it many times previous. Many others have done the same. I don't think it's against the rules at DU to call you an apologist for the RCC. So you can stop with your fabricated butthurt any time you want.

Plus, it's factually based. Just go back and read your defense of their attacks on gay marriage if you need reminding.

[rug]

18. Are you calling me an apologist for a "terrible, evil organization".

One that is homophobic, misogynist, and an abetter of child rape?

Is that what you're saying?

Come on, GM, let's reach the logical conclusion of your insinuations. You do like logic, don't you?

[Goblinmonger]

19. Last alert didn't go so well?

Sorry. You have my response. It's pretty clear.

[rug]

22. No, I don't see a response.

What's the matter? Do you have a taste for insinuation but not for declaration?

[Goblinmonger]

23. Sorry, not going to play jury roulette with you.

Not in the mood today.

[rug]

24. Then maybe you shouldn't play "Insinuation" either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I don't care if a DUer is called an apologist

I do care if they're called a bigot.

Your desperation to distract from the cover-up is despicable, rug. Someone points out some of the multiple moral failings of the Roman Catholic church, and you resort to talking about 'a bigot', but now try to claim you're just talking about a 'generic' one. But this thread isn't about bigots. It's about the paedophilia cover-up. Stop trying to hijack the thread. It's about the ethical abyss at the heart of the Catholic church.

[rug]

20. Do you care if a DUer is called an apologist for child rape?

[Goblinmonger]

17. Do let me know how the alert goes on my response.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[rug]

21. I rarely alert. But then, I don't use this forum as a playground either.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Wait. Your atheist obsessed ops are not you using this forum as a playground?

[rug]

48. What, you do not find posts about atheism interesting?

As a matter of fact, I do. As I do with almost any aspect of religion. Go on, count the posts. There are as many, if not more, about religion as there are about atheism.

Your reference to it as an obsession simply indicates to me that you know as much about obsession as you do about delusion.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Not the question. You use this forum to pander to your obsession with atheism.

Claiming others use this forum for their amusement seems just a bit hypocritical.

But no, most of your atheism obsession posts are boring. Some are ludicrous, and thus interesting, most are just clownish.

[rug]

50. I use this forum to discuss religion not to post cartoons.

Or flamebait with bullshit headlines like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121885066

[Warren Stupidity]

51. You use this forum as you see fit.

Castigating others for doing the same is just rank hypocrisy.

[rug]

52. The key word there is "fit".

And I will continue to call bullshit, bullshit.

If you don't like it, you have a safe haven to retreat to.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. I'm fine with your hypocrisy and apologetics.

You are a fine representative of your church.

[rug]

54. Lol, once more, name calling.

Now what is that?



Oh, yes. Bullshit.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. At least I didn't call you a bigot.

[rug]

56. No, you're nothing if not cautious.

All you said was that I'm obsessed, clownish and a hypocrite.

I'm glad you do not consider this Group a playground.

[cleanhippie]

37. You sound like those named in the documents who went to great lengths to protect the church.

Protect the Church, at all costs. Nothing else matters, the Church must survive.


Not that there was any doubt, but your position is clear.

I've nothing left but contempt for you.

[rug]

39. So, you think criticizing your editorializing is equivalent to shielding child molesters?

Take your contempt and give it to someone who values your opinion.

[idwiyo]

76. 'Few bad apples' doesn't fly anymore. Entire tree is rotten to the core, including most of the roots

[rug]

82. Neither does broad brush ignorant bullshit.

[idwiyo]

86. Institutionalised homophobia, misogyny, and protection of pedophile priests is are facts.

Deny it not going to change reality. But keep going, by any means.

[rug]

87. Is this news to you?

[idwiyo]

90. The level of denial and hypocrisy exhibited by some apologists is surprising, though not unexpected.

[rug]

91. The level of faux outrage directed at an institution already hated for less scandalous reasons does

bring hypocrisy to a new level.

[idwiyo]

93. Intolerance of institutionalised homophobia, and misogyny are "faux outrage"? Or is it condemnation

of institutionalised cover up of pedophilia that is "faux outrage"? Could you be more specific?

[rug]

95. Read the post again. It's crystal clear what I'm saying.

[idwiyo]

97. What "faux outrage" are you talking about?

[rug]

99. Your real outrage is against the Catholic Church.

Wrapping yourself in the mantle of a crusader against child abuse and misogyny is the faux outrage.

Prove me wrong. State something positive about it.

[idwiyo]

102. Opposition to death penalty.

[rug]

103. That's a good start.

There really is a lot more there than this current corruption.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. might want to fact check that.

the official position, last time I looked, is not categorical opposition to the death penalty.

[idwiyo]

106. I know. :) I am referring to 'Do not kill' message. Doesn't mean officially RCC fully supports it.

And never even mind the good proportion of the laity that embraces the death penalty with all their hypocritical hearts.

[idwiyo]

77. Homophobia and misogyny should be more than enough to stop me from associating myself

with any organisation that holds those beliefs. YMMV.

[rug]

83. By all means, don't let me stop you.

[idwiyo]

84. Not enough for you?

[rug]

85. I don't judge a horse by its asshole.

[idwiyo]

88. There is no horse. All that's left is an arsehole. Keep denying it though.

[rug]

89. I can see that.

[idwiyo]

94. Sure you do. :)

[rug]

96. I was referring to your second sentence.

[idwiyo]

98. I am glad you agree there is nothing left of the horse but one giant arsehole.

[rug]

100. Well, that's one way of looking at it.

Your actual words were.

All that's left is an arsehole.

[idwiyo]

101. Arsehole is arsehole, doesn't matter which way one looks at it. :)

Yes, those are my words. I had to take into account a possibility that there was a horse to start with. One can make an argument though that 'horse' was just a euphemism for arsehole.

[rug]

104. And we all have one.

[skepticscott]

107. Anything to defend

Child rapists and their enablers, homophobic bigots and unabashed sexism, eh ruggie?

Despicable and pathetic.

[rug]

110. Are you calling me a defender of child rapists, scottie?

[skepticscott]

111. Whatsa matter, ruggie?

Alerts not panning out like you prayed for? You know your apologetics and their purpose as well as anyone (except god, of course...he sees right into your heart and knows what you're defending, right?)

[rug]

114. I see you have the courage of your convictions scottie.

[trotsky]

4. Truly nausea-inducing.

There are so many faith communities that actually HELP people instead of hurting them, why on earth would someone want to continue propping these evil men up?

[cleanhippie]

41. Because there is a literal ARMY of obfuscating apologists to give them reason to stay.

One need only look upthread to see one of their soldiers fighting that battle right now using every weapon of obfuscation he posses.

It's those people, the apologists, who give the laity reason enough to stay. And when dealing with deeply-held beliefs that rely on everything BUT reason, sadly it's an easy task.

[rug]

57. Oh, bullshit.

Get off your high horse.

[cleanhippie]

62. Cinderella would be envious at how well your shoe fits.

[rug]

63. Do you believe in Cinderella?

[trotsky]

64. Ah, no wonder your reply to me is post #41.

I love the ignore feature.

[cleanhippie]

66. Like humblebum, I can't put him on ignore; the nonsense he spews is too entertaining.

It really is amazing how someone can be so obtuse about this issue. He does everything he can to obfuscate in order to protect his church. It's always the church that comes first, people, especially children apparently, take a back seat.
It's that attitude, protect the church at all costs, that has brought us to this point. So many children violated, so many lives destroyed. And for what? It's disgusting.

[Iggo]

115. That's just it. Humblebum was entertaining.

I was actually a little sad when he finally bit off more than he could chew attacking a group that has millions of allies, including hundreds on this very board, instead of sticking to atheists, who have so very few.

[hrmjustin]

43. This is very sad for the victims of this crime. I hope they get justice and I hope soon.

[cleanhippie]

44. They will never get justice until people stop making excuses for the Church.

[hrmjustin]

47. There needs to be complete sunlight on this.

It is the only way the church can atone for this.

[rug]

58. Hey, justin, a question if I may.

Do you agree with cleanhippie's edit of his OP?

The ENTIRE RCC is complicit in this. There is no longer any denying the extent to which the Catholic Church went to protect itself by protecting and enabling CHILD-RAPERS. Sorry, my Catholic friends, there is no longer any way for you to justify your continued patronage to this terrible, evil organization. IMO, any contribution you make to this horrible institution, be it your time, your money, or your butt in a pew, makes you part of the problem.

For all the alleged good one may be able to cite in other efforts of the Catholic Church, none of it even BEGINS to balance the scales. Justice begins with YOU. Will you stay and stand with your church or will you leave it to rot in the name of justice?

[hrmjustin]

59. No! I consider the Bishops politicians that have lost their moral authority but the Church is...

... something else to me. The Church is the people of God and The RC faith is bigger then the Bishops that run the place. I Say if you want to stay and fight and make the church accept it's sins in this issue then I say do it. Raise your voice. The RCC is not evil. The Bishops in my opinion have lost their moral authority for not standing up for what is right but these cast of characters that are in charge will pass from the scene. I say RCC members no matter what side of the isle they are politically or religious wise they all can agree this was wrong and they need to stand up and fight.

I do not like the Bishops of the RCC but I love the priesthood and the people of God who are the RCC and have always have been. No Rug you stay and fight to make the RCC a more welcoming and safe place. I do the same for my Church. No one should be ashamed for being a member of the RCC tradition, but the sins of the church absolutely yes.

It will take years to recover from this sin but do not be ashamed of your RCC faith tradition and the love of Christ it has taught. The Bishops should be ashamed because they allowed this and they thought money and bad press were more important then these kids.

[rug]

60. Thanks.

And I agree with you on the bishops.

[hrmjustin]

61. Yes The Bishops are not the church to me.

[okasha]

72. +100.

n/t

[cbayer]

69. Dolan needs to go. Sign petition at this link:

http://act.faithfulamerica.org/sign/dolan_resign/?akid=22.152230._x1jCa&rd=1&t=1

[trotsky]

70. Do you honestly think an Internet petition is going to influence either Dolan or the RCC?

I guess if it helps you feel like you did something, but let's be realistic here.

[rug]

75. What's the matter, you can't spare eight seconds to sign it?

It took you longer to type that post.

[skepticscott]

108. Tell you what

Why don't you spare eight seconds to condemn the Catholic Church as a rape-enabling, sexist, homophobic organization (I'd call it a cesspool, but that seems a bit much, and I wouldn't want you to get whiplash going for the alert button).

Let's not pretend that signing the cutesy and utterly meaningless petition touted by cbayer accomplishes anything whatsoever.

[rug]

109. I'll tell you what.

Why don't you take those hyperbolic epithets out of your mouth and engage your brain in some intelligent criticism?

Forget the petition. Counting flower petals while humming accomplishes more than the two dimensional crap you type.

[skepticscott]

112. Wow, that's the only alternative you can think of?

Your logic is breathtaking, ruggie.

And as far as intelligent criticism, I cater to my audience.

[rug]

113. Far from it.

[okasha]

73. Thanks.

Just signed.

[rug]

74. Ditto.

[cleanhippie]

79. Agreed. Great find, thanks for the assist.

[Goblinmonger]

80. I signed it but seems kind of pointless.

RCC hasn't given fuck all about what I think for quite some time. Like since birth. Not sure why they would start now.

[Marrah_G]

116. Well he can now expect to be transferred to Rome

and given a place of high honor!