The Connecticut Catholic bishops have issued a dire warning to the faithful that a proposal to lift the statute of limitations for victims of Church abuse to sue would threaten their very religion, putting “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” .
The Bishops warned that the right to sue “would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities.”
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to sue the Church.
The bill has some novel provisions. For example, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused. That itself raises some questions about the disparate treatment given victims. I have never seen such a provision in legislation.
For the full story, click here
FFLEO,
I should also thank you for your first post, it made me consider why I was doing this. As Jimmy Valvano said at the first ESPY awards, “If you’ve laughed, you’ve cried and you’ve thought, you’ve had a good day.” (Byron made me laugh until I cried in a personal email, so I got the trifecta yesterday…)
FFLEO said,
“I question neither your intellect nor your persistence. I try to read as much of this blawg as I can and when I observe good logic wasted without logical response—just repetitiousness—that prompts me to sometimes rail on the illogical party. Similarly, I do not bother anymore to read the “towers” thread where you post because I know the logic posited is asymmetrical.
I erred because I should have considered that you were performing a similar function in this thread that VT does in the Orly Taitz thread; that is, disallowing untenable statements/claims to stand by employing substantive refutations. Furthermore, I should have treated this thread as I do the conspiracy thread—I am not obligated to read either.”
Thank you (I consider the comparison to Vince high praise). And your logic, as usual, is impeccable. There are days when I wish that I didn’t feel obligated to post on the towers thread (although I have learned an enormous amount because of it – some of which I hope I have been able to pass along to those reading it). Hopefully one of these days I’ll get into an extended debate where the logic is symmetrical…
goneville,
If you are hanging around in spite of your last post, just make another post on this thread and I will respond as promised. If not, ciao.
FFLEO said,
I cringed when I read the praise that people above—some of whom I respect—gave you.
FF, there were only three he cited and he left me out 🙂
Bdaman said,
Look when you reinvent your new nom de plume, stop coping and pasting the questions like you do. It’s a dead give away and everyone here knows it. You are such an intelligent person and personally I like you. 🙂
FFLEO then said,
Why any intelligent person would continue to ‘argue’ with you is another conundrum.
Bdaman said,
30%er, I mean Gerty, my bad Jacob Marley just get over it and move on to the next. Why do you have to always revert back to having conversations with yourself. Didn’t you learn the first time.
The key: Why do you have to always revert back to having conversations with yourself.
and finally the answer
FFLeo said,
In my book, you project an abject psychiatrically disordered persona very similar to a previous poster who frequently changed his screen name upon exiting and reentering this blawg repeatedly.
Look who ever you are and I mean however many there are of you in one head. I’m not sure, but I think they call it multiple personality disorder.
It is apparent you are a very knowledgeable and a intelligent person or persons. Much more than myself and I mean that IN ALL HONESTY. Take my advice, go away and reinvent yourself. STOP COPING AND PASTING the way you do and STOP THE REPETITIVENESS and you will do fine. It is not often that one of the most respected commenters give a compliment as this one.
Vince Treacy said,
Goneville, thank you for bringing the fresh air of legal reasoning, historical fact, and actual case citations to this legal blog, a blog conducted by a law professor who is an expert on constitutional law. You are a welcome addition to our conversation.
Slartibartfast,
I question neither your intellect nor your persistence. I try to read as much of this blawg as I can and when I observe good logic wasted without logical response—just repetitiousness—that prompts me to sometimes rail on the illogical party. Similarly, I do not bother anymore to read the “towers” thread where you post because I know the logic posited is asymmetrical.
I erred because I should have considered that you were performing a similar function in this thread that VT does in the Orly Taitz thread; that is, disallowing untenable statements/claims to stand by employing substantive refutations. Furthermore, I should have treated this thread as I do the conspiracy thread—I am not obligated to read either.
FFLEO said:
“Why any intelligent person would continue to ‘argue’ with you is another conundrum.”
Well, since I hope you consider me intelligent and I would hate for you to have an unanswered conundrum, I’ll answer that question.
I got into this because I felt like goneville didn’t understand Gyges’ point or why he was leaving the argument but it seemed like he honestly wanted to debate (although, even then, he was taking umbrage at imagined slights (at least I couldn’t see them).
I posted:
To which he responded:
At this point it seemed pretty clear to me that he didn’t understand the nature of the theorem of Epicurus that Gyges had quoted and misunderstanding logic is something that bugs me (like misunderstanding science – which he was doing on the ‘Unnatural Selection’ thread). He also seemed to think that Gyges was upset, which to me was not in any way an accurate characterization of why Gyges left (to me he seemed uninterested – distracted by something shiny, I guess ;-)). So I tried to explain again (even threw in a Star Trek reference):
And he replied:
Since at this point it was clear to me that he was ignorant about logic, I got pedantic on his ass – which, you may have noticed, I do from time to time (it’s his right to be ignorant of science and logic, but if he’s going to parade it in front of me, I’m going to point it out and try to correct it). From that point, I lectured and he continued taking umbrage (not realizing that I was trying to establish a logical framework for the discussion rather than addressing any of his arguments). After 2 days of back and forth I had said my piece on logic (either he would have got it or I was never going to be able to explain it to him) at which point I felt obligated to address his arguments. To give him a chance I’ll keep this up for a while to see if he calms down and is willing to debate or if he continues with his persecution complex (or storms off in a huff) because I feel like people deserve the opportunity to change and because I am a very stubborn man (you just have to read through the 9/11 thread to see that – I’ve written 500 posts because Bob said I didn’t understand Ockham’s razor).
I hope that this clears up your conundrum (and doesn’t change your mind about my intelligence).
goneville,
I apologize for calling you a troll at one point (whatever you are, you are obviously not a troll), however I don’t apologize for calling you ignorant – I said that it wasn’t pejorative and explained why I see you as ignorant (about logic and science) and I stand by that. As I said before, everyone is ignorant about a wide range of topics and there’s nothing wrong with that (unless it’s willful Regardless of what you think, my refusal to respond to you until tomorrow afternoon has pretty much nothing to do with you (although if you hadn’t been so petulant, I would have taken this time to respond to you instead of FFLEO – or at least in addition to FFLEO). I have a meeting a 10 am and I had to prepare for it so I didn’t have the time to write post after post to answer each of your rants about how everyone is unfair, unreasonable, illogical and ganging up on you. I’ll be back sometime tomorrow and pick up responding to your arguments (which I never said you hadn’t made, I just asked you to repost because you are such a prolific poster and you’re kind of all over the place).
Slarti, just wanted to say aloha. While you are clearly biased and misrepresent my comments at least you included some debate with your insults of my intelligence. And for that matter so did Byron, and even Bdaman was reasonably unoffensive as the rodeo clown.
But with kooks like this starting to crawl out of the woodwork I won’t be sticking around to see your comments. I reported this disturbing attack by this person and will go find somewhere else to blog. So respond, don’t respond, it doesn’t matter now. You had 3 days to address my positions and you could not, and when I gave you the opportunity tonight you ran away claiming you’d answer it tomorrow so that’s pretty much mate. Anything you couldn’t say in three days isn’t worth hearing. So have at it. I won’t be reading it but tell yourself I am if it makes you feel better. This guy is obviously disturbed or unbalanced and given our discussion I think I’ve had enough of this. Goneville is gone.
And all I need to know about you is you’re obviously a nut, and in desperate need of psychiatric help yourself.
Is everyone in here a psychotic loon?
Excuse me? Do I know you or have I said anything to you?
I retrieved those posts to make the point that when you agree with people in these damn things they praise you but when you dare offer an opinion different, out come the kooks and aholes like you.
And out you crawled. Right on cue.
Gv-n-K
I cringed when I read the praise that people above—some of whom I respect—gave you. The fact that you took the time to retrieve those ‘praises’, illustrates all I need to know about you.
In my book, you project an abject psychiatrically disordered persona very similar to a previous poster who frequently changed his screen name upon exiting and reentering this blawg repeatedly.
Why any intelligent person would continue to ‘argue’ with you is another conundrum.
And Byron? Since you chose to ignorantly define me as a religious person after 3 days of clear and unmistakable statements to the contrary, I’ll let you in on a secret.
I grew up the grandson of a Methodist minister, who raised me from the time I was 4. Every day up until I was 16, we had to study the bible for an hour in the morning before school, and 3 to 4 times a week for an hour in the evening as a family, where our father (grandfather but we called him dad) would quiz us on what we had been studying that day. After 12 years of that I like to kid people that I’ve “forgotten more about the bible than most preachers know”, lol.
But that in no way means I am religious. We did it like a chore. Like yard work, or school homework. One of my sisters went on to serve in an overseas mission but its more of a peacecorp type of thing. None of us actually grew up to be religious. I think my brother goes to church once in a while, but I never did. I used to skip all the time. From the time I was a little boy, Sunday meant hiding out by the dumpsters, smoking cigarettes with the ushers and helping to park cars.
When my grandfather died when I was 17, I never went back again. So no. I’m not religious. I know a bit about the Christian faith, particularly from a Methodist’s perspective but that doesn’t mean I’m religious.
Three days ago, Gyge’s presented a statement to me that framed God as evil. Knowing that doctrine does not coincide with the Christian doctrines I know so well, I decided to offer an alternative way of looking at it.
That’s it.
That’s all I did.
I offered a simple, alternative way to look at things based on what the Christian doctrine in the New Testament proposes.
I never said it was “right”. I just expressed the concepts that my I learned from my pa, and that many many “good” people I know believe.
They don’t believe in an “evil god”. They believe in a good one. And they’re not stupid people. Many of them are scientists themselves, and doctors, lawyers, etc. So I offered a different way of looking at it.
And that made Gyges storm off in a huff insinuating I was ignorant, and Slarti attack me for three days, literally calling me ignorant and ignoring the rationale’s I provided by lying, and pretending I had not.
And when I present them again, even going as far to reprinting them Slarti declares “I will address them tomorrow”. lol
So no, I’m not religious and I don’t think the people I’ve met so far are as intelligent as they like to tell each other they are. At least not Slarti, or Gyges, or you. Well in all fairness I have to remove Gyges from that equation, because I don’t know how smart he is or isn’t because he ran off as soon as I presented an alternative opinion. So I can’t say anything about Gyges other than allude to his Georgie-Porgie-like stratagem. But I can say that Slarti’s PHD hasn’t helped him be honest, nor fair, nor reasonable, nor any sort of expert on logic.
3 Days ago I posted my positions, and for 3 days, you and Slarti have been misrepresenting them and ignoring them and focusing on personal character attacks on me. Lecturing me on how to debate, lecturing me on what to believe, lying about what I said, ignoring what I said, misrepresenting what I said, …and when I reprint what I said, …Slarti declares, “I’ll deal with it tomorrow”.
Clearly the intent here is obvious and there’s not much I can do about it other than find another blog. Which is likely at this point what I will end up doing. Because it seems like many of the more wacked out liberal blogs this one too has the same sort of authoritarian control. When you’re agreeing with the incumbent leaders of the blog then you are acknowledged and praised as I was just a few days ago;
*************************************
rafflaw 1, April 10, 2010 at 11:31 pm
goneville,
There you go again…trying to use facts to prove your argument! Good job.
*************************************
Blouise 1, April 11, 2010 at 1:34 am
what rafflaw said
goneville-n-keys wins … no “alleged” about it
*************************************
Vince Treacy 1, April 11, 2010 at 9:45 am
Goneville, thank you for bringing the fresh air of legal reasoning, historical fact, and actual case citations to this legal blog, a blog conducted by a law professor who is an expert on constitutional law. You are a welcome addition to our conversation.
***************************************
But as in many progressive blogs, if you say anything that goes against the atheist doctrines that rule these places now, you are instantly labeled ignorant and dismissed without anyone bothering to actually read your arguments, prior to condemning them.
And this is demonstrated by the fact that Gyges stormed off, and for 3 days Slarti has refused to even acknowledge the position I presented. Even though I repeatedly reprint it for him to address. And when I finally reprint it in a way where he has no room to wriggle around it, he declares “I’ll address it tomorrow”.
So no, I don’t think this blog is much different than I’ve seen from the others, I’ve had similar discussions in other liberal blogs when I dared mention anything remotely supportive of the folks you call “believers” or corrected some misconception that in any way does not promote the atheist doctrine.
When a guy has to parade his PHD in math during a discussion over a theological issue, while at the same time calling his opponent ignorant and hunting for typos in other threads to belittle him with, all the while refusing to not only address his positions but even acknowledge that they exist, well.
There’s a name for that.
And its called troll. At least that’s what guys like you call it when the other guys doing it.
Anyway there’s some more of my guts spilled out for you. Have at rewriting them to completely change everything I said. I’m sure Slarti will.
It gives him a new diversion to avoid having to address the position he’s been dodging for three days now.
This seems to be a common theme among atheists whenever they are confronted by someone who is not religious, but does not ascribe to their own particular brand of beliefs.
Its like the mind of the atheist cannot seem to get around the notion that not everyone who doesn’t believe in a god or religion, thinks like them.
Its a totalitarian viewpoint to be sure, and one that puts that sort of atheist on the same plane as the religious nuts. Its like they cannot have a rational conversation with anyone who doesn’t either agree with their views, or oppose them.
They have no room in their fanatical doctrines for any independent thought.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 9:47 pm
goneville:
because you are a smart guy and apparently religious. I know a couple of other smart people who are religious and they took both Latin and Greek to better understand the Bible. So I thought you might have as well.
***********************************
Ok. I get it now.
Apparently this is some concerted effort to make me upset by lying and being purposely obtuse.
Both you and Slarti have the same MO.
I’m not going to say “I’m not religious” again (other than to say that I’m not going to say it, lol).
You lose.
I already repeatedly made it clear I was NOT religious in any way, and apparently both Slarti and you are determined to lie about that.
You’re both now proven liars, and if that’s what this blog is about, then perhaps my assessment of this as a great blog was premature.
goneville:
because you are a smart guy and apparently religious. I know a couple of other smart people who are religious and they took both Latin and Greek to better understand the Bible. So I thought you might have as well.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm
They just think your logic is flawed on a particular issue.
*******************************************
Really?
Well that’s mighty intuitive of you considering neither of them has addressed them yet.
Why would you think I read Latin?
goneville:
I thought you might read latin. That is from St. Thomas’s “Opera Omnia” Book 3.
Yea, I thought so Slarti.
Demand I reprint my comments, then declare you’ll “deal with them tomorrow”.
They were there three days ago troll.
And the same ones will be waiting for you tomorrow, when you still won’t be able to deal with them.
Bdaman,
Cool.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 8:47 pm
goneville,
I am sincere about discussing things
**********************************
No, I think you’re a liar. Sincere people don’t pretend that they don’t see the positions that were made by ignoring them for three days until they’re shoved so far in your face that you can’t pretend you don’t see them.
Think about it.
For THREE days you ignore the positions, demanding I present them when in fact I keep repeating them for you.
And EACH time I repeat them, suddenly you “disappear”.
Each time I represent my positions, you suddenly scurry off.
“oh, I’ll deal with them tomorrow Goneville”.
The same ones!
And you NEVER DEAL WITH THEM!
You just come back, and start in on a new diversion. That’s it. That’s all you do.
You can’t deny it because the words are there. I made them THREE DAYS ago. I reprinted them over and over for you, then, yesterday, today.
And each time I do, suddenly you “have to go”.
Suddenly you’ll “deal with them tomorrow”.
After you write some long winded, self gratuitous braggart book about how much smarter you are than me, without ever bothering to address the simple concept I introduced.
All I ever expected was an honest discussion with you and you can’t do it. Talk to me like a man. One on one. Screw your books, and carefully prepared self proclamations.
Just talk to me, one on one, that’s all I ever asked.
And you can’t do it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/14/scientists-gene-swap-technique-disease