nice folks still in the world

REVERSE COURSE ?


http://www.acronymfinder.com/RC.html

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:23:21 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

So yes, on the whole I reckon people are still good.

And you'll be aware of that if you pay attention to the people you
actually meet in the world instead of paying attention to TV and
interwebs news outlets. ;-)

About 10 years ago my wife lost her phone while we were out for a ride.
We split up to check along the route and on a whim I called her phone
from mine. A male voice answered and said "who's this?" I replied "the
husband of the owner of that phone." The voice replied, "well, this is
her father."

Turns out a young man found it on the side of the road and took it home
to his mother. She looked through the contact list and found one marked
"Mom & Dad" so she called it. My father in law went over and picked up
the phone and this nice young fella refused any reward. So my wife got
her phone back and this nice family went through a bit of bother to make
that happen.

Ever since I have tried to pay that back to the universe when I find
things like wallets (twice), credit cards, etc., and try to help them
get back to their rightful owners. What goes around, comes around.

And the idiotic child molestation gibe: that was pretty douche on a
couple of fronts. I know Mark from a couple of different forums and
he's a good guy. Branding someone a child molester simply because they
serve their faith personally with their time and effort is just a sad
exposure of your own problems and prejudices. And someone who's been
victimized by clergy probably doesn't need any snarky reminders about
it.

snarky reminders



https://www.google.com/#q=SPRINGTIME+For+hitler&tbm=vid

snarky reminders 2

https://www.google.com/#q=SPRINGTIME+For+hitler&tbm=vid

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pop...-children,101/

some background...

the subject is analogous ..... hahahhaha.... to cycling and fatal accidents...people Pol Pot for example or George Bush X do these acts on others continuously.

That Cleary, by his choice you know, offers a shot at parallel humor in no way denigrates Mark. The humor sets him apart, if you choose laughter.

On 11/12/2014 9:36 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:23:21 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

So yes, on the whole I reckon people are still good.

And you'll be aware of that if you pay attention to the people you
actually meet in the world instead of paying attention to TV and
interwebs news outlets. ;-)

About 10 years ago my wife lost her phone while we were out for a ride.
We split up to check along the route and on a whim I called her phone
from mine. A male voice answered and said "who's this?" I replied "the
husband of the owner of that phone." The voice replied, "well, this is
her father."

Turns out a young man found it on the side of the road and took it home
to his mother. She looked through the contact list and found one marked
"Mom & Dad" so she called it. My father in law went over and picked up
the phone and this nice young fella refused any reward. So my wife got
her phone back and this nice family went through a bit of bother to make
that happen.

Ever since I have tried to pay that back to the universe when I find
things like wallets (twice), credit cards, etc., and try to help them
get back to their rightful owners. What goes around, comes around.

And the idiotic child molestation gibe: that was pretty douche on a
couple of fronts. I know Mark from a couple of different forums and
he's a good guy. Branding someone a child molester simply because they
serve their faith personally with their time and effort is just a sad
exposure of your own problems and prejudices. And someone who's been
victimized by clergy probably doesn't need any snarky reminders about
it.


Or teachers, relatives, mother's new boyfriend etc. The
established churches have deep pockets but are not probably
all that different in their incidence than the general
population.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:52:10 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/12/2014 9:36 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

And the idiotic child molestation gibe: that was pretty douche on
a couple of fronts. I know Mark from a couple of different forums
and he's a good guy. Branding someone a child molester simply
because they serve their faith personally with their time and effort
is just a sad exposure of your own problems and prejudices. And
someone who's been victimized by clergy probably doesn't need any
snarky reminders about it.


Or teachers, relatives, mother's new boyfriend etc. The established
churches have deep pockets but are not probably all that different in
their incidence than the general population.

I've wondered about that and whether there is some self-selection of
people with these sorts of behaviors into the clergy, but apparently
not, as noted in the article below. Certainly sexual molestation by a
priest is much bigger news than sexual molestation by someone in most
other professions. It is seen as a bigger betrayal.

This is a Psychology Today article discussing this:

http://tinyurl.com/ycme6fl

"1. Catholic clergy aren't more likely to abuse children than other
clergy or men in general.

According to the best available data (which is pretty good mostly coming
from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
in 2004 as well as several other studies), 4% of Catholic priests in the
USA sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence
has been published at this time that states that this number is higher
than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4% figure appears lower
than school teachers during the same time frame and certainly less than
offenders in the general population of men. Research states that over
20% of American women and about 15% of American men were sexually
violated when they were children by an adult. Sexual victimization is
tragically fairly common in the general population but luckily these
numbers have been dropping in recent years. "

I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, was an altar boy, etc.,
and never had any untoward encounters with any of the priests. There
were no rumors of such going around among the kids. That doesn't mean
it didn't happen, of course, but I suspect there were many parishes
where abuse like this did not happen.

Something else I did not know:

"Most clergy sex offenders aren't pedophiles.

Research tells us that about 80% of clergy sex offenders abuse post
pubescent teens, not pre pubescent children. So, the phrase "pedophile
priest" is a misnomer. You might say that it doesn't matter. Both
categories involve victimizing minors. True, but the risk factor profile
as well as the evaluation and treatment prognosis is much different
between the two groups. Besides, while people may be worried about young
children being victimized they may neglect the more likely victim, the
teen."

Besides

duh....no one here give's a rat's ass. Good natured humor...on Clearly's trademark ID.

The analweiss from Springtime's stage show was well done, doahn you think ?

incidence of what ? running the show during the dark ages ?

Per Tim McNamara:
Certainly sexual molestation by a
priest is much bigger news than sexual molestation by someone in most
other professions. It is seen as a bigger betrayal.

My impression is that much or even most of society's indignation is
around the church hierarchy covering up/protecting the offenders - as
opposed to the fact that there are offenders.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 11/14/2014 8:27 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Tim McNamara:
Certainly sexual molestation by a
priest is much bigger news than sexual molestation by someone in most
other professions. It is seen as a bigger betrayal.

My impression is that much or even most of society's indignation is
around the church hierarchy covering up/protecting the offenders - as
opposed to the fact that there are offenders.


With no similar outrage for teachers' unions who defend that
more frequent class of offender.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

This thread is absolutely symptomatic of what makes RBT such an unpleasant place to be. It starts as a celebration of the fact that the majority of people are good, and within a handful of messages has degenerated into the resident scum calling someone a pederast merely because he celebrates his faith. And then those who should know better blithely continue discussing the subject of child molestation; do you guys actually intend to build on the insult to Mark, because that's what it will look like to an outsider reading this thread on the archive. And now the excuse will be a limply complaisant, "Well, that's the way the internet is."

You're disgusting, Gene Daniels.

Andre Jute