MISSION STATEMENT ... To celebrate where it's deserved! ... To take the Michael out of institutions and individuals where it's deserved! ...
Recently I had occasion to prepare my gravestone epitaph:
GENE...
Educator, Novelist,
Humanitarian and Humorist
- TO KNOW HIM WAS TO LOVE HIM -
Rest in Peace
....... But while I am still walking the earth do not hesitate to contact me at:
bobbyslingshot8@gmail.com
"Detterling you have a long history, both on the TES website and on my blog, of twisting others' words to suit your own nefarious purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious example of this concerns what I wrote about Delia. I wrote about mounting Delia from behind Doggy-style. You twisted this to make it appear that I had sodomised her." GENE
To which outstandingly crass, tone-deaf and dazzlingly nasty remarks, I replied:
"Because claiming that you had fucked my wife from behind was so much more tasteful than claiming you had sodomised her, wasn't it, Gene? a delicacy of expression to rival Jane Austen herself? you nasty, dirty minded little twat.
Only you, the nasty bastards' nasty bastard, could make such a dazzlingly crass remark. And you know perfectly well that I I knew perfectly well that you had not claimed to sodomise my wife. My repeated allegations were simply my way of paying you out in your own dud and bogus coinage - you find a way of inflicting pain and, when it works, you repeat it ad infinitum. If you can't take it, you shouldn't hand it out."
All of which was beside the point of Gene's vain and fruitless attempt to defend the indefensible Joseph Ratzinger.
Challenged four times to go ahead and disprove the facts below, Gene has instead resorted to his usual tactics of posting a new thread on an unrelated topic to try to push his humiliation down the page. What's the matter, Gene? the cat got your tongue?
You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.
FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981. FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years. FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics. FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were. FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.
Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.
I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.
In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.
"You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute."
Facts? The facts are that the first Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of this awful man was when in 1985 he was asked to arbitrate on Liesle's laicization. He did laicize Kiesle in 1987. Whether he was laicized in 1985 or 1987 is irrelevant. Kiesle was not acting as a priest. He would not have had any access to children had the State of California put him on the sex offenders register. The Church was not to blame. Cardinal Ratzinger was not to blame. The State of California was to blame. Those are the facts.
Why did Ratzinger apologise if he had nothing to apologise for?
Think about it.
FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981. FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years. FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics. FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were. FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.
Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.
I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.
Facts? The facts are that the first Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of this awful man was when in 1985 he was asked to arbitrate on Liesle's laicization. He did laicize Kiesle in 1987. Whether he was laicized in 1985 or 1987 is irrelevant. Kiesle was not acting as a priest. He would not have had any access to children had the State of California put him on the sex offenders register. The Church was not to blame. Cardinal Ratzinger was not to blame. The State of California was to blame. Those are the facts.
On March 22nd, Gene Vincent wrote:
ReplyDelete"Detterling you have a long history, both on the TES website and on my blog, of twisting others' words to suit your own nefarious purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious example of this concerns what I wrote about Delia. I wrote about mounting Delia from behind Doggy-style. You twisted this to make it appear that I had sodomised her." GENE
To which outstandingly crass, tone-deaf and dazzlingly nasty remarks, I replied:
"Because claiming that you had fucked my wife from behind was so much more tasteful than claiming you had sodomised her, wasn't it, Gene? a delicacy of expression to rival Jane Austen herself? you nasty, dirty minded little twat.
Only you, the nasty bastards' nasty bastard, could make such a dazzlingly crass remark. And you know perfectly well that I I knew perfectly well that you had not claimed to sodomise my wife. My repeated allegations were simply my way of paying you out in your own dud and bogus coinage - you find a way of inflicting pain and, when it works, you repeat it ad infinitum. If you can't take it, you shouldn't hand it out."
All of which was beside the point of Gene's vain and fruitless attempt to defend the indefensible Joseph Ratzinger.
Challenged four times to go ahead and disprove the facts below, Gene has instead resorted to his usual tactics of posting a new thread on an unrelated topic to try to push his humiliation down the page. What's the matter, Gene? the cat got your tongue?
You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.
FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981.
FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years.
FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics.
FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were.
FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.
Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.
I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.
In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.
"You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute."
ReplyDeleteFacts? The facts are that the first Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of this awful man was when in 1985 he was asked to arbitrate on Liesle's laicization. He did laicize Kiesle in 1987. Whether he was laicized in 1985 or 1987 is irrelevant. Kiesle was not acting as a priest. He would not have had any access to children had the State of California put him on the sex offenders register. The Church was not to blame. Cardinal Ratzinger was not to blame. The State of California was to blame. Those are the facts.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Well done Gene. Detterling well and truly kicked into touch.
DeleteSugarboy Nando
Why do only you and Richard Dawkins peddle this calumny Detterling? Think about it.
ReplyDeleteNonsense.
DeleteWhy did Ratzinger apologise if he had nothing to apologise for?
Think about it.
FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981.
FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years.
FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics.
FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were.
FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.
Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.
I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.
Facts? The facts are that the first Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of this awful man was when in 1985 he was asked to arbitrate on Liesle's laicization. He did laicize Kiesle in 1987. Whether he was laicized in 1985 or 1987 is irrelevant. Kiesle was not acting as a priest. He would not have had any access to children had the State of California put him on the sex offenders register. The Church was not to blame. Cardinal Ratzinger was not to blame. The State of California was to blame. Those are the facts.
Delete