Summations Only

It's been a bit busy and I haven't checked my personal email lately, but I think Rachel is just another victim. In his email to Rachel, Paul tried to make it seem like I was attacking her rather than questioning Paul's own credentials, credibility and integrity. He suckered her, because that's what guys like him do, they sucker people (he suckered Faith, too, but of course that's no big accomplishment).That's why I advised Rachel that she should take care who she accepts as clients. To Rachel Paul is a valued client, but to Paul she's just one more instrument for helping him construct a false picture of respectability. Like faux creation scientists seeking credibility by publishing in "journals", Paul seeks credibility by having bookstores and reviews and radio appearances he can reference, apparently not understanding that we don't really care what he claims other people think of his ideas. We're quite capable of judging his ideas for ourselves, which is I think why he's become increasingly reluctant to discuss them.Paul's last refuge seems to be playing the bias card. It's weird that he doesn't seem to understand that for the most part the other participants in this thread are no friend to organized religion in general or the Catholic church in particular. No one's labeling his ideas garbage out of love for the Catholic church or the Jesuits. They're labeling his ideas garbage because that's what they are, almost self-evidently so.--Percy

But is it even possible to gain even a veneer of respectability for this subject matter? Aren't there, after all, just a predisposed few who are ever going to give any significant credence to Paul's claims, compared to the majority who wouldn't get within smelling distance of the entire topic?An internet search tells me about Jesuit plots to kill Lincoln and JFK, to sink the Titanic, and to cause the 2008 financial crisis. It must surely be difficult for even a well endorsed book to rise up out of that mire.

If you're asking about the general public, there's little doubt in my own mind that a significant proportion would find the way he's framed his claims very convincing.--Percy

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what it!

Interesting. I wonder what he "suckered" me about. He wrote a book I've had for some time on a long list of resources about Vatican/Jesuit behind-the-scenes manipulations of events, a book I still intend to read. In fact I recently ordered it and expect to read it in the near future. Never had any contact with the guy himself until he showed up at EvC.And his book would only confirm information available elsewhere in any case. Chiniquy's few chapters on the Lincoln assassination in his lengthy autobiography are quite credible to an honest reader who doesn't have a bias against the idea that the Vatican/Jesuits do manipulate events.THAT bias of course can't exist, according to EvC regulars, can it? No, that's just good thinking, the bias is on the other side. You guys are hilarious, and you have no idea how insular you are here with your smug self-righteous opinions.I also wonder what "guys like him" means. Just another EvCism, a pronouncement of judgment from which there is no appeal. Fortunately EvC is not the arbiter of all truth, reason and ethics it thinks it is.

Into believing the crap he was peddling. You mean readers who are unaware of the actual events. Yeah, it's easy to convince those readers...the dumb ones. I wouldn't call them "honest" readers though. I'm sure you do know, but just in case: People who make it a habit to fool the gullible; also: swindlers, peddlers of crap, frauds, charlatans, cheats, deceivers, literary scoundrels, etc....- Oni

A PERFECT EVCism there, perfect as to bias, attitude, self-righteousness, unwarranted certainty, blindness to the point being made. Way to go, onifre.

I grew up in a fundamentalist environment with an anti-Catholic bias. (I remember telling a friend in 1963 that JFK wouldn't be in heaven because he was a Catholic.) You also seem to find Serup "quite credible" though he hasn't provided any reason here why you should. The "evidence" he gave me was nothing but wild speculation.

Faith - Given that we are all such aholes why do you still participate here?I'm not trying to get rid of you at all. I'm just perplexed as to why you continue here given what you say about the participants, moderators, bias etc. etc. etc.

Uh, yeah, an ANTI-Catholic bias is the only kind EvCers will allow to be bias. It's the bias that calls it unfounded conspiracy theory to suggest the Vatican and/or Jesuits manipulate events that's the bias that can't be a mere bias according to EvC, the bias you NOW share. I don't think he did a good job of defending his views here, but I expect his book to be a collection of the evidence that confirms Chiniquy because of the research he did over the years into old newspaper accounts and other historical material. Funny nobody here has read his book but you KNOW it's nothing but bias and "hucksterism" anyway. SUCH integrity, SUCH perspicacity.Since I haven't read his book yet I haven't said anything about finding him credible, only Chiniquy. But I long ago gave up expecting to be represented fairly at EvC so who cares.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks, Faith! I try. Can I count on a post of the month vote from you? I assume that last post of mine will be receiving at least one nomination.- Oni

I keep leaving and then coming back to answer something particularly outrageous but I'll eventually leave for good. As to why, I continue to have hope that I might find a glimmer of reason here after all. Hard to believe there exists such a place with such an ironclad dedication to unreason as I find here. But you all continue to be that place. Amazing.

This is pretty ironic coming from you.Your posting history is one of denying, ignoring, or obfuscating any form of evidence or logic that contradicts your elaborate belief system, which is based on ancient tribal superstitions.Pot, meet kettle!

How do you think I went from an anti-Catholic bias all the way through zero to what you seem to think is a pro-Catholic bias?I'm not pro-Catholic, by the way. I couldn't care less if there was a Catholic conspiracy to rule the world or whatever. After all, it isn't working, is it? Maybe there's hope for you yet. I, for one, don't claim to "know" any such thing. Your bias is flashing like a neon sign.I repeat, I am open to any evidence of a Catholic conspiracy to rule the world or whatever. Nobody here has shown any.

Well I have very little positive to say about the Catholic church.But Paul Serup's claims seem pretty out there and, based on his contribution here, rather poorly evidenced. Frankly he seems to be a bit of a crank.I haven't been inspired to seek out his book and I'm curious as to what it is about it that persuaded you to actually purchase it?