Categories
Uncategorized

THE BLOG LETS PELL PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.

PAT SAYS.

I watched this interview very carefully and I think that Pell and Bolt establish a strong arguement.

Pell is either innocent of the charges against him or he is a powerful actor with massive arrogance.

I do think there are grounds for a public inquiry into the matter, with particular reference to the Victoria Police, the appeal court judges and the national TV channel ABC.

My feelings about Pell’s guilt was based more on the Balarat accusations that the Victoria ones.

I really do not know what to think now.

I do think that the police, the courts and ABC need to answer the Pell / Bolt points.

Pell was restraining himself about Rome and the boyos in it.

I bet he knows a great deal more than he let’s on.

83 replies on “THE BLOG LETS PELL PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.”

I watched Bolt and other journalists condemn outright the behaviour of their colleagues in the media. I accept Pell’s innocence. I believe there should be a public enquiry into journalists and media people about their concerted efforts to lie, lie and lie by horrible innuendos, speculation and their bigotry against the Church. This dirty lot who should be exposed deserve prison for their sustained campaign to bring down Cardinal Pell. They have much to answer.

Like

9.23: I have read as much as possible, both negative and positive on Cardinal Pell and have followed all analysis from the beginning. You obviously haven’t done so. Continue making cheap, shallow and infants soundbyte, the typical response of haters. You, sir, are the sack of shit and barrels full of it. Thank God Cardinal Pell was acquitted. Thank God.

Like

But Pat, your critics are always moaning that you only ever present a one-sided narrative (they ignore the fact that your narrative is usually deadly accurate).
You’ve proved them wrong 🤩

Like

Remember, Bp, Pat, this is the same George Pell who insisted he was ‘too ill’ to fly home to Australia to face questioning at the Child Abuse Royal Commission and was subsequently photographed in the Piazza Navona tucking into a hearty meal of steak and chips washed down with beer.

The same Pell who submitted a two-page medical report which stated a flight to Australia to give evidence would severely impact his health and possibly lead to ‘heart failure’ yet now he is planning to spend “little visits to Rome.”

Don’t get taken in by him, Bp Pat, please!

Like

9.14: Truth is difficult to believe: lies are easier to believe. You have chosen the latter. Get over your virus of hatred against Cardinal Pell. He was acquitted of all charges.

Like

10.05

MAGNA CARTA

I believe Pell’s accuser, a person who has behaved with extraordinary and exemplary dignity throughout this process, especially in face of the High Court judgement in Pell’s favour.

This man could teach the Bishop of Rome how not to behave, given that Pope Francis seriously impugned ‘Witness J’ after Pell’s acquittal in a none-too-subtle denouncement in his Easter message, and without a single shred of evidence against the man. But then, Pope Francis seems given to impugning others in this way: he behaved in similar fashion to the Chilean abuse survivors only a couple of years ago, and later had to make a public, and humiliating, apology for it.

Like

Listening to Pell I compared him with Prince Andrew as interviewed in Buckingham Palace. That was to set the bar very low, no doubt, but for what it’s worth Andrew came across as shifty in the extreme and Pell came across as strong and convincing.

Like

“Pell was restraining himself about Rome and the boyos in it.”

But “boyos” did everything they could to help him get away from Australia in the first place.

His appointment at the Vatican was bogus and just play-acting. Like the interview with Bolt.

Like

MAGNA CARTA

Pat, I sent you a post very early this morning, but it has not been published. Did you get it?

Like

Sorry to hear that.

I’ll try posting again, this time from my tablet rather than my phone. It means, though, that the blue avatar will not appear, but the post will still be mine.

Like

MAGNA CARTA

I am surprised, Pat, that you were sympathetically influenced by an ‘interview’ that was more a eulogy to Pell than a professionally objective enquiry; in fact, I don’t believe it is stretching the truth to describe it as quintessentially sycophantic. For these reasons, I refuse to call it ‘an interview’ when it was, in my opinion, more a catwalk for Pell to swagger as a stoic, long-suffering martyr and hero, with a Christ-like capacity for forgiveness. This show was a veritable canonisation of Pell without the Roman ceremonial.

contd

Like

contd from 9.52 am

MAGNA CARTA

Pell, clearly, was among friends here, and he knew it; no wonder he looked relatively relaxed for most of the time.

I was both surprised and amused at the end of the show, when Bolt, without any sense of irony in what he was about to say, declared that he was not going to tell viewers what to think about Pell. But this is precisely what Bolt had been doing from the get-go, with his introductory, five-minutes testimonial to Pell, and by his intermittent grandstanding throughout the show on the trial itself and on the presumed anti-Pell prejudice and malice of others.The truth is that Bolt tried, ceaselessly, to tell viewers what he believed they should think, not least by that carefully configured tableau, with a crucifix in soft focus on a wall just behind Pell and visible for most of the show, with its emotive, subliminal linking of Pell to the suffering Christ. It was hardly subtle. If any adult believes that this show was an example of objective, investigative journalism, he’s worringly impressionable.

contd

Like

contd from 10.12

MAGNA CARTA

To me, the most damning part of the show was Pell’s attempt to state the motive of his accuser, ‘Witness J’. The questions about this person are obvious, and require serious answers. Why did an intelligent man like ‘- J’ (university-educated) make such an outrageous accusation against one of the most prominent and influential men in the Catholic Church when he had absolutely no axe to grind…other than his claim that he was sexually abused by Pell? Even Pell himself did not admit that ‘-J’ had other grounds for a grudge against him. And why did ‘-J’, if he had a grudge, contextualise his allegation in such a seemingly implausible way, one easily challenged and, perhaps, easily defeated (and one that was eventually defeated in the Australian High Court)? Pell answered he suspected that ‘-J’ had been used by others, but provided absolutely no evidence for this convenient conspiracy theory.

There were no probing questions by Bolt at this point; no wondering how on earth ‘-J’ could have any links to Pell’s supposed enemies in the Vatican and/or his supposed enemies in Australia. In fact, Bolt asked no questions at all. If Pell had written the script, he could not have done so more sympathetically to himself.

contd

Like

contd from 10.36 am

MAGNA CARTA

My conviction that Pell committed these crimes has deepened since watching this show, as has my suspicion that Pell is, if not a full-blown sociopath, then someone with strong, sociopathic characteristics. And sociopaths, by nature, can be consummate and convincing liars.

Remember Pell did not tell the truth, persuasively so, when he was interviewed about the statement from the parents of two young Australian girls who had been seriously sexually assualted by a priest or brother. The parents met with Pell and showed him a photograph of one of the girls, now older, after she had slight her wrists. The photograph was shocking, memorably so; yet Pell, during the interview, categorically denied ever having viewed it. Some considerable time later, he finally admitted that he did, after all, see the photograph.

I hope that ‘-J’ becomes so sickened by the Pell-fest now underway that he comes out of anonymity to challenge what this man is saying about himself, and what he is implying about ‘-J’ .

Like

9.52am: Margie Dear, as you might say with begrudgery and hate, there are always a myriad of strands to every story. In this instance Cardinal Pell (proper titles please) was found not guilty of the outrageously trumped up charges (by a biased, vicious, anti church media) placed against him. From the beginning there were many unbelievables in this story. Those who pieced together this outrage of injustice should be hounded by an inquiry and displayed in all their horrible seriousness and lies. Marge, you claim to believe in a “god” – if so why not aspire to the ideals of mercy, truth, justice, forgiveness and spiritual compassion. Your supposed concern for the accuser has not been mentioned once: instead you’ve ranted in faux outrage against the free and good Cardinal Pell. Get a grip Margie Dear.

Like

Anon @10:13: Your comment is simply an anti Magna rant in which you do not in any way contest the significant points he made. For that reason your comment is of no value other than to display your own bias.
MMM

Like

9.44: Magna, what “tablet” do you depend on for daily sustenance or what “tablet” sends you rocketing into extreme faux angst – we can almost hear the loud take off noises.. zoooooommm..boooooom…..🎃🎃🎃😅😣😣😆😆🐃🐃🐃🐃🐱🐱🤣🤣🎉🎉🎉…you’re a howl!!

Like

9.52: You, Crap Hating Carta are the quintessentially sycophantic lump – always lurking around, like satan, to smash and tear apart anyone with A CATHOLIC IDENTITY. It ain’t working. God is stronger than you. Love is stronger than hate, light prevails iver darkness. Try to climb out of your misery. Take a cliff walk. Go through the fields. Give gratitude for a new day. Be grateful for life. Enjoy fresh air and maybe vomit your hatred in the open to clear the bucket loads still within you.

Like

He is a snake in a collar, Bp Pat, and I expect you have met many of them in your time, except Pell is the biggest most slitheriest one of em all.

Like

“I really do not know what to think now.”

I wonder what Fr Sugar Ray Kelly thinks, Bp Pat? He has an opinion on everything else.

Like

11.09: What is it you don’t understand about the word “acquuttal”…? Cardinal Pell is INNOCENT. Go and get a life. Your insulting is tiresome.

Like

Magna = repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat……..all this outpouring of hatred has happened all too frequently. What page of repeat dossiers are you stalled in for today…? There is justuce and we are all entitled to it: Cardinal Pell has rightfully received it. You, poisonous virus cannot undo this JUSTICE.

Like

11.46

MAGNA CARTA

God can, and will, undo every lie, every deceit; every self-defence and every unwarranted self-justification.

Those souls hardened beyond persuasion of their guilt will flee from this scrutiny (judgement) and condemn themselves forever.

The condemnation will not be God’s, but theirs alone.

Repent, while their is still time.

Like

11.58: Magna, why is it always other people? God will definitely undo YOUR lies, vulgarity, blasphemy, deceit, hatred, arrogance, nastiness….all the hate speech, all your horribleness. Remember you too face God’s judgment. If you believe this truly in your heart, you might behave more humanely. Criticise all who do serious, criminal wrong but you cannot play ‘god’ in dispensing your flawed, bigoted code of justice. Never.

Like

Frankly if it came to it I would rather burn in hell with Magna Carta than be in heaven with some of the unpleasant priestly characters who comment here.
I say if it came to it… If you truly believe in an all-knowing God then you will also believe that that judgement will be by God’s own light not ours.
Do these priests believe in God? They don’t behave as if they do. In fact I think the fact these priests are so riled by the composite Magna Carta character indicates that they are far from God.
Has it struck any of you that God could be trying to talk to you both through Magna Carta and through Pat Buckley, whose ministry is nothing if not prophetic.
In fact both of these people bear the hallmarks of prophets.

Like

MC: ‘Yes. Pell is a pedophile.”

Australian High Court, unanimously: ‘No. Not on these charges (or any other), he’s not.”

QED

Like

12.07

MAGNA CARTA

Another lie, by another misguided Pellite.

The Autralian High Court did not declare Pell a non-paedophile, but merely that his conviction for various sexual crimes against two 13-year-old boys was unsafe. This is far from being a declaration that the offences did not occur; merely that they had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in a lower court.

You see the difference? It is not a nuance, but a semantic chasm; so it shouldn’t be difficult to tell them apart.

Not even for a Pellite. 😕

Like

Alvin says:

12.07, the High Court was not asked about any other charges. It has been arranged (by some) for there not to be charges in regard to the cover up of the cover up, and it was arranged (by some) to delay until the original cover uppers died.

Like

11.58: Magna, you are right: Let the invitation to repent be applied to you also. You have much to repent of, not least your blinded self defence and unrestrained self justification of your arrogance, disrespect and ugliness of commentary. It’s such a shame because your opinions would be more respected if you buried your offensive, unjust, vitriolic rage. There are many good priests. You know that.

Like

12.40

MAGNA CARTA

I know only what I know. And I know that men who vow or promise obedience to an institution, historically and serially corrupt in the most extreme degree, are not free to be good without restraint, because their mentor and master is that very institution, not the Christ.

It is not an intellectual leap too far to grasp this truth, since it is well within the understanding of most priests. But it takes humility and integrity first to embrace it, and this is well beyond the reach of virtually all priests.

Like

12.07: Magna is beyond grasping the verdict of the court system who have found Cardinal Pell NOT GUILTY. As you say: QED….Quod Erat Demonstrandum: (that which was to be demonstrated)…Pell’s innocence and verdict of NOT GUILTY clearly demonstrated.

Like

So far today we have 9 comments from Me Me Me Cartiewheels. Pat, what’s happening? He’s running people away faster than Roadrunner….Counsel him to get a life before he’s run over.

Like

1.00 and 1.29: Magna, you are gettung the message: YOU CANNOT UNDO THE JUSTICE given to Cardinal Pell. Your retrospective musings are supercilious. The LAW OF THE COURT has beaten.you.

Like

1.57

MAGNA CARTA

You credit me with much-too-much power.

But God can, and will, undo every injustice, every lie.

And woe to the one who clings possessively to them.

Like

1.22: You are obviously not knowledgeable about the Old Testament Prophets. To state that Pat and Magna are prophets is risible. They are both too arrogant and self righteous, too entrenched in vengeance and hatred against their imagined enemies. Neither off then spark much inspiration and not once during the Holy Week and Easter Feasts did either of them make reference to Jesus. In fact they used the tragedy of the CORONAVIRUS to shoot their hate against the Church. Outrageous abuse. I find the prophets through Br. Kevin, Sr. Stan, Fr. McVerry, Simon Community, Alone Charity, Alice Leahy’s TRUST, Sr. Consilio, St. Vincent de Paul, Age Action: these groups and individuals are the true prophets who shake indifference, apathy and unjust politics These all make a difference. Everyday in our parish I witness the gentle, quiet prophets of compassion, mercy, charity, prayer and wonderful CHRIST-LIKE living. Some of our priests behave similarly and in these days their ministry is of imnense comfort to the sick, the dying and bereaved families. Magna’s viciousness warrants challenging and correcting. If you find any clerical comment defending their integrity, that’s our right in justice and truth.

Like

2.11

MAGNA CARTA

Ever wonder who inspired me to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a whore?

Try reading the prophet Isaiah. 😕

Like

‘Some’ of our priests behave similarly.
ROFL you genuinely couldn’t make that up.
Thank you for acknowledging that the clergy of your church are mainly rag-tag and bobble tail chances, only interested in sex, drink and money, with the odd one who is somehow interested in behaving with holiness.

How did those few slip through?

I do get that it’s very difficult for Catholics, when your church has basically shot itself in the foot for the past five decades.
However I don’t think the reaction to that should be that you are persecuted and make out people hate you.
It must be difficult to make sense in your own head of belonging to a religion with such a bad reputation. Getting defensive and keeping repeating that there is good in the church will not persuade anyone else of this and gives the impression you are defending the indefensible.

Like

3:47
The percentage of clergy and other religious who sexually abused children is proportionately equivalent to the percentage of the general population who do so.

Child sexual abuse is a current reality in the world, and not just a thing of the past.

Like

From Alvin: “Communion” has been stretched beyond snapping point by a range of developments. Genuine faithful do not owe loyalty except to individuals.

Like

Another classic defence strategy by generalisation.
How ought Christians respond to belonging to a body which rightly or wrongly has become identified with corruption and abuse?

Like

Well said at 2:11
The commentator knows nothing about biblical prophecy.

The words of the prophets were consistent with the main thrusts of the biblical messages.

In the case of MC’s outpourings here what (s)he writes is the diametric opposite to the central themes of both testaments.

MC is a sociopathic, delusional religious nutter.

Like

And what about prophecy in your daily life? I’ve known many priests who were scriptural ignoramuses.

Like

Lol I was actually making a sarcy comment to the people who said I don’t know about prophecy.
I quite take your point about prophecy in daily life and I stand by my point that you say things people don’t want to hear and they react badly 🤗

Like

Anon 4:32. And your research evidence on this matter is……..?
Kindly clarify for us please, as I for one would wish to have an erroneous perception corrected.
Furthermore you equate the level of clerical sexual abuse with that of the general population. That’s an interesting comment and perhaps unwittingly reveals something of your slant on the gravity or otherwise of abuse by these self professed paragons of religious propriety.
[Aw sure they’re only human like everybody else………?]
MMM

Like

4:32 pm

What’s your source for claiming proportionality with the general population re CSA.
Regardless, the Church had a worldwide systemic policy of covering up to ‘manage’ the problem of child sexual abuse. It was Church policy from the top.
That is as bad a crime in many respects.

Like

Vivian Waller, who served as legal counsel for the alleged victim in the Pell case, has said she has at least eight other civil claims ready to go against the prelate, claiming he either engaged in sexual abuse or covered up abuse committed by others.

There are also reports that police in Australia’s state of Victoria are investigating a separate charge of abuse that dates back to the 1970s, when Pell was a priest in his hometown of Ballarat. It’s possible the investigation could lead to a new indictment.

Like

Thank you @2:27.
Bring it on!
There’s no smoke without a pyre! Ahem
And with apologies to Shakespeare: There’s something rotten in the state of………,
Well take your pick, really.

Like

Vivian Waller means that none of these civil cases has sufficient evidence for criminal prosecution, which, given how low the bar is set by the Victoria Police, who have been desperate to throw anything at the Cardinal, suggests that the claims lack all credibility. As Andrew Bolt’s superb interview makes clear there have been 24 or 25 other cases – the number unsurprisingly grows all the time as the Police went out recruiting accusers – and all of them even more flimsy than the charges which eventually got the Cardinal convicted and then acquitted. The integrity of the Victorian police and justice system as well as the appalling ABC has been shot to bits. I would never have thought it would have taken a Sky journalist to expose that kind of corruption, but so it did, and it is a wake up call for everybody, including me, who had naïvely believed public bodies and publicly funded broadcasters were more worthy of trust than more swash-buckling providers such as Sky News.

Like

What possible reason could someone have for posting such a picture?

Is she or he thereby attempting to deal with resentment and vengeance?

Like

From Alvin: I agree with much of Magna’s analysis but it is far worse than Magna’s sometimes simplistic statements convey.

1. Take a look at this and the bit that discusses a named official:

http://abyssum.org/2020/04/15/george-cardinal-pell-says-that-some-senior-people-in-the-vatican-believe-that-others-in-the-vatican-were-linked-responsible-for-to-his-imprisonment/

GP’s tendency to finagle the cover up of the cover up, on which Bolt didn’t press enough, happens to suit the motives of handlers and elbow-joggers.

2. The witness is low down in the pecking order both for the police/prosecutors, and the handlers/elbow joggers.

3. GP & colleague genuinely rattled financial crooks and I am glad of that part of the outcome (though less than we hoped).

4. The real casualty all along has been justice and civilisation, far more than any religion (both GP and his opponents ignore this).

5. As a random agnostic former fringe layman, I have personal information from a number of persons corroborating several of the above angles.

Like

4.50

MAGNA CARTA

You accuse my statements of sometimes being ‘simplistic’? Which statements? And what SOLID evidence have you for this?

Speculation here is not evidence, but tendency to unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. And this is precisely what the link you provide confirms. Even Pell admits that there is no evidence for a flight of fancy.

The speculation provides, in my opinion, a convenient smokesreen in which to hide a highly pertinent point: Why would a rational, intelligent man like ‘Witness J’, who had no axe to grind and nothing to loose, accuse a prominent cardinal of the Catholic Church of such vile crimes… if he weren’t telling the truth?😕 Without this smokescreen, the question would remain a fixation in the public consciousness…and ‘Holy Mother Church’ does not like loose ends.

Forgive me, but your post is, well, vague and incoherent. Are you well?

Like

It would be interesting if Cardinal Pell was to volunteer to take a Polygraph Test, administered by an expert and for an expert in Statement Analysis to analyse this interview to explain definitively whether or not Cardinal Pell is telling the truth?

If Cardinal Pell is truly innocent, then he should be over the moon at the opportunity to prove he is telling the truth?

One important point understood by professionals in this field is that those who are sexually abused as children do not lie about what happened to them especially, as the criminal justice system is massively stacked against them.

This is not a controversial point.

Like

5.08

MAGNA CARTA

I like your point…in principle. But if, as I strongly suspect, Pell is sociopathic, he could lie and not be detected as doing so in a polygraphic test: sociopaths, through lack of emotional empathy, are known for registering deceptive results in these tests.

Like

5:08
That may be so. However the crux of the issue is how to differentiate between people who were abused as children and those who were not but who claim they were.

Therefore, your final point doesn’t address the issue and misses the possibility for confusion.

In short:
Every person abused as a child tells the truth.

It does not follow that everyone who says they were abused is telling the truth.

Like

What an odious man. Bolt is not that much better. It must be terrible for all the victims he defiled to watch it. Truly ghastly.

Like

6.25

MAGNA CARTA

Innocent? Yes…under the Law. It means that there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt that he committed those crimes; it does NOT mean that those crimes didn’t occurr.

Like

Two facts (actual facts) which should influence the discussion.
1. Since 2014 35% of all allegations in the UK for child abuse have resulted in a conviction (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/05/police-uncovering-epidemic-of-child-abuse-in-1970s-and-80s)
2. The Catholic Church claims this: ‘So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit “bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her.”177 “Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth the seed and the beginning of that kingdom.”‘ (https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm)

These actual facts should put all of the arguments into perspective.

Like

6.45: Magna, we are all well aware if the nuances of law. It doesn’t suit your ugly narrative against the Church that, after being acquitted of any wrongdoing, Cardinal Pell is innocent. He is free of the burden of guilt. That’s sufficient for me, though I know his enemies will think otherwise. I hooe a public enquiry will reveal the monstrosity of bias, prejudice, lies and manufactured stories whose sole aim was to crucify The Cardinal. Those who participated in this grave injustice should be prosecuted. They now have done a huge injustice and disservice to all victims/survivors of abuse of any kind. Let these profiteers put their financial gains towards helping all survivors, above all the accuser(s) in this tragedy.

Like

6.25: You are right. All the detractirs/haters (Mags & co.) should read the entire Hugh Court Judgment instead of their disingenuous tirades on this blig. They are perpetuating the original lie and seeking to infer ither conclusions. These haters were beaten by the rigour of civil law which forensically tore through the unbelievables in the story. That is a truth they cannot hold. Move on boyos. Now let us hear about your “concern” for survivors.

Like

I must try to find the link again, Bp Pat, but I read some of the high court judges requested the same robes to try on to see if it was possible to get… well, you know, their didgeridoodle out. Vulgar pigs.

Like

A few observations about MagnaTroll.

Many people don’t engage with it, not because the troll is “smarter” than most people, but because it is viciously abusive and snarlingly nasty.

Would you engage with such a person in the street and expect to get anywhere? Not if you’re a sane person. Keep walking and avoid.

Most of those who attempt to engage with MagnaTroll on the blog, in fact, are total asses and definitely not as intelligent as the troll; so they would be better shutting up.

MagnaTroll’s main contentions repeated ad nauseam are:

1. all priests are “kiddie fiddlers” or enablers/protectors of pedophiles; UTTERLY FALSE.

2. All priests are indolent good for nothings and spongers off people. COMPLETELY UNTRUE (the author of MagnaTroll mind you could very well be – or have been – this type of priest).

3. The vow priests take at ordination of obedience prevents them from being loyal to Christ. NOT EVEN REMOTELY TRUE.

So that’s really the troll’s oft-repeated narrative in a nut shell and all of it is false and a lie.

The MagnaTroll is the invention very likely of a serving or former priest or monk. “Magna” is able to spew all of its most scathing excoriations because it is hidden and won’t be held to account.

Personally, I wonder if MagnaTroll could be a former Benedictine monk from Northern Ireland who is now an Anglican? The tone is certainly wicked and vicious enough.

This geezer started off as a seminarian for Down and Connor but has had a chequered career. Ended up with the Benedictines and has now shacked up with the C of E.

It could be him or any other number of vicious, disaffected little queens since the 1980s.

All of them have in common issues about their sexuality which makes MagnaTroll’s descriptive narrative about itself as a red blooded, double-hard-bastard heterosexual, particularly risible.

Likewise, it is the furthest thing possible from its self-description of itself in its student days as a lusted after blue-eyed, slim, handsome blond 😂. That’s pure projected fantasy and very revealing. It’s also rather pathetic.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter a toss. The MagnaTroll could be the creation of any one of a number of malcontents. Let it rant on. What it says doesn’t alter one iota of the reality that decent people know and live in the Church day and daily.

The author of MagnaTroll is a deeply unhappy and embittered individual. Nothing you say will change that. Arguing with it is futile and grist to its mill. Say a prayer for the poor dear.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s