![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/05\/SwanStretched.jpg\")
<\/div>\n*****<\/p>\n
It\u2019s simply amazing, the amount of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda James Swan dishes out. He\u00a0can\u2019t help himself.\u00a0He\u2019s so used to \u2014 in his profound anti-Catholic bigotry \u2014\u00a0 lying about and distorting anything that Catholic apologists do (above all, anything\u00a0I<\/i>\u00a0do), that he literally could no sooner stop this than Niagara Falls could reverse its course.<\/p>\n
His latest farcical entry is entitled\u00a0Tossing Blog Comments Into the Elbe, Save One<\/a>. He brings out his entire roster of sophistical tricks and unsavory tactics again, including the yawningly predictable obligatory citation of\u00a0my<\/i>\u00a0papers (in this case, ancient, removed ones) without providing links or my name (not even an affectionate nickname: a courtesy I obviously extend to him).<\/p>\n Wasting no time in again attacking me (his favorite \u201capologetic obsession\u201d), without\u00a0naming<\/i>\u00a0me, of course (this is the game he has been playing for a while now), he writes:<\/p>\n Last night I briefly went through some archived web pages I have saved on an extra hard drive. Some of the web pages go back almost 10 years. I found a number of instances of Roman Catholics citing the very bogus quote in question. One old page stated, \u201cMartin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God\u2019s holy Word<\/i>.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Guess whom Swan chose, out of all the Catholic apologists in the world: to dredge up old \u201carchived\u201d papers? Yep, you got it. You\u2019re reading his words right now. To comment briefly on the second part of the above: it is precisely correct. I stand by it wholeheartedly. Luther\u00a0did<\/i>\u00a0judge books of the Bible (which is technically a\u00a0different notion<\/i>\u00a0from which books he left in his canon in his own Bible), solely on his own arbitrary, self-proclaimed, pseudo-prophetic \u201cauthority.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not just us Catholics (oops, \u201cRomanists\u201d) who think this, but even some Lutherans and other Protestants: some of whom are troubled by Luther\u2019s cavalier attitude towards the Bible.<\/p>\n I documented this almost seven years ago now, in my paper, Luther\u2019s Radical Views on the Biblical Canon (His Outrageous Assertions, Protestant Scholars\u2019 Opinions & \u201cDebate\u201d with John Warwick Montgomery)<\/a>. For example, non-Catholic Luther and \u201cReformation\u201d scholar Preserved Smith wrote (this and other sources can be found in the aforementioned paper):<\/p>\n [F]ew of his followers have ever interpreted, commented on, and criticized the Bible with the freedom habitual to him. The books he judged according as they appealed to his own subjective nature, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lutheran Mark F. Bartling (WELS), stated:<\/p>\n It must be admitted that Luther did develop a personal criterion of canonicity that took its place along side of apostolicity and universality (those books unanimously accepted by the early church,\u00a0homologoumena<\/i>) . . . It was, of all people, Carlstadt who condemned Luther for this criterion. Carlstadt said: \u201cOne must appeal either to known apostolic authorship or to universal historical acceptance as to the test of a book\u2019s canonicity, not to internal doctrinal considerations.\u201d\u00a0[De Canonicis Scripturis libellus<\/i>, Wittenberg, 1520, p. 50]. This position of Carlstadt was also the position of Martin Chemnitz and of C. F. W. Walther\u00a0[Compendium Theologiae Positivae<\/i>, Vol. I. p. 149].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), the great biblical scholar, was equally direct in his disagreement with Luther:<\/p>\n No Church could rest on a theory which makes private feeling the supreme authority as to doctrine and the source of doctrine. As a natural consequence the later Lutherans abandoned the teaching of their great master on the written Word.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moral of the story: when Catholics say things like I did, in this respect, we are not saying anything that many Protestant (including Lutheran) or secularist critics of Luther (Carlstadt, Chemnitz, Walther, Smith, Westcott et al) have not already said. But when\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0do it, Swan says it is bad research and \u201cpropaganda.\u201d When a Protestant says the same thing, it is profound truth. Orwellian doublespeak . . . The Catholic is always wrong and the Protestant always right, even when they agree with each other. I agree: it makes no rational sense. Yet this is how Swan \u201creasons.\u201d<\/p>\n Now, to the matter of archived papers. Swan has had his fun for nearly ten years now, consistently \u201crescuing\u201d from oblivion many of my older papers about Luther (absurdly thinking that this would somehow be an embarrassment to me and prove to the world that I am an unscrupulous dope). When I first converted to Catholicism in 1991 and did some critical writing about Luther, I had at my disposal far fewer sources and resources than I have now.<\/p>\n I wasn\u2019t on the Internet yet (not for another five years, and six till I had my own website). I had one Catholic book about Luther of my own (the notorious, but not devil incarnate, Patrick O\u2019Hare) and photocopies or handwritten notes from mostly two other early 20th century Catholic sources (Grisar and Janssen) from library research. Much of my earliest research utilizes these three sources. I also had Roland Bainton and some Protestant biographies of Luther as well. I had read Bainton\u2019s famous\u00a0Here I Stand<\/i>\u00a0in 1984.<\/p>\n My first paper on Luther dates from 1991. Needless to say, I have learned a great deal about Luther since that time (anyone can see\u00a0how much I have written about him,<\/a> including now two books [one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>]) and have refined many of my opinions, as I learned more and more. Swan knows this full well. He knows that I systematically purged virtually all references to O\u2019Hare\u2019s citations from my papers way back in 2002 (because he noted it in\u00a0a post from 10 October 2006<\/a>; the original version mentioned my name;\u00a0the present one<\/a>\u00a0doesn\u2019t, but still cites my words).<\/p>\n But\u00a0 Swan loves to keep citing my old papers, knowing that I have modified many opinions in them. I continue to develop my beliefs about Luther on an ongoing basis, and remove old stuff; he keeps bringing it back, without noting (apart from a very rare and reluctant \u201cnod\u201d like the above paper) that I have changed my mind. This is unethical: pure and simple. It\u2019s one of the many cynical tactics he uses to try to discredit my Luther research: a thing that has obsessed him, lo these past nine years. Thus, as soon as he wants to make a point about \u201cRomanist Luther research\u201d he dredges up an old Luther paper of mine. One tires of this; but I am happy to be able to expose his nefarious methods, as presently. If he keeps doing the same old stupid, tired thing, I will expose it for what it is.<\/p>\n The old paper of mine that he chooses here was entitled,\u00a0Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact<\/i>. (the\u00a0original URL<\/a>\u00a0can be traced on Internet Archive). The first version was dated 14 January 1991. There was a \u201c5th Revised Edition\u201d dated 11 November 2002. In the fifth edition, all the material on the biblical canon (that he cites in his latest paper) had been removed. The third edition of 18 January 2000 still contained it, and also the words above that Swan cites, without either attribution or URL. So did the fourth edition of 27 January 2002. But since November 2002, these quotes have not been on my website, in this paper. That\u2019s how far back Swan has to go to make me an example of what he considers shoddy Luther research.<\/p>\n The last time the paper was online, according to Internet Archive, was 11 October 2003, so it\u2019s been gone almost eight years. Sometime between then and 6 December 2003 it was voluntarily removed as outdated (which is not the same as\u00a0discredited<\/i>) research. It never made it to my blog, because that was begun in 2004. This is the paper Swan chooses to use as an example of Catholic ineptitude. Then when we look at\u00a0 the particulars he presents to make his case, they\u00a0uniformly fail to do so<\/i>, since they all go back to Protestant sources, in terms of origin in English, and continued use.<\/p>\n Obviously, then, I was refining the paper as I learned more things. Most people would think that is a good and normal thing in legitimate research and inquiry (since all noted researchers and authors make revisions). Not Swan, though; he\u00a0mocks<\/i>\u00a0this; has dozens of times through the years. He makes fun of the fact that I revise my opinions and research, as the facts and further knowledge warrant. He frequently claims that it is only because of his stellar, oh-so-superior Luther research, that I ever do so. He attributes to me the lowest possible motives for doing so. This is mostly why (by his own report) he keeps citing my older, removed papers (rather than my many current ones): to try to make some point that I am incompetent: when the facts suggest the exact opposite conclusion. Here are a few examples of how he interprets revisions in my Luther (and general) research:<\/p>\n A Roman Catholic recently blogged a large amount of material on John Calvin. I held out reading any of it and waited to see what he\u2019d put forth in a published book. So I recently received his\u00a0<\/i>book on Calvin. Material on a blog can be edited or deleted\u00a0as if by magic<\/i>. A published work though sets one\u2019s opinion and research concretely.<\/span>\u00a0(3-22-10<\/a>: one of Doe\u2019s several ludicrous book reviews of my book without mentioning my name)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s rather childish and obnoxious, in equal measure. Swan acts like the snot-nosed prepubescent kid who happened to get something right over against an opponent of some sort and goes around triumphantly (with an expression of supreme stupidity) proclaiming \u201cI told you so\u201d for months afterward. Swan does the proverbial kid even better: he does it for\u00a0years<\/i>. And the funniest thing is that usually what he \u201ctold\u201d is most often a distortion of the facts in the first place.<\/p>\n Swan proceeds to cite my ancient paper, where I cited O\u2019Hare at length:<\/p>\n Of the Pentateuch he says: \u2018We have no wish either to see or hear Moses. Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable . . . Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book . . . The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness . . . The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The last statement is\u00a0untrue<\/i>, in terms of O\u2019Hare not being the source of these things (in English).\u00a0 I already documented<\/a> that the source of this material in English (far as I could determine) was Sir William Hamilton: a Scottish Protestant philosopher, in 1834. He was utilizing and translating the standard edition of Luther\u2019s Works in the 18th century (the state of the art at that time):\u00a0Johann Georg Walch<\/a>\u00a0(24 volumes: Halle: 1740-1753). Walch in turn cited the Aurifaber version of\u00a0Table-Talk<\/i>, dating from 1566. Swan himself\u00a0wrote a lengthy post<\/a>\u00a0describing the Walch edition.<\/p>\n Those three Protestant men are the originators of this material, not the Catholic O\u2019Hare, who was writing in 1916 and utilizing the statements of Hamilton. Thus, O\u2019Hare and other evil, wicked, wascally \u201cRomanists cannot be uniquely blamed for this, as if it is poor research and a polemical motivation alone that caused them to pull things out of thin air in the effort to defame Martin Luther. It\u2019s just not so. O\u2019Hare wasn\u2019t solely at fault. It wasn\u2019t simply \u201cpropaganda.\u201d It had a quite legitimate, scholarly\u00a0 Protestant textual history.<\/p>\n If\u00a0O\u2019Hare<\/i>\u00a0was a propagandist by using these words (and I myself by using his, which are Walch\u2019s translated into English), then so were Hamilton and Walch and Aurifaber. But Swan doesn\u2019t tell his readers that. No; he merely bashes O\u2019Hare and the embodiment of evil and bad research, Dave Armstrong. O\u2019Hare does indeed often engage in empty \u201canti-Luther\u201d polemics and lousy research, which is why I don\u2019t use him anymore, but\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0instance is not an example of it.<\/p>\n In the previous paper I already made a lengthy comparison of Hamilton\u2019s section about Luther and the canon (translated from Walch, who cited Luther friend Aurifaber), and O\u2019Hare\u2019s. I guess this went right over Swan\u2019s head: assuming he read my paper at all.\u00a0 Here I\u2019ll do it line-by-line (using O\u2019Hare portions that I cited in\u00a0my\u00a0<\/i>old Luther paper), hoping and praying that Swan will \u201cget it\u201d this time; that it will sink in:<\/p>\n [Catholic] O\u2019Hare, 1916:\u00a0<\/b>Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Protestant] Hamilton, 1834:<\/b>\u00a0\u00a0Job<\/i>\u00a0spake not, therefore, as it stands written in his book, but hath had such cogitations . . . It is a sheer\u00a0argumentum fabulae.<\/i>\u00a0. . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n [many Protestants (usually liberals who were biblical skeptics) picked this up \u2014 so we observe in a\u00a0Google Books search<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 and noted that Luther regarded the book of Job as a fable or mere dramatic story without factual basis; see also a\u00a0general Google search<\/a>\u00a0along these lines]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n O\u2019Hare, 1916:<\/b>\u00a0Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hamilton, 1834:\u00a0<\/b>This book (Ecclesiastes<\/i>) ought to have been more full; there is too much of broken matter in it; it has neither boots nor spurs, but rides only in socks, as I myself when in the cloister . . . Solomon hath not therefore written this book.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n O\u2019Hare, 1916:<\/b>\u00a0The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hamilton, 1834:<\/b>\u00a0The book of\u00a0Esther<\/i>, I toss into the Elbe.\u201d [Ib.] [\u201cAnd when the Doctor was correcting the second book of Maccabees, he said: \u2013] . . . I am so an enemy to the book of Esther, that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n O\u2019Hare, 1916:<\/b>\u00a0The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hamilton, 1834:\u00a0<\/b>The history of\u00a0Jonah<\/i>\u00a0is so monstrous, that it is absolutely incredible.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n [a\u00a0Google Books search of this phrase<\/a>\u00a0reveals that many\u00a0Protestants<\/i>\u00a0cited it throughout the 19th century: several noting that it came from the Protestant Hamilton. It was in common use before O\u2019Hare was even yet born]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It wasn\u2019t only the Catholic O\u2019Hare citing or paraphrasing these sections from Hamilton: not by a long shot. I have linked above to examples found in Google Books searches. Secularist Luther scholar (oops, \u201cpropagandist\u201d according to Swan) Preserved Smith\u00a0also<\/i>\u00a0did, just five years before O\u2019Hare:<\/p>\n [H]e declared Job to be an allegory; Jonah was so childish that he was almost inclined to laugh at it; the books of Kings were\u00a0\u201ca thousand paces ahead of Chronicles and more to be believed.\u201d \u201cEcclesiastes has neither boots nor spurs, but rides in socks, as I did when I was in the cloister.\u201d\u00a0(The Life and Letters of Martin Luther<\/i><\/a>, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911,\u00a0268)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only section that couldn\u2019t be traced back to Hamilton was \u201cWe have no wish either to see or hear Moses.\u201d Very well, then; let\u2019s do a search on Google Books, since Swan (the world\u2019s greatest Luther researcher: so he insinuates at every opportunity) encouraged us all to do so, by writing,\u00a0\u201cGo ahead and Google search any of the quotes above.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0I\u00a0did<\/i>, but not much turned up. Since Swan had said he\u00a0wrote a paper about the phrase<\/a>, I checked out what the Master Researcher had to say.<\/p>\n All O\u2019Hare stated was,\u00a0\u201cOf the Pentateuch he says: \u2018We have no wish either to see or hear Moses.'\u201d I agree that this is inadequate, because it\u00a0has no context at all<\/i>\u00a0and could easily be misinterpreted (especially knowing Luther and his frequent rhetorical exaggerations and oft-used sarcastic, non-literal mode of argumentation). On the other hand, O\u2019Hare has not interpreted it\u00a0himself<\/i>. Swan claims this is part of O\u2019Hare\u2019s propaganda. But\u00a0the words themselves<\/i>\u00a0do exist in Luther, and in that sense, this is not \u201cpropaganda\u201d per se, but the reporting of a fact.<\/p>\n Swan has found some very interesting stuff on this. He speculated in his paper on the topic, that this utterance was\u00a0\u201cfrom Luther\u2019s treatise\u00a0Against The Heavenly Prophets In The Matter Of Images And Sacraments<\/i>,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and cited the context (my bolding):<\/p>\n Now then, let us get to the bottom of it all and say that these teachers of sin and Mosaic prophets are not to confuse us with Moses.\u00a0We don\u2019t want to see or hear Moses.\u00a0<\/b>How do you like that, my dear rebels? We say further, that all such Mosaic teachers deny the gospel, banish Christ, and annul the whole New Testament. I now speak as a Christian for Christians. For Moses is given to the Jewish people alone, and does not concern us Gentiles and Christians. We have our gospel and New Testament. If they can prove from them that images must be put away, we will gladly follow them. If they, however, through Moses would make us Jews, we will not endure it. (Luther\u2019s Works<\/i>\u00a040:92)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Good.\u00a0 But this dates from after 1955, and wasn\u2019t available to O\u2019Hare. Swan himself\u00a0 wondered if it is the right one, because he found another. The Master stated:<\/p>\n In the excellent old volume\u00a0Luther Vindicated<\/i>\u00a0<\/a>by Charles Hastings Collette, he puts forth an extended snippet of the same quote, which is quite different than the context I cited.\u00a0He states<\/a>:<\/p>\n There is a passage quoted by Dr. McCave, as reported in his Lecture in The Midland Counties Express, as follows :\u2014\u201dIt was Luther who said of the Pentateuch \u2018We neither wish to see nor hear this Moses; he is master of all hangmen, and no one can surpass him when there is a question of terrifying, torturing, or tyrannizing.\u2019 \u201d I have utterly failed to trace this passage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n Collette\u2019s book was published in 1884, and he was a Protestant. This could very well be O\u2019Hare\u2019s source (the reference to \u201cthe Pentateuch\u201d strongly suggests it), in which case\u00a0again<\/i>\u00a0it is a matter of O\u2019Hare citing a\u00a0Protestant<\/i>, who is not hostile to Luther at all; a book, in fact, where he is expressly defended. \u201cDr. McCave\u201d appears to be Canon James McCave, D.D.:\u00a0a Catholic<\/a>; Collette is not necessarily agreeing with what he cited, and couldn\u2019t trace it. Thus we have:<\/p>\n [Catholic] O\u2019Hare, 1916:\u00a0<\/b>Of the Pentateuch he says: \u2018We have no wish either to see or hear Moses.\u2019<\/p>\n [Protestant] Collette, 1884 (citing Catholic McCave):<\/b>\u00a0\u00a0It was Luther who said of the Pentateuch \u2018We neither wish to see nor hear this Moses . . .\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Right.\u00a0 But for some reason, whenever Swan wants to give an example of what he thinks is terrible Catholic research, he almost always cites me (unattributed, undocumented). And it\u2019s always \u2014 invariably \u2014 a bum rap.<\/p>\n When I looked back on my older entries about this quote, you\u2019ll notice I never picked a fight with anyone specifically about this quote:<\/span><\/p>\n Luther: \u201cThe book of Esther I toss into the Elbe\u2026\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Luther: \u201cThe book of Esther I toss into the Elbe\u201d\u2026.Revisited<\/a><\/p>\n This is a lie. Swan doesn\u2019t even know what he did in his own papers. In the first paper above, he states,\u00a0\u201cLook for instance at this citation from a Catholic apologist\u201d\u00a0and then quotes my paper (by title, with the old website URL):\u00a0The Apocrypha: Why It\u2019s Part of the Bible<\/i>. Also, previously, Swan would usually mention my name when doing critiques, but he has been \u201cde-Armstrongizing\u201d his website. That was likely the case here. Yet he spins and plays the sophist now and informs his readers and lackeys that he didn\u2019t have any Catholic in mind\u00a0\u201cspecifically.\u201d<\/p>\n This paragraph is nothing more than an O\u2019Hare summary, and it\u2019s filled with inaccurate information.<\/span><\/p>\n And that is talking about me<\/em>, folks!<\/p>\n According to Walch, he did. It came right from him, as Hamilton stated. According to Preserved Smith (writing in 1911), he thought it was \u201callegory.\u201d I await with baited breath, Swan\u2019s paper excoriating Walch as an anti-Luther polemicist.<\/p>\n That\u2019s referring to yours truly again.\u00a0 But Swan says he had no one in particular in mind. Right.<\/p>\n Sheer nonsense, as shown. It\u2019s a remarkable phenomenon: that a man would shamelessly lie about what he clearly stated in\u00a0his own paper<\/i>. That takes some considerable\u00a0chutzpah<\/i>.<\/p>\n How in the world is it ridiculous to note that O\u2019Hare drew directly from Protestant Hamilton, who translated into English the official Luther compiler Walch, who included\u00a0Table-Talk<\/i>\u00a0from Luther contemporary and personal secretary Aurifaber? But this is O\u2019Hare\u2019s fault that he dared to trust Protestants for accurately reporting the words of their hero Luther? And it\u2019s our fault for citing him, doing so? As if Swan<\/em>\u00a0has never utilized older pro-Luther research (he does all the time) and in so doing, trusted it implicitly for accuracy?<\/p>\n Swan has been making a big deal about some comments made\u00a0on my Facebook page<\/a>,\u00a0 in the cross-posted thread of my last reply to him. In the combox of his previous paper on Luther and Esther,\u00a0he had written<\/a>, replying to my friend, Paul Hoffer:<\/p>\n Why don\u2019t you put your high standards into practice over here.\u00a0Explain to me why you don\u2019t chastise your friends as the<\/span> [sic] mock the relationship between me and my father. . . . If you want to keep company with such people, who can mock in such a way, and then come over here in shining virtue, you\u2019ll have to forgive me for being a bit skeptical.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As usual, it is a case of a Calvinist with no sense of humor whatever (and of Swan\u2019s notoriously thin skin and drama queen histrionics). I went through this same silliness with Swan crony Steve Hays in the last few days, and have many times with Bishop James White: the Grand Poobah of Anti-Catholicism, and a man utterly unable (like Swan) to take any humor whatsoever about himself. They all savagely mock others but can\u2019t handle the slightest \u201ccomeback\u201d humor at their expense. It\u2019s quite hilarious to observe. Let\u2019s see the actual comment that Swan is overreacting to. Richard Marquis wrote in my Facebook combox for the same cross-posted paper about Swan:<\/p>\n According to my PSY 101 days, you remind him of his dad, Dave! : \u2013 )<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note the smiley icon (sideways smiley face). That means it was a\u00a0humorous remark<\/i>, folks (standard Internet protocol; understood by one and all). I replied:<\/span> Is that what it is, Richard? :-) I\u2019ve tried to figure out his\u00a0obsession with my work\u00a0for many years. I do have some theories . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note the smiley icon. That means it was a\u00a0humorous reply<\/i>: not to be taken seriously. A smiley icon has no place in a serious remark: intended literally.\u00a0<\/span>This proves it was humor. And again, Richard wrote:<\/span> That\u2019s the verdict of this barracks psychologist, mein freund. If his dad had only played catch with him as a kid, you wouldn\u2019t have to now! LOL<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n See the \u201cLOL\u201d? That means \u201claughing out loud.\u201d\u00a0 So we have one smiley icon at first, followed by mine when I replied, and now \u201cLOL.\u201d All that, yet Swan takes it dead seriously and gets all up on his ear, with big-time pouting and complaints. <\/span><\/p>\n Flat-out amazing . . . And this from the man who has\u00a0heaped entire continents of insults on me\u00a0for 7-8 years now<\/a>, including saying that I suffer from\u00a0\u201cpsychosis\u201d<\/a>. Those were without question dead-serious charges, not mere jokes and tongue-in-cheek remarks. Swan doesn\u2019t recall ever talking about\u00a0<\/span>\u201cRomanist families, or family members.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0That\u2019s funny. I remember well how he implied that I am not supporting\u00a0mine<\/i>, since I supposedly don\u2019t have a job:<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n