LA Archdiocses ......

[Nekojin]

I don't have a subscription to WSJ, so I can't read that link.

I don't have a sub to WSJ, either. You might try the (less) old-fashioned way of using Google to find it.

[crashhelmet]

Your original statement was demonstrably wrong by the very article you were using for your source, and your updated statement (the 5% that wasn't outright contradicted already) has been proven to still be wrong.

You didn't "call" anything; you doubled down on being wrong and then tried to claim you were right, somehow.

^-.-^

Furthermore, my original statement was praise for being transparent, instead of continuing the fight.

My second statement said:

The article doesn't say the judge ordered them to not black it out, only that the press and the plaintiffs objected.

Which has yet to be proven wrong, even with Nekojin's links.

Now if you want to claim victory because I didn't specifically say the judge didn't order the blacking out of anything but the senior officials and those guilty of the crimes and cover up, think again.

I was continuing on your incorrect statement that the judge ordered zero redactions.

To quote you again:

While they could have delayed, they didn't have a choice about whether it was redacted or not; that was decided for them by the courts, because they had planned to black out pretty much all names and all margin comments.

^-.-^

The only thing they didn't have a choice about redacting was the senior officials, the guilty, and the conspirators. They could have blacked out and redacted information

such as those of people who played no major role in the cases.

But they didn't. They didn't black out anything.

[crashhelmet]

I don't have a sub to WSJ, either. You might try the (less) old-fashioned way of using Google to find it.

I was going by the evidence you provided. Why would you provide a link to an article you yourself don't even have access to?

[Andara Bledin]

The fact is the judge only ordered the names of the top officials to be not blacked out.

Except for the basic fact that this isn't what you originally said.

They had 3 weeks to turn them over, with possibly the ability to delay, or at least try to fight it, and they just turned it over. No edits, no secrets. They just put it all out there.

And that statement remains both inaccurate and mis-guided.

There are edits. And there would have been more if a judge hadn't ordered that there not be.

Article at KSL.com

While the church left the names of church leaders intact, as specified, they removed names of victims, witnesses and priests who weren't accused. In some instances, whole sections were removed.

The only thing they didn't have a choice about redacting was the senior officials, the guilty, and the conspirators. They could have blacked out and redacted information

Oh, I see. You're straw-manning.

Your argument isn't against my statement, but a similar statement for which you have an argument.

You said a judge didn't order that there not be redactions when a judge did order that there not be redactions. The level of that order is actually completely immaterial to the discussion. It's a binary situation; Yes/No. You said No when the evidence says Yes. It's just that simple.

If the church had a choice, they would have blacked out the names of those involved. The judge took that choice away. The end.

Everything else is just a distraction.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

I was going by the evidence you provided. Why would you provide a link to an article you yourself don't even have access to?

I searched. I found the article. I read the article. I quoted the article. I linked the article. I can't help it that the WSJ's site is twitchy about outside linking.

Furthermore, my original statement was praise for being transparent, instead of continuing the fight.

They don't deserve praise for that. There's every evidence that they would have continued the fight for as long as they could. They ran out of appeals. Their fighting days were done, they lost. All that's left is quibbling about details, and compliance. The fact that they chose not to pore over the documents yet again and redact the information that they least cared about redacting (namely, the people who only had tangential connections to the cases) isn't some sterling mark of character.

[Duelist925]

Crash: They were transparent because they were FORCED TO BE. Hell, even you said they were forced to not redact the names of the guilty, conspirators, and high level church officials.

Namely, anyone important to the case.

You're arguing that since they released the names of people not at all involved (IE: People who don't matter one friggan bit as far as the case is concerned) Then they deserve props for transparency...despite having fought for years to not have to release the important details.