07 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou were not asked this FMF and quite frankly I find your obfuscation rather worrying as if you have something to hide. How else are we to account for our rather strange antics? What you were actually asked possibly eight or more times is whether you think that a child abuser is more or less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported. There are only two possible answers,
I believe that a child abuser is more likely to abuse children - and to abuse children again and again - and to resume his abuse of children - if he knows that the corporation he's a member of is going to keep it secret.
I think he's less likely to come forward and will just chance his arm, safe in the knowledge that the organization will keep it all confidential if he gets caught.
more likely and less likely and it seems that for some reason you are unable to answer this simple question. Why again is known only to you but I tell you truly it does not reflect well on you.
I will open it up to the forum.
Great ones! Do you think it more or less likely that a perpetrator of child abuse or any abuse for that matter is more or less likely to come forward knowing that they will be reported. On this issue I was judged by FMF to be a defender of the non reporting of child abuse because I stated that an abuser was probably less likely to come forward knowing that they will be reported. This appeared to me to be reasonable. Despite this I support mandatory reporting.
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet it go, robbie. It's over.
You were not asked this FMF and quite frankly I find your obfuscation rather worrying as if you have something to hide. How else are we to account for our rather strange antics? What you were actually asked possibly eight or more times is whether you think that a child abuser is more or less likely to come forward if they know that they will be repo ...[text shortened]... to come forward knowing that they will be reported. Despite this I support mandatory reporting.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is a dynamic situation in play here and while you and your capricious benefactor Ghost of a Duke may pretend otherwise, I think anyone reading this thread can see that while FMF did indeed remind you of your crumby methods, that is no excuse for you launch into a further salacious and unedifying attack on him based simply on him once having a second account here.
Oh dear it was your friend once again that raised the issue of insinuations that were made against him, not me. It seems that he simply cannot let it go despite that fact that he has engaged in similar behaviour himself. Behaviour which he has publicly stated is abnormal. Look how he cannot answer a simple question because to do so will incriminate him. If I was him I would let sleeping dogs lie but it seems he simply cannot get enough.
Originally posted by divegeesterYou heard the man Juicester, its over.
There is a dynamic situation in play here and while you and your capricious benefactor Ghost of a Duke may pretend otherwise, I think anyone reading this thread can see that while FMF did indeed remind you of your crumby methods, that is no excuse for you launch into a further salacious and unedifying attack on him based simply on him once having a second account here.
Originally posted by divegeestercapricious benefactor Ghost of a Duke???? dude you dont wanna mess with the Ghost, he will certify you under Section 28 of the mental health act and give you liquid kosh to keep you quiet.
There is a dynamic situation in play here and while you and your capricious benefactor Ghost of a Duke may pretend otherwise, I think anyone reading this thread can see that while FMF did indeed remind you of your crumby methods, that is no excuse for you launch into a further salacious and unedifying attack on him based simply on him once having a second account here.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhile your tired repetitive and silly comedy routine, which belies the vicious and unprincipled nature of your real forum persona may fool a few of the other ne'er–do–well duchebags on this site, most of us here will agree that you are way out of order and probably a complete embarrassment to the other Jehovah's Witness who post here.
capricious benefactor Ghost of a Duke???? dude you dont wanna mess with the Ghost, he will certify you under Section 28 of the mental health act and give you liquid kosh to keep you quiet.
Originally posted by divegeesterGee thats bitter. 😵
While your tired repetitive and silly comedy routine, which belies the vicious and unprincipled nature of your real forum persona may fool a few of the other ne'er–do–well duchebags on this site, most of us here will agree that you are way out of order and probably a complete embarrassment to the other Jehovah's Witness who post here.
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by divegeesterActually old chap, rather than being 'capricious', I think you'll find I am 'consistently non-partisan'.
There is a dynamic situation in play here and while you and your capricious benefactor Ghost of a Duke may pretend otherwise, I think anyone reading this thread can see that while FMF did indeed remind you of your crumby methods, that is no excuse for you launch into a further salacious and unedifying attack on him based simply on him once having a second account here.
This thread is a prime example, where I have both challenged and 'supported' (your word) Robbie Codswallop.
If I agree with Mr X I say so. If I disagree with Mr X, I say so. - If you view this as being fickle, so be it.
(I do though rather like the word capricious).
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThere used to be a bar in my town called The Caprice! you would have liked it.
Actually old chap, rather than being 'capricious', I think you'll find I am 'consistently non-partisan'.
This thread is a prime example, where I have both challenged and 'supported' (your word) Robbie Codswallop.
If I agree with Mr X I say so. If I disagree with Mr X, I say so. - If you view this as being fickle, so be it.
(I do though rather like the word capricious).
Originally posted by divegeesterWho are these other ne'er–do–well duchebags that you mention divegeester? Everyone that disagrees with you?
While your tired repetitive and silly comedy routine, which belies the vicious and unprincipled nature of your real forum persona may fool a few of the other ne'er–do–well duchebags on this site, most of us here will agree that you are way out of order and probably a complete embarrassment to the other Jehovah's Witness who post here.