11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, presumably you'd welcome other victims being emboldened to come forward and demand justice after being sexually abused by Jehovah's Witness brothers, like Candice Conti has, regardless of whether the JW organisation was complicit or not.
Dude, I wouldn't be seen dead near you 🙂
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFIf presumptions are your thing, then presume away, I prefer empirical evidence myself.
Well, presumably you'd welcome other victims being emboldened to come forward and demand justice after being sexually abused by Jehovah's Witness brothers, like Candice Conti has, regardless of whether the JW organisation was complicit or not.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, I'll shave a little bit more off the question to see if you can say something unequivocal. Presumably you'd welcome other victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Jehovah's Witness brothers being emboldened to come forward and demand justice? Do I need to pare the question down even more in order for you to stop dodging it, I wonder.
If presumptions are your thing, then presume away, I prefer empirical evidence myself.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI obviously disagree with your waste of money angle, but that's a deabte for another day.
It matters little either way to be honest, it was interesting reading the court transcripts
and it was also interesting and a little amusing reading the somewhat sensationalistic
claims of atheistic and anti witness sites, 'it will send the witnesses into Armageddon
mode'. Its not a waste of paper at all, every drug users, prostitute, gambler, ...[text shortened]... to turn their life around because of it, is worth every penny and
not a few atheists too 😛
Would you like to have been told about the court case, instead of finding out from a stranger on an internet chess site?
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFPresumptions are your remit, not mine, I try to be unassuming.
OK, I'll shave a little bit more off the question to see if you can say something unequivocal. Presumably you'd welcome other victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Jehovah's Witness brothers being emboldened to come forward and demand justice? Do I need to pare the question down even more in order for you to stop dodging it, I wonder.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobno, its makes no difference, we get information from all sources, even mis or dis information, the trick is to filter out what is important and what can be discarded, like a chess position 🙂
I obviously disagree with your waste of money angle, but that's a deabte for another day.
Would you like to have been told about the court case, instead of finding out from a stranger on an internet chess site?
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust more dodging from you, then.
Presumptions are your remit, not mine, I try to be unassuming.
I realise you support your religious corporation through thick and thin. In fact something deep down inside me reckons that all this stuff - this case - what was revealed, the weakness of the JW's case, like its pathetic summing up - actually does not sit well with you, but you've put on a brave face, and you've argued your organisation's corner gamely.
Something tells me that it does not sit well with you, but you cannot bring yourself to say so. I could be wrong. What you or i think doesn't matter either way in the final analysis perhaps.
But you did sneer at the victim when you felt cornered by not knowing about the details of the case, you questioned her motivations in a sneering way, you insinuated that she was in it for the money (even if you did then describe the amount of money as mere "peanuts" later, which - frankly - sounded a bit sneering too), you sneered at the drug problems she's had since being abused by brother Kendrick (cashing in a fair few of your credibility points for future discussions about drug users), and now here you are pointedly refusing to welcome other victims like her coming forward with wordplay about "presumption" and "assuming". Wordplay aside, you're dodging the chance to welcome victims getting justice.
You come across as begrudging, robbie. You've stuck by your church, yes. I sincerely hope the JW organisation has a big enough heart and enough sense to learn its lessons [and I hope you stick with it when it does, too] and, as I said before, I hope it seizes this setback as an opportunity to review its policies with regard to child sex abuse and corporate secrecy, and revise them as necessary so as to ensure that such negligence and complicity is less likely to happen ever again.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis whole massive court case, which could prove to be pivotal, was "filtered out", until a stranger on an internet chess site told you about it. You come across as oddly complacent. Let's hope that the JW organisation is not so complacent.
no, its makes no difference, we get information from all sources, even mis or dis information, the trick is to filter out what is important and what can be discarded, like a chess position 🙂
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBeing 'mis'-informed is the correct word.
no, its makes no difference, we get information from all sources, even mis or dis information, the trick is to filter out what is important and what can be discarded, like a chess position 🙂
Dissing the information.... well.... what's that all about? 🙄
-m.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFslime much your sliminess?
Just more dodging from you, then.
I realise you support your religious corporation through thick and thin. In fact something deep down inside me reckons that all this stuff - this case - what was revealed, the weakness of the JW's case, like its pathetic summing up - actually does not sit well with you, but you've put on a brave face, and you've argued your o ...[text shortened]... to ensure that such negligence and complicity is less likely to happen ever again.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour anger and abusiveness has been quite a puzzling spectacle on this thread. I'm not sure exactly where it's coming from, after all, we both abhor sexual molestation of children, and if more victims now come forward like Candice Conti has, and get justice [and perhaps some modicum of closure] both of us will welcome it, I'm sure.
yes because lets face it you will be canonized shortly for your faith, honesty and integrity. 😀
As for all the personal remarks you have been directing at me - "slime", "vile", "liar", "slimy", "bigot", "stinking", etc. etc. - I don't really know why you do it. I have not subjected you to anything remotely like it. The way you choose to project yourself, robbie, is somewhat baffling sometimes, to put it mildly.
11 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFmore slime your sliminess, or should that be Saint Sliminess.
Your anger and abusiveness has been quite a puzzling spectacle on this thread. I'm not sure exactly where it's coming from, after all, we both abhor sexual molestation of children, and if more victims now come forward like Candice Conti has, and get justice [and perhaps some modicum of closure] both of us will welcome it, I'm sure.
As for all the personal re ...[text shortened]... e to project yourself, robbie, is somewhat baffling sometimes, to put it mildly.