- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by StartreaderCan you name one poster whom you think, and have evidence of, my "battering them into silence"?
I merely respond to what is posted, post by post.
I "tell it like it is".
And in fact say what very many posters on this forum and at least one other are saying, people whom you have verbally battered into silence over the months and years. Time it stopped.
Thanks
it's would normally be laughable if it was not so sinister, a few chess nerds read some report on the JW, now they are "experts"
Even the old chestnut of "they don't celebrate christmas, burn them at the stake" it's tiresome and going over the same thing again and again.
i am more curious why some on here agree all the time with FMF, this is a guy who pretended to be a girl on here, that's creepy, i strongly suspect him and the equally boring Dive are the same person.
A few pages ago even FMF was explaining Dives comments, how blind are you on here?
if you lot can't see you are bullying bigots, shame on you all
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is nothing "prejudicial" or "ignorant" about the Auz Royal Commission's report into child sex abuse by the Jehovah's Witness leadership there. But your refusal to criticise your own organisation in the fact of irrefutable evidence is certainly reflecting "negatively" of you personally.
I suspect because its simply an easy target for their prejudices, ignorance and negativity in general.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERAnd yet a few weeks ago you read the report yourself and supported the findings. You made a post about it. How strange it is to see you now deriding it in this way. In fact here what you said:
it's would normally be laughable if it was not so sinister, a few chess nerds read some report on the JW, now they are "experts"...
originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
"Obviously there was a cover up, again we will sadly never know the true amount of victims. the law must take precedent over any organisations "policies" again this is why the child rapist seeks protection in places where they will feel they can bend the rules."
Originally posted by divegeesterwhoosh how stupid are you?
And yet a few weeks ago you read the report yourself and supported the findings. You made a post about it. How strange it is to see you now deriding it in this way. In fact here what you said:
originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
[b]"Obviously there was a cover up, again we will sadly never know the true amount of victims. the law must take prec ...[text shortened]... y the child rapist seeks protection in places where they will feel they can bend the rules."[/b]
you read one report so did i, i agreed there was a cover up, many other organisations did they same, catholic church scouts etc.
the point i am making, what is it to to with not celebrating christmas? many religions don't celebrate christmas.
you are using one "isolated" case to have a go at all JW. again i will use the comparison are all muslims isis?
your prejudice is open for all to see
there is good and bad in all organisations in the world a sad fact of life, try some thing new for a change.
you don't have to answer i am convinced you are FMF, do you wear a dress as well?
Originally posted by divegeesterI never criticise anyone until I have considered the evidence. My stance on the issue is well known. I favour mandatory reporting and if mandatory reporting had been in place the brothers who are well known for their adherence to secular laws would have complied with it and you would have nothing to hang your religious bigotry upon.
There is nothing "prejudicial" or "ignorant" about the Auz Royal Commission's report into child sex abuse by the Jehovah's Witness leadership there. But your refusal to criticise your own organisation in the fact of irrefutable evidence is certainly reflecting "negatively" of you personally.
You have singled out Jehovahs witnesses time and again because you are a religious bigot, your habitual criticism of them is a testimony to the fact. Only this week the head of the catholic church stated that Bishops are not under duress to report suspected cases of child abuse where the law is not mandatory leaving reporting to families and those involved. If you had any real interest in the issue you would have looked at it objectively and looked at the issues facing those whose role as confessors may come into conflict with secular law putting them in a moral dilemma, the so called 'penitent privilege' and the role of society to protect children. You would have considered arguments for and against mandatory reporting, but nooooo you are simply a religious bigot using an emotive issue as a vehicle for your bigotry, that's all you are.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnly this week the head of the catholic church stated that Bishops are not under duress to report suspected cases of child abuse where the law is not mandatory. If you had any real interest in the issue you would have looked at it objectively and looked at the issues facing those whose role as confessors may come into conflict with secular law putting them in a moral dilemma, the so called 'penitent privilege' and the role of society to protect children...
Nobody here ~ no Catholic posters, or anyone else for that matter ~ has tried to argue in favour - in principle - of covering up child sex abuse in a religious organization which you did - for your organization - for page after page of a thread early last year. You even argued that covering it up would lead to less child abuse.
If a Catholic RHP member takes it upon themselves to attempt the same thing on behalf of the Catholic Church, I'm sure they'll get into the same kind of tangle as you have.