18 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterno its not, you see simply because you say it is, does not mean that it actually is and considering your past record and propensity for lying i don't think we can take you at your word, where have i 'defended the cover up of people having sex with children', all you have to do is provide a single quotation? how hard can it be for you?
The "reference" is the threads id, the "evidence" is your words in the threads. It's not a difficult concept.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWrong again. It is what YOU said in those threads. Not what I'm saying about those threads now, here. It's not a difficult concept.
no its not, you see simply because you say it is, does not mean that it actually is and considering your past record and propensity for lying i don't think we can take you at your word, where have i 'defended the cover up of people having sex with children
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by divegeesterDo you seriously expect me to empower you by acquiescing to your play-acting and pretend cross-examination?
Last time you pitched in I asked you if you have read the report, have you? Have you read the threads?
Whether or not I have read the report is irrelevant.
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps you haven't read the thread. Your argument in favour of covering up cases of child sex abuse within your organization is clear and unambiguous as the site authorities will see. Mind you, when we had exactly this discussion before on the Spirituality Forum and you said you were going to report me to the authorities, they did nothing.
Again that is not evidence, you have made a serious claim and repeating ad nauseum that it in the thread is not working for you dude, its just not very convincing. Do you think other people will be convinced by it? what kind of fools do you take them for?
Here is your statement again in case you have forgotten it, you have stated that i have an ...[text shortened]... d the cover up of people having sex with children'. surely you know and can provide a reference?
18 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFlook dude see when you can provide evidence for your vile insinuations let the forum know because at present you have provided nothing but the usual bilge water and that quite frankly is not very convincing, Personally i don't believe a word you say and I don't know anyone that does.
Perhaps you haven't read the thread. Your argument in favour of covering up cases of child sex abuse within your organization is clear and unambiguous as the site authorities will see. Mind you, when we had exactly this discussion before on the Spirituality Forum and you said you were going to report me to the authorities, they did nothing.
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by SeitseDude i don't mind you using it to fire up the sauna as long as you read it first.
Er... does this mean I should not accept the Watchtower mag when
offered to me in the street by sweet, old ladies? It's quite handy when
firing up the wood inside the sauna :'(
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're right. They are. Though that could be interesting as one took observations and reflected on the melting Greenland glaciers and the fate of polar bears.
I know they are like listening to ice melt in the north pole.
This has the added element of inevitable distaste for people so hung up on power that they're content to devote hours of their time and page after page in hounding their prey.
What sad lives theirs must be.
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by StartreaderPathetic really in the original sense of the word.
You're right. They are. Though that could be interesting as one took observations and reflected on the melting Greenland glaciers and the fate of polar bears.
This has the added element of inevitable distaste for people so hung up on power that they're content to devote hours of their time and page after page in hounding their prey.
What sad lives theirs must be.
Originally posted by StartreaderYou obviously have not been following the discussion. No one has ever accused robbie of abusing children or of supporting or defending the sexual abuse of children committed by other people.
In any case, this whole nonsense reads like a few people demonising Robbie and holding him responsible for the wrongdoing of other individuals over whom he has no control..
What robbie must take responsibility for, however, is his argument - laid out clearly on this web site in the thread I have linked to - in favour of his organization keeping instances of child sex abuse crimes confidential (when committed by members of the organization... no one has suggested that robbie defends cover ups in the Catholic church in the same way), dealing with them in-house, so to speak, and not informing law enforcement authorities that sex crimes may have been committed so that they can be investigated and prosecuted if necessary.
I would argue that covering up the fact that members of one's organization may have had sex with children - and other child sex crimes - is "wrongdoing" writ large, but robbie is not accused of being involved or instrumental in the perpetration of this wrongdoing, only in defending it in principle.