Memo

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A beggarly loaded question, how so very very PATHETIC.

So are you going to dodge all questions relating to the argument you were laying out on those nine pages and what you said in your exchanges with those other posters I named?

Originally posted by FMF
If you denounce the suggestion that your religious organization has any kind of obligation to child rapists and abusers to keep their sex crimes secret and that there should be no cover up or attempt to withhold information about sex crimes or allegations of sex crimes from law enforcement agencies, and in so doing ditch the arguments you were putting forward during the 2015 thread in question, then I will welcome it and will congratulate you.

I simply want you to confront the empirical evidence that i have provided from the thread that you yourself cited.

Originally posted by FMF
So are you going to dodge all questions relating to the argument you were laying out on those nine pages and what you said in your exchanges with those other posters I named?

Dude the evidence dude, where is your evidence, can you not like make some up, oh wait, you've tried that and its back fired on you. Maybe you have a plan B

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I simply want you to confront the empirical evidence that i have provided from the thread that you yourself cited.

So you are - even now - unable to bring yourself to just come right out and condemn the covering up of sex crimes against children in your organization? I don't see how there has been much of the evolving that Seitse hopes for.

Originally posted by FMF
So you are - even now - unable to bring yourself to just right out and condemn the covering up of sex crimes against children in your organization? I don't see how there has been much of the evolving that Seitse hopes for.

Another transparent and loaded question, how so very very predictable and quite banal. When you confront reality dude, the empirical evidence that I have provided which soundly refutes your vile insinuations, let me know, I will forgive you. Here it is incase you have forgotten.

The matter is quite clear, in the UK there is mandatory reporting which supersedes that of penitent privilege, meaning of course that a minster of God is under duress to report any instances of child abuse to the relevant authorities as soon as they come to light. Penitent privilege does not prevent this nor can it be used to prevent access to information or hinder in any way investigations by civil authorities.

So if a kid came to me and said that they were being abused, I would drive them to the nearest police station, which is not far from me and give the matter into the hands of the police. I am a minster of God, I have been trained to deal with sin, I have not been trained to deal with criminality. It is a matter for the police. - robbie carrobie

from which you have managed to extricate

'you have defended the cover up of people having sex with children' - FMF

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Another transparent and loaded question, how so very very predictable and quite banal. When you confront reality dude, the empirical evidence that I have provided which soundly refutes your vile insinuations, let me know, I will forgive you. Here it is incase you have forgotten.

The matter is quite clear, in the UK there is mandatory reporting wh ...[text shortened]... anaged to extricate

'you have defended the cover up of people having sex with children' - FMF

Do you condemn institutional cover ups of sex crimes against children?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you condemn institutional cover ups of sex crimes against children?

I condemn all abuse, all criminality, perpetrated against minors or anyone else, whether perpetrated by individuals or institutions, whether known or unknown. I also condemn people who make vile accusations against others and when being called to account being unable to confront evidence which refutes those vile allegations. These are the kinds of people who make false allegations of covering up child abuse hoping that the emotive nature of the subject can help them wield their insinuations into a weapon. These people I condemn.

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
At last total proof, you are obsessed by GB.
you seem to be an expert on everything he has ever written
serious sad life

You asked where it was stated that Grampy Bobby got a free subscription. You asked this because you cannot be bothered to read the thread. GB has stated himself several times. You are defending him and you don't even know the facts or even the basics of what this is about.

Now, because I have actually bothered to read the thread, you are calling me obsessive! It's called "knowing what you a talking about".

Perhaps your silly little ad hominem about poor education would be better directed at yourself?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Speculative Question: Since December 17, 2015 [inception date of this thread] until January 18, 2016 [today] there have been forty five (45) pages containing six hundred and seventy three (673) posts or an average of twenty one (21) posts per day [many veering far off the original post's topic]..

Is it within the realm of possibility that this public ...[text shortened]... rum?
If so, is this event a timely good thing for the overall benefit of all concerned or not?

As you keep refusing to answer questions and prefer instead to revel in your flaccid notoriety, I think most people, even your detractors, are past caring what you think about this thread Grampy Bobby.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I condemn all abuse, all criminality, perpetrated against minors or anyone else, whether perpetrated by individuals or institutions, whether known or unknown. I also condemn people who make vile accusations against others and when being called to account being unable to confront evidence which refutes those vile allegations.

If any cover ups by your organization of sexual abuse of children perpetrated by members of your organization should come to light, you will condemn such cover ups unreservedly?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 30)
"The unsolicited anonymous subscription renewal on my behalf occurred seven or eight days after the previous subscription expired on January 6, 2016. The medical issues mentioned in the this thread's original post are still unresolved. Next doctor's appointment is February 15, 2016."
_________________ ...[text shortened]... ed nor anticipated and I haven't a clue as to the identity of this kind and generous RHP Member.

Then why did you start this thread and why did you accept the freebie if you had other reasons than money for letting your sub lapse. It appears that you are telling fibs Grampy Bobby.

Originally posted by FMF
If any cover ups by your organization of sexual abuse of children perpetrated by members of your organization should come to light, you will condemn such cover ups unreservedly?

I have already answered this.

Originally posted by FMF
The Clans Forum is closed. This thread is on the General Forum. Threads here that have turned into discussions of the Clans Forum or into arguments between former Clans Forum members about Clans Forum issues or their Clans Forum-related animosities, have, as far as I know, all been taken down at one point or another. There has been lively interaction between a f ...[text shortened]... ar 'topic' per se beyond that]. Lively interaction is the life blood of an online message board.

He just keeps chipping in because the topic has migrated from him to revive carrobie.

Originally posted by divegeester
He just keeps chipping in because the topic has migrated from him to revive carrobie.

Carrobie is doing rather awesome, your idol FMF has been dancing for our entertainment all morning, he's a better dancer than he is a liar.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
These are the kinds of people who make false allegations of covering up child abuse hoping that the emotive nature of the subject can help them wield their insinuations into a weapon.

But robbie, there have been no allegations against you of "covering up child abuse". None whatsoever. To suggest that there have been is nothing but you trying to muddy the waters of what is, in fact, a pretty clear cut discussion about a clear cut charge: on the thread in question you argued for page after page in favour of - defending - your organization covering up child abuse. You did so in extended exchanges with me and also with other posters such as twhitehead, divegeester, googlefudge, stellspalfie, and Proper Knob.