19 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFoops sorry my bad, that should read allegations of 'defending the covering up of child abuse', made by one FMF, now refuted.
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 cover ...[text shortened]... with other posters such as twhitehead, divegeester, googlefudge, stellspalfie, and Proper Knob.
19 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYes I have and I. Here is my statement.
No you haven't because what I am asking is will you be willing to condemn your own organization if any evidence of cover ups comes to light?
I condemn all abuse, all criminality, perpetrated against minors or anyone else, whether perpetrated by individuals or institutions, whether known or unknown.
don't ask me again, its tedious to have to repeat oneself again and again.
19 Jan 16
“Trolls have existed on this planet for as long as humans. This is what I was told and what I translated to Tub. The first mention of them in recorded history is from ninth-century Norway, when the nefarious creatures began showing up in song, verse, and bedtime stories to keep misbehaving children in line. According to Norse folklore, trolls are one of the Dark Beings, the purest embodiments of evil, and they scurried from between the toes of Ymir, the mythic six-headed Frost Giant whose murdered body became the universe in which we live; his bones became the mountains, his teeth boulders, and so forth.” ―Guillermo del Toro, Trollhunters
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you make of this evidence of systematic cover ups by your organization that has come to light? If it's true you will condemn the Australian branch of Jehovah's Witness organisation?
Yes I have and I will not do so again.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDo you think robbie was simply "trolling" the forum when he defended keeping sex abuse at his organisation secret on Thread 162947?
“Trolls have existed on this planet for as long as humans. This is what I was told and what I translated to Tub. The first mention of them in recorded history is from ninth-century Norway, when the nefarious creatures began showing up in song, verse, and bedtime stories to keep misbehaving children in line. According to Norse folklore, trolls are one of ...[text shortened]... bones became the mountains, his teeth boulders, and so forth.” ―Guillermo del Toro, Trollhunters
19 Jan 16
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAre you trying to upset somebody? Has someone upset you?
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwis ...[text shortened]... n-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
How many times have you copy pasted this quote from wiki before?
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you also condemn any and all institutional cover ups of "all abuse, all criminality, perpetrated against minors or anyone else, whether perpetrated by individuals or institutions"?
I condemn all abuse, all criminality, perpetrated against minors or anyone else, whether perpetrated by individuals or institutions, whether known or unknown.
19 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't make anything of them as i have not considered the 'evidence', nor will i until i do. Hopefully this, 'evidence', will be more substantial than the so called, 'evidence', that you managed to produce for your own ill fated allegations.
What do you make of this evidence of systematic cover ups by your organization that has come to light? If it's true you will condemn the Australian branch of Jehovah's Witness organisation?
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/01/jehovahs-witnesses-fostered-distrust-of-secular-authority-royal-commission-counsel
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFThis is just the same regurgitated question, why are you so tedious, do you even know you are being tedious, do you hope to drive your opponents into submission through boring them to death?
Do you also condemn any and all [b]institutional cover ups of "all abuse, all criminality, perpetrated against minors or anyone else, whether perpetrated by individuals or institutions"?[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes indeed GB, FMF was caught 'riding dirty', jaggy nettle underpants to the floor, making allegations that not only could he not substantiate but that were refuted by the very citation that he cited.
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwis ...[text shortened]... n-topic discussion, often for their own amusement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
I suspect he thought he could get away with it because of the emotive nature of the subject not realizing that he would be called out for it. In the end he was forced to regurgitate the same drivel again and again being unable to cope with the reality of the empirical evidence.
I suspect that he initially thought that the mere mention of the issue would be enough to stigmatize his opponent and attempted to use it to create some threats. The deluded fool failed to take into consideration that the reasoning was sound and the logic unassailable for I was merely prepared to explore the issue without moralizing over anyone, seeking to understand rather than condemn. Of course this approach is almost alien to those whose entire existence on the internet is spent seeking merely to condemn others, rather than simply understand.
I think it was one of those threads that left a mark in his psyche for the spanking that he took and has sought vengeance for it ever since, being of a vindictive nature as you are only too well aware.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot exactly. I condemn crime. You condemn crime. This is dog bites man stuff. However, I have never defended the institutional cover up of crimes, but ~ if one reads your arguments on that thread that we have been discussing ~ in your defence of institutional cover up of sex crimes, specifically at your organization, you even went so far as to suggest that leaders of your organization have some kind of moral obligation to keep sex abuse of children secret ~ so now, in view of the fact that you appear to have done a complete about face, it only makes sense to be absolutely sure that what you mean is that you condemn crime (as we all do) AND that you condemn the covering up of crime at an organization like yours. Just to be clear.
This is just the same regurgitated question, why are you so tedious, do you even know you are being tedious, do you hope to drive your opponents into submission through boring them to death?
19 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFDude i m gonna be honest I am finding it tiresome to read the same drivel page after page, it was ok at the time, now its just a drag. I cannot promise that I will read your texts, I have refuted your allegation with empirical evidence, its enough for me. You carry on believing your own propaganda if you like, who knows maybe you may convince someone other than yourself.
Not exactly. I condemn crime. You condemn crime. This is dog bites man stuff. However, I have never defended the institutional cover up of crimes, but ~ if one reads your arguments on that thread that we have been discussing ~ in your defence of institutional cover up of sex crimes, specifically at your organization, you even went so far as to suggest that leade ...[text shortened]... ) AND that you condemn the covering up of crime at an organization like yours. Just to be clear.