Memo

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply repeating the same drivel is not working for you FMF, you are being asked to comment specifically on the threads contents. Lets see how you fare, shall we?

Read the first nine pages of the thread - you've got the link - and quote me the bits where you were supposedly condemning the cover up of child sex abuse by your organization. You'll find nothing there wrutten by you that you can quote because you spent those nine pages defending the cover up of child sex abuse by your organization. You own arguments as laid out there is all the evidence one needs.

Originally posted by FMF
Read the first nine pages of the thread - you've got the link - and quote me the bits where you were supposedly condemning the cover up of child sex abuse by your organization. You'll find nothing there wrutten by you that you can quote because you spent those nine pages defending the cover up of child sex abuse by your organization. You own arguments as laid out there is all the evidence one needs.

I have read all the thread, I don't need to read it again, you are being asked FMF, how you get from,

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

to

'You have defended covering up child abuse' - FMF

Your reasoning please FMF

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'You have defended covering up child abuse' - FMF

Your reasoning please FMF

You laid out your defence of covering up child abuse by your religious organization on the first nine pages of the thread - just read them and you will see.

Originally posted by FMF
You laid out your defence of covering up child abuse by your religious organization on the first nine pages of the thread - just read them and you will see.

Again lets see if you do better this time because quite frankly I don't think anyone is likely to believe you at your word now. Here are my words taken from the thread that you have cited as evidence, tell us your thought process, how you managed to extricate from this,

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

to

'You have defended covering up child abuse' - FMF

Your reasoning please FMF

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'You have defended covering up child abuse' - FMF

Your reasoning please FMF

My reasoning is based on reading your other 64 posts that you wrote on that thread and not just the 1 that you have mentioned.

Originally posted by FMF
My reasoning is based on reading your other 64 posts that you wrote on that thread and not just the 1 that you have mentioned.

So lets get this you are just going to ignore the fact that I stated and I quote from the thread that you cited,

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

because its incongruous with your fabricated vales. Gee i bet you wish it never existed, perhaps if you had read the thread before you inadvertently made the accusation it might have been better for you.

tell us how you get, 'you have defended the cover up of child abuse', from the above FMF, or does that post not count?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie (Page 51)
Yes 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.

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 i ...[text shortened]... has sought vengeance for it ever since, being of a vindictive nature as you are only too well aware.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

"... those whose entire existence on the internet is spent seeking merely to condemn others, rather than simply understand."
____________________

Thanks for this excellent definition of an online internet troll.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by robbie carrobie

"... those whose entire existence on the internet is spent seeking merely to condemn others, rather than simply understand."
____________________

Thanks for this excellent definition of an online internet troll.

Most welcome 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sure can you cite one where I in your words, 'defend the covering up of child abuse'

Just read the thread, robbie. I laid out my counter arguments there very clearly and I see no reason to replay the discussion here and now when it already exists and it is a click away.

If you can quote anything you said there that was condemning corporate cover up of sex abuse ~ which you now claim is your stance on the issue ~ then do so.

If you don't think you were defending keeping child sex abuse secret, then that's fine. If other posters agree with you and don't think you were defending corporate cover up of sex abuse - and that your talk of the supposed moral obligation not to "betray" the confessed child abuser by reporting their crimes to the authorities was somehow you not defending corporate confidentiality and instead somehow condemning it - then that's fine too.

The evidence is in the thread. The discussion has already taken place. People can read it and decide for themselves what you said and what you meant, just as I did. If you are proud of it and don't want to retract it, that's fine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
tell us how you get, 'you have defended the cover up of child abuse', from the above FMF, or does that post not count?

From reading the detailed argument that you laid out on the first nine pages of the thread. The content of those nine pages, along with your argument, remains quite intact, still there, page after page of it - and not retracted, or so you say - despite the one post near the end when you simply contradicted yourself.

Originally posted by FMF
From reading the detailed argument that you laid out on the first nine pages of the thread. The content of those nine pages, along with your argument, remains quite intact, still there, page after page of it - and not retracted, or so you say - despite the one post near the end when you simply contradicted yourself.

Gee dude you think out of 64 posts you might be able to cite a single one.

Do you think that you have done yourself a service in being exposed as a fabricator of untruth. Personally I think you have done yourself more damage than any of your enemies could have possibly hoped for.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you think that you have done yourself a service in being exposed as a fabricator of untruth.

I thought you were against asking loaded questions.

I didn't write any of your posts on that thread so I can't be described as having fabricated the argument that you laid out there.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Personally I think you have done yourself more damage than any of your enemies could have possibly hoped for.

What "enemies" do you mean and why do you think they "hope for" damage?

Originally posted by FMF
Just read the thread, robbie. I laid out my counter arguments there very clearly and I see no reason to replay the discussion here and now when it already exists and it is a click away.

If you can quote anything you said there that was condemning corporate cover up of sex abuse ~ which you now claim is your stance on the issue ~ then do so.

If you don't ...[text shortened]... what you meant, just as I did. If you are proud of it and don't want to retract it, that's fine.

you have produced no reason, no arguments, all you have achieved is proving what a rather unsavory person you really are. I do not moralize over you for it, you were caught by your own words, trying desperately to find a pretext with which to stigmatize your enemies. It didn't work out for you dude, you have lost, but there will be other battles that you may win. Just take the hit and try to refrain from repeating the same mistake again, its unsettling to see you reduced to repeating the same old drivel again and again in the hope that if you repeat it enough times it will become believable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Gee dude you think out of 64 posts you might be able to cite a single one.

I am happy with the discussion that we had on that thread and I think we both laid out our arguments and observations pretty clearly. People can just read it and see what you said, and what I said. No need to re-enact the debate here.