Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not questioning the motives of the plaintiff but simply why the original claim was so large. I am not stating that abuse has not occurred, i am not stating that it is not regrettable that it has occurred, i am simply trying to ascertain why the original claim was so much.

I think you are sneering at the victim of sexual abuse. I don't need you to agree with me, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not questioning the motives of the plaintiff but simply why the original claim was so large. I am not stating that abuse has not occurred, i am not stating that it is not regrettable that it has occurred, i am simply trying to ascertain why the original claim was so much.

What was the original claim?

Originally posted by FMF
Your post at the bottom of page 16 is you sneering at a victim of sexual abuse. I do not need you to admit it. Others can give my take on it what credence they want.

no its not, its an opinion of yours that has not any validity other than because you say it has, what is more i can point to many instances throughout the thread where i have stated that the action was regrettable, you have simply your own lies, for that is what it amounts to. again what others think does not negate that you think that your personal opinions have some weight, when in fact, they are meaningless.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What was the original claim?

the original claim for compensation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the original claim for compensation.

This -

I am not questioning the motives of the plaintiff but simply why the original claim was so large.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not, its an opinion of yours that has not any validity other than because you say it has, what is more i can point to many instances throughout the thread where i have stated that the action was regrettable, you have simply your own lies, for that is what it amounts to. again what others think does not negate that you think that your personal opinions have any weight.

I will leave it others to decide whether you were sneering or whether, as you claim, you were "simply trying to ascertain" something with your post at the bottom of page 16. It's fine by me if you think my observation is "meaningless" or if you describe it as "lies".

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This -

I am not questioning the motives of the plaintiff but simply why the original claim was so large.

yes

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes

What was large? How large?

Originally posted by FMF
I will leave it others to decide whether you were sneering or whether, as you claim, you were "simply trying to ascertain" something with your post at the bottom of page 16. It's fine by me if you think my observation is "meaningless" or if you describe it as "lies".

I think you are a thoroughly scurrilous fraudulent purveyor of your own opinions, it must be true, why, because you never provide the slightest evidence ever to back up any of your claims,you expect others to take your word as some kind of truth, well, here is news for you FMF, your opinions are absolutely meaningless to anyone but you and have absolutely no validity other than that which you wish to give them. If you think it is sneering, then good for you, but i have evidence which i can point to which states that i found the abuse regrettable, you have as usual, your own self certified opinions, which are meaningless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think you are a thoroughly scurrilous fraudulent purveyor of your own opinions, it must be true, why, because you never provide the slightest evidence ever to back up any of your claims,you expect others to take your word as some kind of truth, well, here is news for you FMF, your opinions are absolutely meaningless to anyone but you and have absol ...[text shortened]... e abuse regrettable, you have as usual, your own self certified opinions, which are meaningless.

Others will decide whether they think you were sneering with your post at the bottom of page 16. To me it was sneering. Clearly you disagree.

Originally posted by FMF
Others will decide whether they think you were sneering with your post at the bottom of page 16. To me it was sneering. Clearly you disagree.

meaningless

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
meaningless

You've said that several times robbie. The "evidence" of you sneering is in your post at the bottom of page 16. As I have said, several times, I do not need you to admit you were sneering. I don't even need you to show any regret about the post in question. Just saying.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What was large? How large?

i heard it was for something in the region of $ 100,000,000, but cannot confirm it. The case is really quite interesting,

have any other secular or religious organization, then or now, ever been legally required to make a public announcement of a congregant's specific sexual misdeeds.

Originally posted by FMF
You've said that several times robbie. The "evidence" of you sneering is in your post at the bottom of page 16. As I have said, several times, I do not need you to admit you were sneering. I don't even need you to show any regret about the post in question. Just saying.

meaningless self certified opinion of someone that can provide not a shred of evidence other than their own opinions,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
meaningless self certified opinion of someone that can provide not a shred of evidence other than their own opinions,

Whether they agree with my opinion is for others to decide for themselves, robbie.