Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and up you pop like a jack in the box, no dice FMF, I have not read the court transcripts and have no way of knowing what abuse took place, perhaps you can enlighten us.

So you do question whether the abuse actually took place. That is very interesting. Why did you refer repeatedly to McKendicks' "regrettable action" if you have not "read the court transcripts"?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]what the jury apparently ignored.

It ignored [...]

The jury chose to believe the dishonest misrepresentation by [...]

The jury ignored the fact that [...]

The jury ignored the fact that [...]

The jury chose to ignore the fact that [...]

The jury chose to ignore the fact that [...]

Aren't these just your opinions, robbie?[/b]

so lets get this, Californian privacy laws which prevent disclosure of certain details of
sexual misconduct are an opinion, is that what you are saying FMF, that there being no
prior legal precedent which required any secular or religious body to provide public
details of the offence, is an opinion, is this really the best you can do, please turn up
the tone on your posts, more cabbage soup. Inane and pathetic, tedious and
predictable, that is an opinion.

Originally posted by FMF
So you do question whether the abuse actually took place. That is very interesting. Why did you refer repeatedly to McKendicks' "regrettable action" if you have not "read the court transcripts"?

simply because, it was contained in the watchtower societies release, which i posted. If
you find that interesting, then whatever rocks your socks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so lets get this, Californian privacy laws which prevent disclosure of certain details of
sexual misconduct are an opinion, is that what you are saying FMF, that there being no
prior legal precedent which required any secular or religious body to provide public
details of the offence, is an opinion, is this really the best you can do, please tu ...[text shortened]... our posts, more cabbage soup. Inane and pathetic, tedious and
predictable, that is an opinion.

What I am saying is that your list entitled "what the jury apparently ignored" is just a list of your personal opinions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply because, it was contained in the watchtower societies release, which i posted. If
you find that interesting, then whatever rocks your socks.

So the Watchtower concedes - in its "release" - that there was sexual molestation of a child but you personally continue to question whether the abuse actually took place, is that it?

Originally posted by FMF
What I am saying is that your list entitled "what the jury apparently ignored" is just a list of your personal opinions.

clearly not, otherwise, how are we to account for their guilty verdict of complicity.

Originally posted by FMF
So the Watchtower concedes - in its "release" - that there was sexual molestation of a child but you personally continue to question whether the abuse actually took place, is that it?

No i have not questioned whether it took place, I have simply no way of knowing what
took place until I read the transcripts, i don't have a mind ray, after all, despite your
apparent insistence that i am telepathically linked to the court transcriber. Is this sort
of thing really the best you can do FMF, really.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
clearly not, otherwise, how are we to account for their guilty verdict of complicity.

The guilty verdict is a fact, robbie. Your disagreements with it are your personal opinions. Indeed, that the sexual abuse happened seems to be accepted by just about everybody, including the people at Watchtower, except by you. You still refer to it as "the alleged abuse".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i have not questioned whether it took place, I have simply no way of knowing what
took place until I read the transcripts, i don't have a mind ray, after all, despite your
apparent insistence that i am telepathically linked to the court transcriber. Is this sort
of thing really the best you can do FMF, really.

You do know that McKendrick is a convicted child molester, right? And yet you continue to refer to his crimes as "alleged abuse". What does "the court transcriber" have to do with it?

Originally posted by FMF
The guilty verdict is a fact, robbie. Your disagreements with it are your personal opinions. Indeed, that the sexual abuse happened seems to be accepted by just about everybody, including the people at Watchtower, except by you. You still refer to it as "the alleged abuse".

No they are based upon legalities and procedures, another attempted fail, they are not
based at all, on any personal opinions, you are the purveyor of personal opinions
masquerading as fact, not me.

Originally posted by FMF
You do know that McKendrick is a convicted child molester, right? And yet you continue to refer to his crimes as "alleged abuse". What does "the court transcriber" have to do with it?

yawn, yawn and double yawn, i am not on trial FMF. Where is your evidence that the watchtower and Bible tract society was complicit in the abuse?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, yawn and double yawn, i am not on trial FMF.

I put it to you that you in fact regret describing McKendricks' child molestation as "alleged abuse", perhaps in haste or in anger, or a mix of the two, that you are too proud to admit it, and that this is the reason why you have tied yourself in a knot on this thread. Could that be what has happened?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Where is your evidence that the watchtower and Bible tract society was complicit in the abuse?

What "abuse"? You have not conceded that it happened. You have been referring to it as only having been "alleged"? You're in knot here, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No they are based upon legalities and procedures, another attempted fail, they are not
based at all, on any personal opinions, you are the purveyor of personal opinions
masquerading as fact, not me.

The jury found the JWs guilty. That is not a personal opinion of mine. It is a fact.

Originally posted by FMF
I put it to you that you in fact regret describing McKendricks' child molestation as "alleged abuse", perhaps in haste or in anger, or a mix of the two, that you are too proud to admit it, and that this is the reason why you have tied yourself in a knot on this thread. Could that be what has happened?

I have not disputed that abuse has taken place, not once in this thread, I am merely
not in a position to sate the extent of or the nature of the abuse, but for the sake of
argument i will comply and without having read the details acquiesce that abuse has
taken place, one wonders what you will whine about now FMF. My concern, as it has
been throughout the thread, is that there is no evidence that the watchtower Bible and
tract society were complicit in that abuse, I have after all, only mentioned it about
twenty times.