09 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFdont mention it, anything which diminishes both ignorance and prejudice must be a
Good. Everything is clear then. Thanks for suggesting to me that I read the transcripts.
good thing. Even water if it drips on rock with constancy can make a hole.
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEarlier on this thread you insisted on describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse". A few pages
why is terming the abuse alleged until considering the evidence defending the perpetrator over the victim, you have not said, please answer the question, if you please.
later you claim that "no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilt".
These two stances of yours contradict each other, robbie. If you weren't disputing the abuse, and you weren't disputing Kendrick's guilt, then why did you insist it was "alleged abuse" when not even Kendrick is claiming that it is "alleged abuse"?
09 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFno they do not and its no small matter that you will not answer the question, for if you
Earlier on this thread you insisted on describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse". A few pages
later you claim that "no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilt".
These two stances of yours contradict each other, robbie. If you weren't disputing the abuse, and you weren't disputi was "alleged abuse" when not even Kendrick is claiming that it is "alleged abuse"?
do, your assertions will melt away into nothingness, let it be noted, so either answer
the question, why is waiting to consider the evidence of abuse and thus terming it
alleged defending the perpetrator over the victim or admit that your vile insinuation
was just that, the usual slime.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
09 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhether or not my opinion is meaningless will depend on the reader robbie. I don't expect you to agree and I don't care if you don't.
..your opinions are both irrelevant to anyone but you and entirely meaningless in the context.
You organisation has been found to fall very very short of the vain-glorious standards you proclaim it has robbie. A JW 'brother' has been ben convicted of child abuse you organisation has been restricting the flow of information to the authorities to the point that they blame your [JW] policies (as you yourself have pointed out) and you are still here defending the organisation to the bitter end.
Not exactly "awesome" are you?
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Vile insinuation"? "The usual slime"?
no they do not and its no small matter that you will not answer the question, for if you
do, your assertions will melt away into nothingness, let it be noted, so either answer
the question, [b]why is waiting to consider the evidence of abuse and thus terming it
alleged defending the perpetrator over the victim or admit that your vile insinuation
was just that, the usual slime.[/b]
Where did I state that you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim"? I have said nothing of the sort.
Why are you waiting to consider the evidence of abuse when not even Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick disputes it?
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSomeone who disagrees with you is suffering from self delusion, deep seated prejudice, ignorance, intellectual laziness, not to be trusted, deluded, entirely ignorant, ill informed bigot, flaws in your character, vile, slimy.... blah blah blah ad infinitum, post after post, thread after thread... it is text book ad hominem stuff, robbie.
a verdict is not proof in itself is it. Again you have not provided a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse and perhaps this last statement of yours is the most telling of all, no one is defending the perpetrator over the victim, no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty, I a ...[text shortened]... ce. I do not thank you for demonstrating it, its not for me to correct flaws in your character.
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFtherefore you concur that waiting until having considered the evidence, serious
"Vile insinuation"? "The usual slime"?
Where did I state that you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim"? I have said nothing of the sort.
Why are you waiting to consider the evidence of abuse when not even Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick disputes it?
accusations are alleged until proven otherwise and therefore before having read the
court transcripts any allegations were just that, alleged, thank you and so that neither
you nor your sidekick, divejester can slime up the thread anymore, i do not dispute
Kendricks guilt nor have i defended the perpetrator over the victim.
09 Sep 12
I have provided reasons why he appears to me to be ignorant, self delusional,
prejudiced and bigoted, you may make reference to those, otherwise, as usual, you
seem intent to drag the thread away from the real issue, the culpability or otherwise of
the WTBTS and evidence of negligence and begin the usual tabloid drivel, both tedious
and uninteresting. Don't expect me to join you, i have far more interesting things to do
than read slime, but thanks anyway.