Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 unint me to join you, i have far more interesting things to do
than read slime, but thanks anyway.

Yeah, you undoubtedly feel it is justified, robbie, but it is nevertheless still just text book ad hominem stuff. Just saying.

Don't expect me to join you, i have far more interesting things to do than read slime, but thanks anyway.

How on earth can you seriously suggest that me saying that I agree with the court's verdict in the Jehovah's Witness child sex molestation case, is "slime"?

Originally posted by FMF
Why do you describe Jehovah's Witness Kendrick's actions as "alleged abuse", then, when even he doesn't dispute his guilt?

more yawn, i had not read the court transcripts, i refuse to believe you are so thoroughly stupid although i entertain the possibility for although i realise that you must try something having lost all attempts to provide a shred of evidence for either your own claims or the claim that the WTBTS was guilty of negligence. I have stated this before i will not do so again, until I considered the evidence, all accusations and allegations are alleged including those of abuse, do you understand? I do not think any reasonable nor sane person would consider an event as having taken place without having considered the evidence. Your silly and quite useless attempts to make something of the term 'alleged' abuse is a reflection of the weakness of your case, and in divejesters an indication of both ignorance and prejudice, for he actually, without having considered a shred of evidence stated that it was indicative of and I quote, defending the perpetrator over the victim, which you yourself, being caught up in the prospect of producing more slime, bought into, yet when confronted with certain realities and logic, could not even bring yourself to answer a simple question and sought to distance yourself. Now if you dont mind i have some rather more interesting things to do than remonstrate with you over irrelevancies, if you dont mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your silly and quite useless attempts to make something of the term 'alleged' abuse is a reflection of the weakness of your case...

You're not answering my question. Why do you refer to it as "alleged abuse" when not even Jehovah's Witness Kendrick disputes his guilt?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...without having considered a shred of evidence stated that it was indicative of and I quote, defending the perpetrator over the victim

You say you "quote" what? Who? Where did I state that you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim"? I have said nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by FMF
Why do you refer to it as "alleged abuse" when not even Jehovah's Witness Kendrick disputes his guilt?

If you decide - after your due consideration - that the abuse didn't happen, are you going to contact Kendrick and urge him to start denying it happened?

Originally posted by FMF
You're not answering my question. Why do you refer to it as "alleged abuse" when not even Jehovah's Witness Kendrick disputes his guilt?

I had not read the court transcripts at the time, now stated for the fifth time, possibly
more, are you so thoroughly deviod of reason that you are unaware of this simple fact
or are you simply proving to be the tedious crashing bore that you purport to be at
every turn? I think the term is a forum troll and as you and I are aware, trolls like you
should not be fed.

Originally posted by FMF
If you decide - after your due consideration - that the abuse didn't happen, are you going to contact Kendrick and urge him to start denying it happened?

I have stated that the abuse took place and that it was regrettable, possibly ten or more times, why are you saying that i have not and that I continue to assert that the abuse is merely alleged?

Originally posted by FMF
You say you "quote" what? Who? Where did I state that you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim"? I have said nothing of the sort.

divjeester stated it and as some kind of evidence you produced the statement that I
had and continue to assert that the abuse was and is alleged ( a lie, for I only stated
that the abuse was alleged prior to having read the court transcripts), linking your vile
and slimy assertions to divejeesters statement. Are you now seeking to distance
yourself from them? here are your words,

robbie: no one is defending the perpetrator over the victim, no one disputed the
abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty...

FMF: Just a few pages ago you were describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I had not read the court transcripts at the time...

You "had not read the court transcripts at the time...". Were you unaware that Kendrick did not dispute his guilt? Were you unaware that the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt? These are awfully big things to be unaware of when you were also berating other posters - who were of aware these things - of being "ignorant", "prejudiced", "bigoted" for accepting the decision of the court.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
divjeester stated it and as some kind of evidence you produced the statement that I
had and continue to assert that the abuse was and is alleged ( a lie, for I only stated
that the abuse was alleged prior to having read the court transcripts), linking your vile
and slimy assertions to divejeesters statement. Are you now seeking to distance
y ...[text shortened]... bing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse".

Can you show me where I suggested you are "defending the perpetrator over the victim"? Can you quote me?

Originally posted by FMF
You "had not read the court transcripts at the time...". Were you unaware that Kendrick did not dispute his guilt? Were you unaware that the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt? These are awfully big things to be unaware of when you were also berating other posters - who were of aware these things - of being "ignorant", "prejudiced", "bigoted" for accepting the decision of the court.

I was aware of nothing until i read the transcripts other than the verdict and a
statement which I produced from the watchtower site on the case. I had not heard of
Kendrick, i had not heard of Candace Conti and i had no idea that the lawsuit had even
taken place until PK posted something about our assets being frozen, anyone who
replies to a matter before looking at the details is both in a position of ignorance and
prejudice, let it serve as a lesson to the likes of you and divejeester.

Originally posted by FMF
Can you show me where I suggested you are "defending the perpetrator over the victim"? Can you quote me?

robbie: no one is defending the perpetrator over the victim, no one disputed the
abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty...

FMF: Just a few pages ago you were describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse".

your words were they not, made within the context of and in reply to, defending the perpetrator over the victim

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have stated that the abuse took place and that it was regrettable, possibly ten or more times, why are you saying that i have not and that I continue to assert that the abuse is merely alleged?

So a couple of pages back you said "no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty". And only a few pages before that it was still "alleged abuse" as far as you were concerned. Does that mean you may have been the very last person here to realize and accept that he had done what he [and the JW organisation] did not dispute he'd done?

Originally posted by FMF
You "had not read the court transcripts at the time...". Were you unaware that Kendrick did not dispute his guilt? Were you unaware that the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt? These are awfully big things to be unaware of when you were also berating other posters - who were of aware these things - of being "ignorant", "prejudiced", "bigoted" for accepting the decision of the court.

I was aware of nothing, i had not even heard about the case until PK mentioned it, I did not know who Kendrick was until i read the court transcripts.

Originally posted by FMF
So a couple of pages back you said "no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty". And only a few pages before that it was still "alleged abuse" as far as you were concerned. Does that mean you may have been the very last person here to realize and accept that he had done what he [and the JW organisation] did not dispute he'd done?

It seems like I am the only person that has read the transcripts and made no
assumption prior to that, but then again, i am a rather unassuming character and have
been trained not to reply to a matter before you are fully aware of the details,
otherwise you are coming from a position of ignorance.