Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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

robbie. I am asking you to quote where I suggested you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim". Can you not come up with the quote?

I questioned you repeatedly about your claim that "no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty".

I never suggested you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim".

Quoting yourself does not work.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

So on 7th September, after the massive sex abuse case was already over, you were still unaware that Kendrick and the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt?

Originally posted by FMF
robbie. I am asking you to quote where I suggested you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim". Can you not come up with the quote?

I questioned you repeatedly about your claim that "no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty".

I never suggested you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim".

Quoting yourself does not work.

I quoted you replying to the the assertion that i was defending the victim over the
perpetrator, your words are there FMF, anyone can read them. You provided in
response a statement that i thought the abuse was merely alleged, as defending the
perpetrator over the victim, otherwise, how else are we to understand your statement,
please explain. If i have not defended the perpetrator over the victim then why are
you quoting that fact that prior to reading the court transcripts i termed the abuse
alleged, do explain.

Originally posted by FMF
So on 7th September, after the massive sex abuse case was already over, you were still unaware that Kendrick and the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt?

I had not heard of Kendricks until i read the court manuscripts, way after the case was
already over, the case, as far as i am aware took place in June, of which i knew
nothing, until PK brought it up in September. Yes i was still unaware that Kendrick and
the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt? In fact, i did not even know who Kendrick
was. and got his name wrong several times, i thought it was McKendricks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

And yet you were saying things like this: ...your evidence if you please, you filthy liar. I am aware of what the fine is for, where is the evidence that you examined, you filthy liar [...] oh dear, it seems that you have not read the court papers at all and yet here you are, you filthy liar, spouting off before you have even considered the evidence [...] you were asked for evidence, you provided nada, why, because you have none, aint that the truth and until you can, all you have is unfounded speculations and insinuations... on 7th September as SOON as PK mentioned it and BEFORE you had looked at the transcripts. It doesn't add up robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I quoted you replying to the the assertion that i was defending the victim over the
perpetrator, your words are there FMF, anyone can read them.

Whether you think "anyone can read them" is rather beside the point, robbie. I didn't suggest you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim" and you are unable to quote me as doing so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I had not heard of Kendricks until i read the court manuscripts, way after the case was
already over, the case, as far as i am aware took place in June, of which i knew
nothing, until PK brought it up in September. Yes i was still unaware that Kendrick and
the JW organisation did not dispute his guilt? In fact, i did not even know who Kendrick
was. and got his name wrong several times, i thought it was McKendricks.

Have the Watchtower and Awake! not been covering the case?

Originally posted by FMF
And yet you were saying things like this: ..your evidence if you please, you filthy liar. I am aware of what the fine is for, where is the evidence that you examined, you filthy liar [...] oh dear, it seems that you have not read the court papers at all and yet here you are, you filthy liar, spouting off before you have even considered the evidence [...] yo SOON as PK mentioned it and BEFORE you had looked at the transcripts. It doesn't add up robbie.

again, what are you saying, I had only considered was a statement which I produced
from the watchtower media service which stated that the abuse was alleged, I had not
read the transcripts and all allegations were therefore alleged, you can check the
statement that I produced if you like, you will see that it clearly states alleged. The
evidence at that point i had not considered , all I knew was that divejeester had not
considered the evidence either otherwise he would have mentioned it and still has
probably not considered the evidence, you are free to believe what you like, naturally,
but i am telling the truth.

Originally posted by FMF
Have the Watchtower and Awake! not been covering the case?

Not that I am aware of no. when we win we will cover it, it is after all, we are interested in good news 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
Whether you think "anyone can read them" is rather beside the point, robbie. I didn't suggest you were "defending the perpetrator over the victim" and you are unable to quote me as doing so.

I think you were otherwise your statement makes no sense within the context.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again, what are you saying, I had not considered was a statement which I produced
from the watchtower media service which stated that the abuse was alleged, I had not
read the transcripts and all allegations were therefore alleged, you can check the
statement that I produced if you like, you will see that it clearly states alleged. The
eviden ...[text shortened]... ed the evidence, you are free to believe what you like, naturally,
but i am telling the truth.

Why did you start being abusive towards other posters - who knew about the case - as SOON as Proper Knob mentioned it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think you were otherwise your statement makes no sense within the context.

But you can't quote me saying it, though. No wonder it "makes no sense" to you if you can't even establish that it's there and quote it. It's something YOU said robbie, not me.

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you start being abusive towards other posters - who knew about the case - as SOON as Proper Knob mentioned it?

I returned kind for kind, divejeester stated of my elders that they are filthy liars, I
resent that and if he can get away with it, then he should be prepared for it in return.
You want to get slimy, well so be it. Actually in retrospect i regret it, but i was annoyed
that he should say that about honest hard-working and self sacrificing men who freely
give up their time and energies , without payment, to help others. The details I
provided about his ignorance as well as prejudice and bigotry remain. These are
inexcusable. You simply produce vile insinuations and expect the slime to stick, well I
am sorry FMF for you, if that's the best you can hope for, truth has a potency all of its
own and cannot be thwarted in that way.

Originally posted by FMF
But you can't quote me saying it, though. No wonder it "makes no sense" to you if you can't even establish that it's there and quote it. It's something YOU said robbie, not me.

I asked you to explain it within the context, twice, you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not that I am aware of no. when we win we will cover it, it is after all, we are interested in good news 🙂

So you don't expect Watchtower and Awake! to cover the case if the appeal is lost? Don't members of your denomination have a right to hear about this kind of thing from their organisation?

Elders share the obligation to shepherd the flock. However, they must be careful not to divulge information about personal
matters to unauthorized persons. There is "a time to keep quiet," when "your words should prove to be few." (Ecclesiastes 3:7; 5:2)
Proverbs 10:19 warns: "In the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly." Problems are created when elders unwisely reveal matters that should be kept confidential.

Letter from WBTS TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1 July 1989