Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dude, I wouldn't be seen dead near you 🙂

Well, presumably you'd welcome other victims being emboldened to come forward and demand justice after being sexually abused by Jehovah's Witness brothers, like Candice Conti has, regardless of whether the JW organisation was complicit or not.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, presumably you'd welcome other victims being emboldened to come forward and demand justice after being sexually abused by Jehovah's Witness brothers, like Candice Conti has, regardless of whether the JW organisation was complicit or not.

If presumptions are your thing, then presume away, I prefer empirical evidence myself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If presumptions are your thing, then presume away, I prefer empirical evidence myself.

OK, I'll shave a little bit more off the question to see if you can say something unequivocal. Presumably you'd welcome other victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Jehovah's Witness brothers being emboldened to come forward and demand justice? Do I need to pare the question down even more in order for you to stop dodging it, I wonder.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It matters little either way to be honest, it was interesting reading the court transcripts
and it was also interesting and a little amusing reading the somewhat sensationalistic
claims of atheistic and anti witness sites, 'it will send the witnesses into Armageddon
mode'. Its not a waste of paper at all, every drug users, prostitute, gambler, ...[text shortened]... to turn their life around because of it, is worth every penny and
not a few atheists too 😛

I obviously disagree with your waste of money angle, but that's a deabte for another day.

Would you like to have been told about the court case, instead of finding out from a stranger on an internet chess site?

Originally posted by FMF
OK, I'll shave a little bit more off the question to see if you can say something unequivocal. Presumably you'd welcome other victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Jehovah's Witness brothers being emboldened to come forward and demand justice? Do I need to pare the question down even more in order for you to stop dodging it, I wonder.

Presumptions are your remit, not mine, I try to be unassuming.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I obviously disagree with your waste of money angle, but that's a deabte for another day.

Would you like to have been told about the court case, instead of finding out from a stranger on an internet chess site?

no, its makes no difference, we get information from all sources, even mis or dis information, the trick is to filter out what is important and what can be discarded, like a chess position 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Presumptions are your remit, not mine, I try to be unassuming.

Just more dodging from you, then.

I realise you support your religious corporation through thick and thin. In fact something deep down inside me reckons that all this stuff - this case - what was revealed, the weakness of the JW's case, like its pathetic summing up - actually does not sit well with you, but you've put on a brave face, and you've argued your organisation's corner gamely.

Something tells me that it does not sit well with you, but you cannot bring yourself to say so. I could be wrong. What you or i think doesn't matter either way in the final analysis perhaps.

But you did sneer at the victim when you felt cornered by not knowing about the details of the case, you questioned her motivations in a sneering way, you insinuated that she was in it for the money (even if you did then describe the amount of money as mere "peanuts" later, which - frankly - sounded a bit sneering too), you sneered at the drug problems she's had since being abused by brother Kendrick (cashing in a fair few of your credibility points for future discussions about drug users), and now here you are pointedly refusing to welcome other victims like her coming forward with wordplay about "presumption" and "assuming". Wordplay aside, you're dodging the chance to welcome victims getting justice.

You come across as begrudging, robbie. You've stuck by your church, yes. I sincerely hope the JW organisation has a big enough heart and enough sense to learn its lessons [and I hope you stick with it when it does, too] and, as I said before, I hope it seizes this setback as an opportunity to review its policies with regard to child sex abuse and corporate secrecy, and revise them as necessary so as to ensure that such negligence and complicity is less likely to happen ever again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, its makes no difference, we get information from all sources, even mis or dis information, the trick is to filter out what is important and what can be discarded, like a chess position 🙂

This whole massive court case, which could prove to be pivotal, was "filtered out", until a stranger on an internet chess site told you about it. You come across as oddly complacent. Let's hope that the JW organisation is not so complacent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, its makes no difference, we get information from all sources, even mis or dis information, the trick is to filter out what is important and what can be discarded, like a chess position 🙂

Being 'mis'-informed is the correct word.

Dissing the information.... well.... what's that all about? 🙄

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
Being 'mis'-informed is the correct word.

Dissing the information.... well.... what's that all about? 🙄

-m.

educate yourself, for a moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

Originally posted by FMF
Just more dodging from you, then.

I realise you support your religious corporation through thick and thin. In fact something deep down inside me reckons that all this stuff - this case - what was revealed, the weakness of the JW's case, like its pathetic summing up - actually does not sit well with you, but you've put on a brave face, and you've argued your o ...[text shortened]... to ensure that such negligence and complicity is less likely to happen ever again.

slime much your sliminess?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
slime much your sliminess?

A few of my thoughts on the way you have acquitted yourself on this thread, robbie, offered in good faith and without rancour.

Originally posted by FMF
A few of my thoughts on the way you have acquitted yourself on this thread, robbie, offered in good faith and without rancour.

yes because lets face it you will be canonized shortly for your faith, honesty and integrity. 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because lets face it you will be canonized shortly for your faith, honesty and integrity. 😀

Your anger and abusiveness has been quite a puzzling spectacle on this thread. I'm not sure exactly where it's coming from, after all, we both abhor sexual molestation of children, and if more victims now come forward like Candice Conti has, and get justice [and perhaps some modicum of closure] both of us will welcome it, I'm sure.

As for all the personal remarks you have been directing at me - "slime", "vile", "liar", "slimy", "bigot", "stinking", etc. etc. - I don't really know why you do it. I have not subjected you to anything remotely like it. The way you choose to project yourself, robbie, is somewhat baffling sometimes, to put it mildly.

Originally posted by FMF
Your anger and abusiveness has been quite a puzzling spectacle on this thread. I'm not sure exactly where it's coming from, after all, we both abhor sexual molestation of children, and if more victims now come forward like Candice Conti has, and get justice [and perhaps some modicum of closure] both of us will welcome it, I'm sure.

As for all the personal re ...[text shortened]... e to project yourself, robbie, is somewhat baffling sometimes, to put it mildly.

more slime your sliminess, or should that be Saint Sliminess.