affect and effect

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
tell the forum why you think its a good idea FMF, second time asking. here is the question again.

Why do you think its a good idea to hide behind a false facade pretending to be something you are not on a site that allows children. Tell the forum why you think thats a good idea?

What on earth do "children on the web site" have to do with anything? What are you claiming that I'm pretending to be with the "children" here?

Originally posted by FMF
I have never insinuated that you have abused children or defended child abusers, robbie. But we have disagreed strongly over your defence of religious corporations keeping instances of sex abuse committed by its members. A disagreement over policy and principle that's all.

No one is saying that you have FMF despite your rather blatant and dishonest slight of hand. What you accused me of was defending child abuse, not of actually engaging in child abuse, not a very clever try FMF. Why did you do it? because you disagreed with my stance making you a hypocrite and abnormal if we take your view of what constitutes normal human behaviour and carry it forward. Ouch! I'd say you were pretty much busted FMF. So sad for such a legendary troll and a once worthy opponent.

Originally posted by FMF
What on earth do "children on the web site" have to do with anything? What are you claiming that I'm pretending to be with the "children" here?

You were telling us why you think its a good idea FMF?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one is saying that you have FMF despite your rather blatant and dishonest slight of hand. What you accused me of was defending child abuse, not of actually engaging in child abuse, not a very clever try FMF. Why did you do it? because you disagreed with my stance making you a hypocrite and abnormal if we take your view of what constitutes normal human behaviour and carry it forward. Ouch! I'd say you were pretty much busted.

I haven't accused you of defending child abuse. I have criticized you for defending the covering of it up by your organisation. I am sure you are no more likely to "defend child abuse" than I am.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You were telling us why you think its a good idea FMF?

Are there particular children you think I have played chess against or PM'd, is that it?

Originally posted by FMF
I haven't accused you of defending child abuse. I have criticized you for defending the covering of it up by your organisation. I am sure you are no more likely to "defend child abuse" than I am.

Thats correct you accused me of defending the covering up of child abuse simply because you disagreed with my stance. I have never defended the cover up of child abuse and infact when you were presented with the fact that I support mandatory reporting you insisted that it was simply 'tacked on at the end' of a rather prolonged debate exploring the subject when infact it was a statement of intent so don't give us any of your jive, you accuse people of harbouring all kinds of gross values simply because you disagree with their stance making you abnormal by your definition or what constitutes normality. Is such behaviour abnormal FMF?

Originally posted by FMF
Are there particular children you think I have played chess against or PM'd, is that it?

You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question. Is it pointless to ask you again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that correct you accused me of defending the covering up of child abuse simply because you disagreed with my stance. I have never defended the cover up of child abuse and infact when you were presented with the fact that I support mandatory reporting you insisted that it was simply 'tacked on at the end' of a rather prolonged debate exploring the su ...[text shortened]... disagree with their stance making you abnormal by your definition or what constitutes normality.

You argued that if the JW kept cases of child sex abuse secret from the authorities, it would lead to less child sex abuse.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question. Is it pointless to ask you again.

Which children are you claiming I am a danger to or that I can't be trusted with?

Originally posted by FMF
You argued that if the JW kept cases of child sex abuse secret from the authorities, it would lead to less child sex abuse.

On the contrary I argued that child abusers may be less likely to come forward if they know that reporting was to be mandatory and yet despite that I came to the conclusion that mandatory reporting was best. Now you will tell the forum why this makes me a defender of the cover up of child abuse as per your accusation. Furthermore it was not specific to Jehovahs Witnesses but to all ministers of religion who claim penitent privilege. that would be Catholic confessors etc

Originally posted by FMF
Which children are you claiming I am a danger to or that I can't be trusted with?

I am not claiming anything FMF I have asked you a question that you seem either unwilling or unable to answer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary I argued that child abusers may be less likely to come forward if they know that reporting was to be mandatory and yet despite that I came to the conclusion that mandatory reporting was best. Now you will tell the forum why this makes me a defender of the cover up of child abuse as per your acusation.

Because you argued that there'd be less child sex abuse if your organization kept the instances secret [and so abusers would 'come forward']. You argued in favour of covering up such crimes up for that reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not claiming anything FMF I have asked you a question that you seem either unwilling or unable to answer.

You said: "If you don't want people to question your motives then don't hide behind a false facade in order to dupe them especially on a site that allows minors, it doesn't look good for you regardless of your motives."

Who is these "people" exactly you are referring to, what is it you claim they think about my motives, and why do you think I don't want them to think it?

Originally posted by FMF
Because you argued that there'd be less child sex abuse if your organization kept the instances secret [and so abusers would 'come forward']. You argued in favour of covering such crimes up for that reason.

No I did not i stated and its tedious to have to repeat it again that a child abuser may be less likely to come forward if they know that they will be turned over to the authorities. Do you agree or disagree with this? furthermore it was not specific to Jehovahs witnesses as you have falsely claimed but to all ministers of religion claiming penitent privilege. Please tell the forum whether you agree or disagree with the stance FMF.

Originally posted by FMF
You said: "If you don't want people to question your motives then don't hide behind a false facade in order to dupe them especially on a site that allows minors, it doesn't look good for you regardless of your motives."

Who is these "people" exactly you are referring to, what is it you claim they think about my motives, and why do you think I don't want them to think it?

you were telling is why its a good idea FMF were you not, possibly fifth sixth or seventh time asking. You did it so surely you know.