Memo

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
whoosh how stupid are you?
you read one report so did i, i agreed there was a cover up, many other organisations did they same, catholic church scouts etc.
the point i am making, what is it to to with not celebrating christmas? many religions don't celebrate christmas.
you are using one "isolated" case to have a go at all JW. again i will use the com ...[text shortened]... for a change.
you don't have to answer i am convinced you are FMF, do you wear a dress as well?

In your opinion, is the report highlighting a cover up of child abuse or not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I never criticise anyone until I have considered the evidence. My stance on the issue is well known. I favour mandatory reporting and if mandatory reporting had been in place the brothers who are well known for their adherence to secular laws would have complied with it and you would have nothing to hang your religious bigotry upon.

You have si ...[text shortened]... mply a religious bigot using an emotive issue as a vehicle for your bigotry, that's all you are.

I am a staunch vocal critic of your religious organisation; that is not being bigoted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... you are simply a religious bigot using an emotive issue as a vehicle for your bigotry, that's all you are.

It's not just emotive, it is criminal.

Originally posted by GHOST HUNTER
whoosh how stupid are you?
you read one report so did i, i agreed there was a cover up, many other organisations did they same, catholic church scouts etc.
the point i am making, what is it to to with not celebrating christmas? many religions don't celebrate christmas.
you are using one "isolated" case to have a go at all JW. again i will use the com ...[text shortened]... for a change.
you don't have to answer i am convinced you are FMF, do you wear a dress as well?

Let me put your mind at ease. FMF and Dive are not the same person. This is something you could easily verify for yourself. (If you had a mind to).

Both have been prolific posters in these forums for many years. It would not be hard to find numerous examples of them posting at exactly the same time in different forum threads. (If you had a mind to).

For them to be the same person 'they' would have to have maintained communication with 'themselves' multiple times a day for year after year and had two separate computers on the go to account for the overlaps in posting. 'Nobody' takes this dual identity seriously, not even Robbie who said it was plausible. (Purely for your benefit). With a little mature reflection and logical thinking, you too could only conclude that they had to be two separate people, no matter how similar you found them. (If you had a mind.....)

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Let me put your mind at ease. FMF and Dive are not the same person. This is something you could easily verify for yourself. (If you had a mind to).

If you have the time, could you please also put his mind at rest - once and for all - regarding me having been a "girl" impersonator - assuming you don't share that same suspicion. 🙂

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Let me put your mind at ease. FMF and Dive are not the same person. This is something you could easily verify for yourself. (If you had a mind to).

Both have been prolific posters in these forums for many years. It would not be hard to find numerous examples of them posting at exactly the same time in different forum threads. (If you had a mind to ...[text shortened]... ey had to be two separate people, no matter how similar you found them. (If you had a mind.....)

I'm not sure ghost hunter is interested in a rational approach, he's more miffed that I spotted his, shall we say similar, approach to posting to @chaney3.

What is obviously true though is that FMF is far more intelligent and successful than I, but then he is a classically educated Mensa member who speaks several languages fluently and holds a professorship in something-or-other and runs his own linguistics business.

On the other hand, I'm much better looking, especially in full make up. 😉

Originally posted by divegeester
What is obviously true though is that FMF is far more intelligent and successful than I, but then he is a classically educated Mensa member who speaks several languages fluently and holds a professorship in something-or-other

In the UK and the US, I'd no doubt be bullied for who I am ~ just as I am here at RHP. By contrast, in France, they put their intellectuals on prime time TV.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Only this week the head of the catholic church stated that Bishops are not under duress to report suspected cases of child abuse where the law is not mandatory. If you had any real interest in the issue you would have looked at it objectively and looked at the issues facing those whose role as confessors may come into conflict with secular law putting them i ...[text shortened]... on behalf of the Catholic Church, I'm sure they'll get into the same kind of tangle as you have.

Thankyou for that. I have never argued for the covering up of any abuse in my organisation or any other. What I infact did was put the varoius issues on the table for objective reasoned debate but naturally neither you nor your slobbering hound were interested in it and instead used the opportunity to simply form into a weapon so that you could attempt to vilify those that were interested in objective reasoned debate. Thats all you ever do and that's all you amount to nothing more than a vile and slanderous individual with a habitual pattern of fabricating values to attack and vilify other people and I thank you for the opportunity to highlight the fact.

Originally posted by FMF
If you have the time, could you please also put his mind at rest - once and for all - regarding me having been a "girl" impersonator - assuming you don't share that same suspicion. 🙂

Why would any male pretend to be a female on the internet? What were your motives? You do realise that there are laws to protect people from those who hide what they are in order to dupe and gain the trust of others.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...but naturally neither you nor your slobbering hound were interested in it and instead used the opportunity to simply form into a weapon so that you could attempt to vilify those that were interested in objective reasoned debate. Thats all you ever do and that's all you amount to nothing more than a vile and slanderous individual with a habitual ...[text shortened]... ues to attack and vilify other people and I thank you for the opportunity to highlight the fact.

Ooh. Must have touched a nerve, then.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I never criticise anyone until I have considered the evidence. My stance on the issue is well known. I favour mandatory reporting and if mandatory reporting had been in place the brothers who are well known for their adherence to secular laws would have complied with it and you would have nothing to hang your religious bigotry upon.

You have si ...[text shortened]... mply a religious bigot using an emotive issue as a vehicle for your bigotry, that's all you are.

You may very well not criticise someone until you have considered the evidence, good for you, the point in this instance is that you have refused to even look at the evidence. Talk about head in the sand!!

This just isn't about penitent privilege it's much more than that, if you had the intellectual capacity and honesty to read the report you would understand this. For example -

1. The JW authorities had been found to be more concerned with the churches reputation than the victims of abuse.
2. Young girls who had been raped and/or sexually abused had to suffer the trauma of being 'interviewed' by their attacker/rapist.
3. Congregations were kept in the dark with respect to members who remained in the organisation who admitted sexually abusing children.It was kept quiet.
4. No support or counselling was provided to victims, it was all just brushed under the carpet.

That's what I can remember off the top of my head.

Originally posted by FMF
Ooh. Must have touched a nerve, then.

So you've flown with the Red Barron too. Interesting.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You may very well not criticise someone until you have considered the evidence, good for you, the point in this instance is that you have refused to even look at the evidence. Talk about head in the sand!!

This just isn't about penitent privilege it's much more than that, if you had the intellectual capacity and honesty to read the report you would un ...[text shortened]... it was all just brushed under the carpet.

That's what I can remember off the top of my head.

I am in favour of mandatory reporting. If there is criminality involved let those who have committed crimes be tried in a court of law. If not let them be exonerated. Its really rather simple.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am in favour of mandatory reporting. If there is criminality involved let those who have committed crimes be tried in a court of law. If not let them be exonerated. Its really rather simple.

What about the accused being allowed to interview their victims?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am in favour of mandatory reporting. If there is criminality involved let those who have committed crimes be tried in a court of law. If not let them be exonerated. Its really rather simple.

Should any people found to have tried to cover up or assist with covering up sexual abuse be liable to prosecution for criminal conspiracy or something similar?