19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not quite sure why you keep making these accusations over and over again if you are supposedly so sure that you will be vindicated in the minds of people who read your argument in that thread. Shouldn't you be quietly content and confident about what you said rather than spewing out this constant stream of personal insults?
or that can believe your lies, hmmmm, lies or chips, lies or chips?
Originally posted by FMFDude i just proved that your accusation was a lie in this thread, its not a personal insult its now an established statement of fact. You keep hiding behind the drivel that 'its in the thread, its in the thread', if its 'in the thread' as you say then produce it? You have been asked countless times to do so and cannot, no not a single citation could be found making the assertion that you fabricated quite simply a lie. If you cannot substantiate your claims then you should not make them, its really very simple.
I'm not quite sure why you keep making these accusations over and over again if you are supposedly so sure that you will be vindicated in the minds of people who read your argument in that thread. Shouldn't you be quietly content and confident about what you said rather than spewing out this constant stream of personal insults?
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo you didn't. If you think I am lying why not let people read that thread and decide for themselves. Just saying I am lying over and over again doesn't add the spin you seem to think it does. Are you worried that people will read those nine pages and won't ~ as you appear to need them to ~ skip straight to one outlier comment on page ten? You are acting as if you are rattled by the prospect of people reading the argument you laid out on that thread.
Dude i just proved that your accusation was a lie in this thread....
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFI suspect that old mother Hubbard has more chance of finding a bone than you have of finding proof for your ludicrous claim.
I'm not quite sure why you keep making these accusations over and over again if you are supposedly so sure that you will be vindicated in the minds of people who read your argument in that thread. Shouldn't you be quietly content and confident about what you said rather than spewing out this constant stream of personal insults?
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, let's just let this absolute zinger about Mother Hubbard resound around the brain of anyone reading the argument you put forward on that thread.
I suspect that old mother Hubbard has more chance of finding a bone than you have of finding proof for your ludicrous claim.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by FMFSurly you must have a single citation, something, anything, why you expect people to believe you on the basis of no proof I have no idea, shall i produce a citation from the thread you cited as evidence for your claim, yes lets do that and lets see how it compares to your assertion, heres one here from page nine of eleven,
No you didn't. If you think I am lying why not let people read that thread and decide for themselves. Just saying I am lying over and over again doesn't add the spin you seem to think it does. Are you worried that people will read those nine pages and won't ~ as you appear to need them to ~ skip straight to one outlier comment on page ten? You are acting as if you are rattled by the prospect of people reading the argument you laid out on that thread.
The matter is quite clear, in the UK there is mandatory reporting which supersedes that of penitent privilege, meaning of course that a minster of God is under duress to report any instances of child abuse to the relevant authorities as soon as they come to light. Penitent privilege does not prevent this nor can it be used to prevent access to information or hinder in any way investigations by civil authorities.
So if a kid came to me and said that they were being abused, I would drive them to the nearest police station, which is not far from me and give the matter into the hands of the police. I am a minster of God, I have been trained to deal with sin, I have not been trained to deal with criminality. It is a matter for the police. - Robbie Carrobie
Is this what makes you think that I have , in your words, 'defended covering up child abuse'?
Originally posted by HandyAndyAndrew the claim is that I have personally advocated covering up child abuse, on this very site, from the thread that FMF has cited as his evidence I quote,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/leaders-jehovahs-witnesses-cover-child-sex-abuse/
The matter is quite clear, in the UK there is mandatory reporting which supersedes that of penitent privilege, meaning of course that a minster of God is under duress to report any instances of child abuse to the relevant authorities as soon as they come to light. Penitent privilege does not prevent this nor can it be used to prevent access to information or hinder in any way investigations by civil authorities.
So if a kid came to me and said that they were being abused, I would drive them to the nearest police station, which is not far from me and give the matter into the hands of the police. I am a minster of God, I have been trained to deal with sin, I have not been trained to deal with criminality. It is a matter for the police. - Robbie Carrobie
Can you perhaps help FMF out he seems to be having trouble finding anything from the thread where I have advocated in his words 'covering up child abuse'. Does my statement sound to you like a man who advocates 'covering up child abuse', please explain if you are able.
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMuch better for people to simply read your argument as it unfolded, posts by post, dodge by dodge, shifting goalpost by shifting goal post, insult by insult, ignored reply by ignored reply, all the way up to where you suddenly contradicted just about every single thing you had argued in a single comment on page 10. Much better to simply follow the debate and see your justification for cover up and confidentiality and not reporting the crimes to the authorities as you explain it. No need for a "single citation". The whole thing, word for word, post for post, as it happened, what you said, what others said, what they meant, what you meant... it's all a mouse click away.
Surly you must have a single citation...
Originally posted by FMFDude you cannot produce a single citation? I can, here is one from the thread that you cite as your evidence,
Much better for people to simply read your argument as it unfolded, posts by post, dodge by dodge, shifting goalpost by shifting goal post, insult by insult, ignored reply by ignored reply, all the way up to where you suddenly contradicted just about every single thing you had argued in a single comment on page 10. Much better to simply follow the debate and see ...[text shortened]... what you said, what others said, what they meant, what you meant... it's all a mouse click away.
The matter is quite clear, in the UK there is mandatory reporting which supersedes that of penitent privilege, meaning of course that a minster of God is under duress to report any instances of child abuse to the relevant authorities as soon as they come to light. Penitent privilege does not prevent this nor can it be used to prevent access to information or hinder in any way investigations by civil authorities.
So if a kid came to me and said that they were being abused, I would drive them to the nearest police station, which is not far from me and give the matter into the hands of the police. I am a minster of God, I have been trained to deal with sin, I have not been trained to deal with criminality. It is a matter for the police. - Robbie Carrobie
Is it this statement that makes you think that I advocate as you have stated, 'covering up child abuse'?
19 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat are your thoughts regarding the accusations on PBS Newshour?
Andrew the claim is that I have personally advocated covering up child abuse, on this very site, from the thread that FMF has cited as his evidence I quote,
The matter is quite clear, in the UK there is mandatory reporting which supersedes that of penitent privilege, meaning of course that a minster of God is under duress to report any instances ...[text shortened]... sound to you like a man who advocates 'covering up child abuse', please explain if you are able.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStatements that indicated that you were defending your organization covering up child sex abuse are on the first 9 pages of the thread. Anyone reading it will be able to see for themselves. And they can bear in mind that you insist that you do not retract anything you said on those 9 pages. One click and you're there.
Is it this statement that makes you think that I advocate as you have stated, 'covering up child abuse'?
- Joined
- 09 Feb 10
- Moves
- 48633
Originally posted by StartreaderYes, Startreader...I think your observations are spot on 🙂
Most of all, the biggest question in the mind of anyone observing page after page of this thread...and so many others...is why you seem to take delight in hounding individuals time and again, along with your sidekick divegeester? Why do you do it? Do you see yourself as some kind of cross-examining super-hero, with a mission to expose someone or other for something or other, the accusation largely of your own making?
I believe that FMF does see himself in that light. Almost every interaction I have had with him has been a cross-examination. Why? No idea. I must be honest here and say that he is typically respectful and often has legitimate, insightful comments. But his style of relentlessly interrogating posters...instead of just chatting... turns off quite a few people it seems...
His sidekick, Dive, seems to enjoy being a bully of sorts. He is often rude to posters, wants to be "right" and obsesses often. He will more than likely reply to my post with some form of nastiness. He was rude to me from the start. Why? Again, no idea. He will say he is a "Christian" man, but his posts often to not reflect his claim. My husband is a man of great faith...not church-going anymore, but certainly conducts himself with much decorum. He is an intrinsically respectful person to every person he encounters. He would never speak to others the way that Dive does.
It is unfortunate...as these two often dominate threads, especially when it is GB-related. Neither seem interested in just having fun, getting to know others, swapping thoughts, experiences, etc.
