Child Abuse Among JWs.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
procedure two, victims come to elders, elders have moral obligation to inform
authorities irrespective if there are witnesses or not, to question the accused, use their discernment and wisdom to ascertain the facts, and provide support for victim. Victim also encouraged to approach authorities.

This quite simply is not the procedure that galveston75 described.

Originally posted by FMF
As I said in the post further up the page, I believe that procedure two - i.e. procedure that galveston75 described in answer to the concerns raised by the OP - will result in less abuse cases being reported to the authorities than procedure one. Your endorsement of galveston75's explanation can only be interpreted as being a tacit admission that what he describ ...[text shortened]... opposed to the far more encouraging and reassuring 'official' policy of the JW organization.

so you have no valid reason to state why, in your opinion, that the elders or body of
elders will not carry out the direction which is clearly set out in our child protection
policy irrespective of whether there are two corroborating sources of information or not
and outlined by the Gman when dealing with the matter internally with respect to an
individual who refuses to admit their guilt, thankyou.

Originally posted by FMF
This quite simply is not the procedure that galveston75 described.

I think it is, for clearly wisdom is the application of knowledge and the knowledge or
direction given is that authorities must be contacted and an investigation must be
made, if the accused refuses to fess up, then the elders will try to ascertain why they
have refused and exhort the victim to go to the authorities themselves. Not only is this
the wise and proper thing to do, it soundly refutes your assertion that it will lead to an
underestimation of the report of any kind of abuse and as you have provided no
reason why they will not carry out this procedure one is inclined to dismiss your claim
for sheer lack of evidence.

Originally posted by FMF
I didn't use the words "self serving". These are your words, not mine. I didn't say anything about the policy's "specific intent". Once again, these are your words, not mine. I didn't claim to be talking about "its primary purpose" - your words not mine, again - nor did I claim policy's purpose was "not to provide protection for children". I didn't make any such e scale and truly clumsy ad hominem with a generous helping of red herring.

I didn't use the words "self serving". These are your words, not mine

yes they are for this was the immediate impression i got from reading your text, if this
was indeed not your intent, then why have you used the terms, 'protect the
organisation', and 'deflect criticism'. You can clear the matter up in an instant by
stating that the policy does indeed provide for the protection of children and you are
encouraged by that aspect of it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you have no valid reason to state why, in your opinion, that the elders or body of
elders will not carry out the direction which is clearly set out in our child protection
policy irrespective of whether there are two corroborating sources of information or not
and outlined by the Gman when dealing with the matter internally with respect to an
individual who refuses to admit their guilt, thankyou.

Well, I am troubled by the procedure described by galveston75. I understand that you don't think my concerns are valid. On the other hand I support the 'official' procedure as you know.

I will admit to being somewhat baffled why you would allow your own stance to become rather less coherent (not to mention unnecessarily rancorous) in order to avoid being disloyal, as it were, to galveston75, by calling him on how the 'troubling reality', as I see it, that he describes is not compatible with the 'official' policy that you have been explaining.

I have little doubt that the policy you support would be relatively effective in rooting out child abuse within the JW organization, whereas his would - in my judgement - result in it being underreported. I fully understand that you disagree with me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I didn't use the words "self serving". These are your words, not mine yes they are for this was the immediate impression i got from reading your text, if this
was indeed not your intent, then why have you used the terms, 'protect the
organisation', and 'deflect criticism'. You can clear the matter up in an instant by
stating that the policy do ...[text shortened]... ndeed provide for the protection of children and you are encouraged by that aspect of it.

Doesn't matter how deep you want to dig into your own "impression", I didn't use the words "self serving". Or any of the other words and expressions that you are attempting to attribute to me. These are your words and expression, not mine. You're making stuff up and then attacking the stuff you're making up. To what end, robbie?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, I am troubled by the procedure described by galveston75. I understand that you don't think my concerns are valid. On the other hand I support the 'official' procedure as you know.

I will admit to being somewhat baffled why you would allow your own stance to become rather less coherent (not to mention unnecessarily rancorous) in order to avoid being disl ...[text shortened]... dgement - result in it being underreported. I fully understand that you disagree with me.

simply because i did not agree with your evaluation of his text, it seemed to me not
only to hinge upon the interpretation of certain phrases, for example 'the wisdom of
the elders', and a somewhat unrealistic approach to what he was actually attempting to
describe, which in reality, was simply an attempt to describe what might happen if
there are no corroborating sources, the accused would be interviewed and the victim
exhorted to go to the authorities. I still find nothing troubling with his statement.

Originally posted by FMF
This quite simply is not the procedure that galveston75 described.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think it is....

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose, robbie.

Originally posted by FMF
Doesn't matter how deep you want to dig into your own "impression", I didn't use the words "self serving". Or any of the other words and expressions that you are attempting to attribute to me. These are your words and expression, not mine. You're making stuff up and then attacking the stuff you're making up. To what end, robbie?

whether you actually used those words is immaterial, its the impression they gave, if
you do not believe me, ask an independent witness to evaluate them. So now you can
clear the matter up in an instant, what did you actually mean by utilising the terms
,'protect the organisation' and 'deflect criticism'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I still find nothing troubling with his statement.

Yes I understand that you see nothing troubling about galveston75's statement. That's why I find your stance somewhat incoherent. I don't need you to agree with me, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether you actually used those words is immaterial, its the impression they gave, if
you do not believe me, ask an independent witness to evaluate them. So now you can
clear the matter up in an instant, what did you actually mean by utilising the terms
,'protect the organisation' and 'deflect criticism'.

Whether I actually used those words is immaterial? Good grief, robbie. You are making stuff up and attacking the stuff you are making up. I have expressed my support for the 'official' JW policy repeatedly. What I have a problem with is the procedure galveston75 described.

Originally posted by FMF
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose, robbie.

yes, what must be, must be.

Originally posted by FMF
Whether I actually used those words is immaterial? You are making stuff up and attacking the stuff you are making up. I have expressed my support for the 'official' JW policy repeatedly. What I have a problem with is the procedure galveston75 described.

no i am not making them up FMF, simply answer the question, are we to believe that
you used the terms 'protect the organisation', and 'deflect criticism', as an
endorsement of our child protection policy, really FMF, are we?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...simply answer the question, are we to believe that
you used the terms 'protect the organisation', and 'deflect criticism', as an
endorsement of our child protection policy, really FMF, are we?

I have described the 'official' JW policy as encouraging and reassuring maybe ten times now. I have expressed my support for it. As I said, clearly, concisely, bang-between-the-eyes-ly, only a few posts ago, I have little doubt that the policy would be relatively effective in rooting out child abuse within the JW organization.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i am not making them up FMF...

I have already listed the words and expressions that I did not use which you claim I have used. Why does your "impression" of what I meant depend on you attributing all manner of words and expressions to me that I did not use?