Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have not read all the testimony and until i do everything is alleged...

What about the court case already decided in the court of law?

Originally posted by FMF
See my post above. That is my answer to your question.

both predictable and tiresome. oh, well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, i have not read all the testimony and until i do everything is alleged, O.J. Simpson also won a court case, it proves, nada. Now please answer my question.

I don't know the answer to your question.

But surely no sane individual would be stupid enough to let a convicted child molester back into a place filled with children and not tell anyone about those previous convictions. From the few transcripts i have read from this trial he was even allowed to walk this girl home, alone, back to his house on a regular basis. Now what human being who knew about his prior conviction would let that happen?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
both predictable and tiresome. oh, well.

Presumably this means you DID read it then. let me reiterate. Your sneering comment at the bottom of page 16, you fumbling about O.J.Simpson, and the suggestion that the abuse is STILL only "alledged", because you say so, and despite the verdict in the case, place a question mark over the sincerity of everything you have said, including your sullen mutterings about "regrettable action". Is this clear enough for you?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't know the answer to your question.

But surely no sane individual would let a convicted child molester back into a place filled with children and not tell anyone about those previous convictions. From the few transcripts i have read from this trial he was even allowed to walk this girl home, alone, back to his house on a regular basis. Now what human being who knows about his prior conviction would let that happen?

So if there is no law which states that a secular or religious body, either then or now must make an announcement to its members on the sexual misdeeds of its congregants or members, why are the watchtower and bible tract society being held legally responsible for failing to do so.

Originally posted by FMF
Presumably this means you DID read it then. let me reiterate. Your sneering comment at the bottom of page 16, you fumbling about O.J.Simpson, and the suggestion that the abuse is STILL only "alledged", because you say so, and despite the verdict in the case, place a question mark over the sincerity of everything you have said, including your sullen mutterings about "regrettable action". Is this clear enough for you?

Surely Robbie's non-acceptance of the guilty verdict is nothing more than his own 'self-certified opinion'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Surely Robbie's non-acceptance of the guilty verdict is nothing more than his own 'self-certified opinion'?

As he said: "i have not read all the testimony and until i do everything is alleged". He has not "certified" the guilty verdict yet.

Originally posted by FMF
Presumably this means you DID read it then. let me reiterate. Your sneering comment at the bottom of page 16, you fumbling about O.J.Simpson, and the suggestion that the abuse is STILL only "alledged", because you say so, and despite the verdict in the case, place a question mark over the sincerity of everything you have said, including your sullen mutterings about "regrettable action". Is this clear enough for you?

sullen mutterings, that made me laugh, its like trying to get an Englishman to cough up or around of drinks. Fumbling, sneering, when one actually takes the adjectives out of your posts FMF, one is left with skin and bones. It is alleged because i have not read enough of the court proceedings to render an informed decision and unlike you and divesgeester a pronouncement of guilt is not an indication that the perpetrators were actually guilty or innocent. Is it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Surely Robbie's non-acceptance of the guilty verdict is nothing more than his own 'self-certified opinion'?

on the contrary i am making appeal through the legalities, which sadly, you and FMF
seem blissfully unaware of and unable to answer with a credible reply. I do not accept
in any way that the watchtower Bible and tract society was in any way complicit in the
abuse of this young women, regrettable though it was.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary i am making appeal through the legalities, which sadly, you and FMF
seem blissfully unaware of and unable to answer with a credible reply.

You've just been found guilty in a court of law, surely the court is far better placed to deal with the legalities than you, me or FMF?! 🙄

Unbelievable, talk about a rampant ego.

So are you disputing that this girl was actually abused, is that your angle here?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is alleged because i have not read enough of the court proceedings to render an informed decision and unlike you and divesgeester a pronouncement of guilt is not an indication that the perpetrators were actually guilty or innocent. Is it.

What about the decision that was made by the court? What makes you think the verdict is your "decision" to make?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sullen mutterings, that made me laugh, its like trying to get an Englishman to cough up or around of drinks. Fumbling, sneering, when one actually takes the adjectives out of your posts FMF, one is left with skin and bones.

The "skin and bones" of it is that I found your post at the bottom of page 16 to be sneering and I don't think your comments about "regrettable action" have been sincere.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You've just been found guilty in a court of law, surely the court is far better placed to deal with the legalities than you, me or FMF?! 🙄

Unbelievable, talk about a rampant ego.

So are you disputing that this girl was actually abused, is that your angle here?

No I am disputing the watchtower and Bible tract society was complicit in that abuse, regrettable though it was.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So are you disputing that this girl was actually abused, is that your angle here?

Well robbie has been sneering at her and he doesen't seem to think the Jehovah's Witnesses Organization have an obligation to protect people like her from sexual abusers, at least that's what I am gleaning from his scattergun comments so far.

Originally posted by FMF
The "skin and bones" of it is that I found your post at the bottom of page 16 to be sneering and I don't think your comments about "regrettable action" have been sincere.

I might make some cabbage soup with it, again your opinions on my character and my sincerity are meaningless to me.