Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and were exactly in the [1989] letter does it demonstrate that the congregation were negligent and complicit in the abuse? where in fact in the entire testimony is there evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit in abuse, you have not said.

People should not just take my word for it; they should read the whole letter for themselves and see what message - both implicit and explicit - it is sending to "elders".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, its as far as i can discern, a miscarriage of justice, there is not the slightest evidence of negligence on the part of congregation.

On the contrary, the verdict seems entirely correct. I understand why you are claiming what you are claiming. But I don't need you to agree with me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, more self certified opinions of a zoob who has as yet failed to read even a shred of evidence, prejudiced much?

My post [that particular one] represents a generalised view of your organisation based on my observations and general research over many years. It is my opinion and I don't need to provide "evidence" to support it, nor do I expect or seek your agreement with it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL, your vile and slimy insinuations are both irrelevant and meaningless and are stinking up the thread.

How people view your organisation is not based on insinuations, it is based on [in this case] the fact of the verdict that a Jehovah's Witness brother sexualy molested a child and the leadership were found to be accountable for not sharing information pertaining to the case due to the organisations policies (as you point out in this thread).

The fact that you are here posting for page after page defending your oganisation and the perpretrator over the victim speaks volumes about you and only goes to reveal the nature of your cult.

Originally posted by FMF
On the contrary, the verdict seems entirely correct. I understand why you are claiming what you are claiming. But I don't need you to agree with me.

and yet you are unable despite being asked repeatedly to do so, to provide a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit in the abuse. Thank you for demonstrating the fact.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet you are unable despite being asked repeatedly to do so, to provide a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit in the abuse. Thank you for demonstrating the fact.

I've had a look at the transcripts and I can say that if I had been on the jury i would have voted 'guilty'. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. I don't need you to agree with me, as you know.

JURY TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 1 May 29, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 2 May 30, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 3 May 31, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 4 June 4, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 5 June 5, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 6 June 6, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 7 June 11, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 8 June 12, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 9 June 13, 2012 – pdf

http://jwleaks.wordpress.com/candace-conti/

Originally posted by divegeester
My post [that particular one] represents a generalised view of your organisation based on my observations and general research over many years. It is my opinion and I don't need to provide "evidence" to support it, nor do I expect or seek your agreement with it.

based on my observations and general research, how long were you in the Jehovahs witness organization? and yes you need to provide evidence, your opinions are both irrelevant to anyone but you and entirely meaningless in the context. Why you think they carry any weight is a form of self delusion. On top of that you were asked to read the court transcripts and you evidently have not done so and yet you seem to deem yourself adequately qualified to comment on the case. While not being conclusive, it is certainly a position of ignorance and may be indicative of a deep seated prejudice or at very least an intellectual laziness contradicting any clams of personal research that you claim, here here or anywhere else. People who make serious comments without having considered the evidence are simply not to be trusted for they have deluded themselves into thinking that they know the details of a matter, when in fact, they are entirely ignorant. I thank you for demonstratng the fact.

Originally posted by FMF
I've had a look at the transcripts and I can say that if I had been on the jury i would have voted 'guilty'. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. I don't need you to agree with me, as you know.

JURY TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 1 May 29, 2012 – pdf
Candace Conti v. Watchtower – Jury Trial Day 2 May 30, 2012 – pd ...[text shortened]... htower – Jury Trial Day 9 June 13, 2012 – pdf

http://jwleaks.wordpress.com/candace-conti/

I am perfectly aware of where they are to be found, and was only reading them from the same source yesterday, again, you have provided not a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am perfectly aware of where they are to be found, and was only reading them from the same source yesterday, again, you have provided not a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse.

I don't need to provide you with "evidence", robbie. You can read the transcripts just like me. I agree with the decision of the court. I also note that you don't.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

based on my observations and general research, how long were you in the Jehovahs witness organization? and yes you need to provide evidence, your opinions are both irrelevant to anyone but you and entirely meaningless in the context. Why you think they carry any weight is a form of self delusion. On top of that you were asked to read the court transcripts and you evidently have not done so and yet you seem to deem yourself adequately qualified to comment on the case. While not being conclusive, it is certainly a position of ignorance and may be indicative of a deep seated prejudice or at very least an intellectual laziness contradicting any clams of personal research that you claim, here here or anywhere else. People who make serious comments without having considered the evidence are simply not to be trusted for they have deluded themselves into thinking that they know the details of a matter, when in fact, they are entirely ignorant. I thank you for demonstratng the fact.

This is nothing but an ad hominem, robbie. Disagree with divegeester, by all means. This is a public forum for the airing of opinions, after all. But this is nothing but an ad hominem. If you disagree with his opinion just say so.

Originally posted by divegeester
How people view your organisation is not based on insinuations, it is based on [in this case] the fact of the verdict that a Jehovah's Witness brother sexualy molested a child and the leadership were found to be accountable for not sharing information pertaining to the case due to the organisations policies (as you point out in this thread).

The fac ...[text shortened]... rator over the victim speaks volumes about you and only goes to reveal the nature of your cult.

a verdict is not proof in itself is it. Again you have not provided a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse and perhaps this last statement of yours is the most telling of all, no one is defending the perpetrator over the victim, no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty, I am disputing that the watchtower society was negligent and thus complicit which is something quite different from your ignorant and frankly quite ludicrous assertion. I doubt you even know what the definition of a cult is and yet here you are, commenting upon a trial of which you have not the slightest idea of what went on. If i may be permitted a rare self opinion, you must be one of the ill informed bigots i think i have the misfortune to stumble upon, a man who comments upon a serious trial without actually having considered the evidence. I do not thank you for demonstrating it, its not for me to correct flaws in your character.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't need to provide you with "evidence", robbie. You can read the transcripts just like me. I agree with the decision of the court. I also note that you don't.

my work is done here, if you do find any evidence that the WTBTS was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse, please let me know, ill be in my office regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a verdict is not proof in itself is it. Again you have not provided a shred of evidence that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse.

The evidence is in the transcripts, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my work is done here, if you do find any evidence that the WTBTS was negligent and thus complicit with the abuse, please let me know, ill be in my office regards Robbie.

Read the transcripts. WTBTS lost the case.

Originally posted by FMF
The evidence is in the transcripts, robbie.

Is it? which one? what day? please give me the reference and ill shall read it.