10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFwhat is it about, I cannot say, that you fail to understand, is it ambiguous, verbose,
Well, [b]you seem to be saying a lot about what the police and social services purportedly would have said if they'd been called to testify.[/b]
technical?
10 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyawn, more tedious crashing bore of troll, who cares what you think, i certainly dont. If
You introduced the thing about 'police and the child protection services' and now you suggest it is me who is "introducing irrelevancies". If, as you say, it was not part of the defence case, then surely it is you who is "introducing irrelevancies" by mentioning it in defence of the JW organisation?
you cannot state why they never mentioned anything to the brothers about the
arrangement they had made, then it seems logically to have been given a clean bill of
health, that is my point and its pointless asking for evidence to the contrary , you dont
do evidence.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have "thousands" of Jonathan Kendricks "every year" who are not reported to the police for molesting children, because they claim to be "repentant"? Are you sure?
it seems to be successful in thousands of people who make restitution every year
through repentance...
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou claim that something about the police and social services purportedly exonerates the JW organisation, but they did not use it in their defence, and you are using it in their defence, but when I ask you about it you're suddenly not using it in their defence. What you are saying doesn't add up, robbie.
what is it about, I cannot say, that you fail to understand, is it ambiguous, verbose,
technical?
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFno i sated we have thousands of penitents who are repentant, is your grasp of English
You have "thousands" of Jonathan Kendricks "every year" who are not reported to the police for molesting children, because they claim to be "repentant"? Are you sure?
so thoroughly deviod of understanding that you missed the details i provided, heck i
even mentioned some of their back grounds, more slime i see, oh well.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFI did not claim it, its your own words, more slime. I stated it as a circumstantial fact,
You claim that something about the police and social services purportedly exonerates the JW organisation, but they did not use it in their defence, and you are using it in their defence, but when I ask you about it you're suddenly not using it in their defence. What you are saying doesn't add up, robbie.
not that it exonerated them your sliminess.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "evidence" did the police and child protection services provide in the court case at the JW organisation's behest?
If you cannot state why they never mentioned anything to the brothers about the arrangement they had made, then it seems logically to have been given a clean bill of health, that is my point and its pointless asking for evidence to the contrary , you dont do evidence.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf it is an "irrelevancy" and does not "exonerate" the JW organisation, and the JW organisation did not call on them to testify, then why are you citing it in defence of JW organisation?
I did not claim it, its your own words, more slime. I stated it as a circumstantial fact,
not that it exonerated them your sliminess.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow many Jonathan Kendricks "every year" are not reported to the police for molesting children, because they claim to be "repentant"? What would be your estimate?
no i sated we have thousands of penitents who are repentant, is your grasp of English
so thoroughly deviod of understanding that you missed the details i provided, heck i
even mentioned some of their back grounds, more slime i see, oh well.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFok, i have had enough your sliminess, its a tedious and tiresome affair to be honest
What "evidence" did the police and child protection services provide in the court case at the JW organisation's behest?
and 2:55 AM, as I walk away and you bitch behind my back as you usually do, making
some assertion of he's probably lying low, or whatever your cynicism can muster,
remember this fact, you have not produced a shred of evidence that the congregation
was negligent and thus complicit, despite being asked to do so, countless times, good
evening and goodbye.
10 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is deflection too.
more slime.
more slime your sliminess? your on a splurge it seems.
And this.
ok, i have had enough your sliminess, its a tedious and tiresome affair to be honest and 2:55 AM, as I walk away and you bitch behind my back as you usually do, making some assertion of he's probably lying low, or whatever your cynicism can muster...
This also. Deflection.
yes that is correct no comment from me your sliminess.
I'd call this deflection.
no but i think you are slimy, you produce more slime than a pond full of frogs in mating season.
Deflection again.
i certainly think you are slimy.
And again.
as usual, your slime isn't sticking, merely stinking.
More.
Another epic fail [...] delegated to the realm of vile and slimy insinuation once more[...] your slime falls from a thread [...] your slimy assertions [...] pure slime [...] Before you waste any more of our time with slime.
And more.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFIf you think the the 'if child molesters seem to be "repentant" it's ok by us' policy is the successful course of action in this kind of case, then surely you must have some idea of how many child molesters the JW organisation doesn't report to the police on this basis. You may characterize it as "slime" but I'd say it is a pertinent question.
How many Jonathan Kendricks "every year" are not reported to the police for molesting children, because they claim to be "repentant"? What would be your estimate?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more slime your sliminess? your on a splurge it seems.