JWs and 1000 cases of child sex abuse

Originally posted by The Gravedigger
You have certainly got a brass neck robbie even if your beliefs are flaky.

A scallywag I think is the term 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what have i learned?

1. Divesgeester and his friends have no child protection policy and meet covertly with other alleged Christians. Would i take my children there? probably not.
2. Thinkofone still thinks that lying insinuations trump knowledge and truth, poor deluded thinkofone, you will get scorched every time trying to project that junk.
3 ...[text shortened]... defend myself I count it a great honour that it was before you that I made my defense this day!

Thinkofone still thinks that lying insinuations trump knowledge and truth, poor deluded thinkofone, you will get scorched every time trying to project that junk.

Either back up your accusation or apologize for making a false accusation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Thinkofone still thinks that lying insinuations trump knowledge and truth, poor deluded thinkofone, you will get scorched every time trying to project that junk.

Either back up your accusation or apologize for making a false accusation.[/b]

Your lying insinuations are there for all to see, You have publicly stated that I defended the accused which amounts to nothing more than a lie. I have not defended anyone. What I actually did was relate to you certain details from the court transcripts and the testimony given by the people present. Now if you can demonstrate to the forum how relating those details from a court transcript is defending in anyway the accused then do so now. If you cannot then you are guilty if dishonestly insinuating that I have defended the accused on two occasions. So no apology and no retraction will be forthcoming until you do. Is that understood? Good.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Thinkofone still thinks that lying insinuations trump knowledge and truth, poor deluded thinkofone, you will get scorched every time trying to project that junk.

Either back up your accusation or apologize for making a false accusation.[/b]

Come on. If we all did this, this is all we would have time for.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your lying insinuations are there for all to see, You have publicly stated that I defended the accused which amounts to nothing more than a lie. I have not defended anyone. What I actually did was relate to you certain details from the court transcripts and the testimony given by the people present. Now if you can demonstrate to the forum how relat ...[text shortened]... . So no apology and no retraction will be forthcoming until you do. Is that understood? Good.

Already done. The following was posted on Page 9 of this thread:

You posted the following in response to a couple of excerpts I posted:

Read the court transcripts if you are really interested in the case, her own testimony was contradicted by her own biological parents.

There's no other way to take the above as other than an oafish attempt to discredit Conti and thereby defend Kendrick and the elders involved given the content of the aforementioned excerpts that I posted:

Reporter: When Candace and her attorney began conducting depositions with local church leaders, known as elders, they learned something astonishing.

Attorney: Do you recall becoming aware at any time of sexual abuse of a child by Jonathan Kendrick?

Elder: Yes.

Reporter: Even before Candace was abused, the elders knew that Jonathan Kendrick, who then held a leadership position in the congregation, had molested his own stepdaughter. His first known victim. He confessed to touching her one evening when he came home. Yet the elders did not call the police and did not warn the rest of the congregation.

Reporter: A confidentiality policy set by the church leaders back in New York. In a series of letters to elders across the country on the issue of child abuse, the watchtower made its policy clear. Though they acknowledged that some states have child abuse reporting laws, they said allegations should otherwise be kept secret to all but church leaders. Because worldly people are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their rights have been violated.

Originally posted by divegeester
Grow up; this is a religious debate forum.

Not seeing much "debate" though.

Lots of character assassination.

And so the one throwing his binky out the pram is grown up? Humorous.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Come on. If we all did this, this is all we would have time for.

Thought I'd give RC a chance to do the right thing.

No idea why you would have a problem with giving someone that chance.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not seeing much "debate" though.

Lots of character assassination.

And so the one throwing his binky out the pram is grown up? Humorous.

Who character is being assassinated and by whom?

Evidence please.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Already done. The following was posted on Page 9 of this thread:

You posted the following in response to a couple of excerpts I posted:

Read the court transcripts if you are really interested in the case, her own testimony was contradicted by her own biological parents.

There's no other way to take the above as other than an oafish ...[text shortened]... y people are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their rights have been violated. [/quote]

Stating that her testimony was contradicted by her parents was not defending anyone, it was a simple statement of fact. Stating that the police and the social services knew about him was also not defending him, it was a simple statement of fact. Your lying insinuations that I have defended anyone are blatant and refuted. I have nothing to apologise for and actually its you that should be issuing the apology to me.

Its a pity you were not more clever you may have succeeded, but alas you are an amateur and a super boob. Better try next time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Stating that her testimony was contradicted by her parents was not defending anyone, it was a simple statement of fact. Stating that the police and the social services knew about him was also not defending him, it was a simple statement of fact. Your lying insinuations that I have defended anyone are blatant and refuted. I have nothing to apologis ...[text shortened]... ver you may have succeeded, but alas you are an amateur and a super boob. Better try next time.

So you would have people think that your unsubstantiated "statements of fact" was not in an effort to "discredit Conti and thereby defend Kendrick and the elders involved" in response to the excerpts I posted?

Do you often post unrelated "statements of fact" in response to posts?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So you would have people think that your unsubstantiated "statements of fact" was not in an effort to "discredit Conti and thereby defend Kendrick and the elders involved" in response to the excerpts I posted?

Do you often post unrelated "statements of fact" in response to posts?

They were nothing more than statements of facts readily discernible after reading the court proceedings and related to the case. They were not intended to discredit or defend anyone nor have you shown how they have defended or discredited anyone despite your lying insinuations.

I do read transcripts rather than get my information from ten minute news items, perhaps you should do the same and you will be arguing from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance and not forced to make stuff up.

Do you normally resort to making things up when you are empty and devoid of anything of substance?

So far you have attempted to utilise straw man arguments, loaded questions, dude I am too clever for that jive, try it on a thicko like I dunno divesgeester, you cant touch me, I am 2awesome.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They were nothing more than statements of facts readily discernible after reading the court proceedings and related to the case. They were not intended to discredit or defend anyone nor have you shown how they have defended or discredited anyone despite your lying insinuations.

I do read transcripts rather than get my information from ten minut ...[text shortened]... r for that jive, try it on a thicko like I dunno divesgeester, you cant touch me, I am 2awesome.

They were not intended to discredit or defend anyone...


If it wasn't to discredit Conti, then exactly why did you post the following?

Read the court transcripts if you are really interested in the case, her own testimony was contradicted by her own biological parents.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Stating that her testimony was contradicted by her parents was not defending anyone, it was a simple statement of fact. Stating that the police and the social services knew about him was also not defending him, it was a simple statement of fact. Your lying insinuations that I have defended anyone are blatant and refuted. I have nothing to apologis ...[text shortened]... ver you may have succeeded, but alas you are an amateur and a super boob. Better try next time.

It is common in cults for the parents to become so indoctrinated into the cult that they defend it to the detriment of their children.
Happens a lot in Satanism.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b] They were not intended to discredit or defend anyone...


If it wasn't to discredit Conti, then exactly why did you post the following?

Read the court transcripts if you are really interested in the case, her own testimony was contradicted by her own biological parents.

[/b]

because its in the court transcripts and relative to the case. Is this really what you have construed as defending the plaintiff. Can you tell us how relating that her own testimony contradicts that of her biological parents is in any sense an attempt to defend anyone for as far as I can discern it does not even concern the accused.

Originally posted by Captain Strange
It is common in cults for the parents to become so indoctrinated into the cult that they defend it to the detriment of their children.
Happens a lot in Satanism.

I see. What is your definition of a cult so that if I am ever in one I might know.