23 Dec 15
Originally posted by Captain StrangeThe thought that that may be the case with Conti's parents also occurred to me. Be that as it may, RC has thus far refused to substantiate that it was true in Conti's case. And given his long history of lying on this forum...
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.
What's also interesting is that RC's behavior on this thread demonstrates that people can "become so indoctrinated into the cult that they defend it to the detriment" of themselves as well as the cult.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe only person that i can see that has lied is you, seriously, you were caught making lying insinuations which have been pointed out, pity for you that. What is interesting is watching you slither around trying to find some pretext for those lies. Do you think Captain strange is stupid enough to buy into your propaganda? I don't. You made the accusations, it would have been better for you to have simply stuck to the facts. I have not lied at all and this is another lying insinuation of yours. I suppose if you tell one the others must follow easily.
The thought that that may be the case with Conti's parents also occurred to me. Be that as it may, RC has thus far refused to substantiate that it was true in Conti's case. And given his long history of lying on this forum...
What's also interesting is that RC's behavior on this thread demonstrates that people can "become so indoctrinated into the cult that they defend it to the detriment" of themselves as well as the cult.
Contis testimony contradicts that of her bioloical parents - fact
The police and the social services knew of history of the perpetrator- fact
I defended the perpetrator- lie
Its really that simple.
23 Dec 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou made the following claim:
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.
They were not intended to discredit or defend anyone...
I asked you: 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.
You responded with:
because its in the court transcripts and relative to the case
This is just an oafish attempt to side-step the question. Out of everything in the court transcripts that is "relative" to the case, why did you post that in particular if not to discredit Conti?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnyone who has posted on this forum for any length of time, knows of your long history of lying. It's been well proven and documented by myself as well as quite a few others over the years. There's really not much point in denying it.
The only person that i can see that has lied is you, seriously, you were caught making lying insinuations which have been pointed out, pity for you that. What is interesting is watching you slither around trying to find some pretext for those lies. Do you think Captain strange is stupid enough to buy into your propaganda? I don't. You made the accu ...[text shortened]... of history of the perpetrator- fact
I defended the perpetrator- lie
Its really that simple.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can assure you I am completely stable and have not flown off into any sort of emotional rage. It's all in your mind Robert. I can assure that everything I've ever said to on you on this forum I would do so face to face without a moments hesitation.
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!
The biggest question of the day, is why on a thread of such a serious nature, the sexual abuse of children, do you act like such a petulant brat?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you highlight which parts of what I have posted you deem 'tabloid journalism'?
I am unaware of any of the individual details of any of the causes and to try to use this as some kind of catalyst for more tabloid journalism is quite frankly disgusting. I unlike you do not comment on matters where the details are scant, obscured or unknowable. I deal with empirical evidence and cold facts, not with emotional and jingoistic prop ...[text shortened]... y at any given moment. I want to be rational and balanced, free from prejudice and open minded.
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes,
Can you highlight which parts of what I have posted you deem 'tabloid journalism'?
you're a corporate religious apologist
entrenched in dogma
lost your moral compass
petulant brat
which I think we can agree are tabloid and sensationalist in nature.
You have refused to answer or even make reference to any of the points that I forwarded and I am therefore on the basis of such incontrovertible evidence forced to conclude that you are uninterested in reason or understanding and only interested in tabloid style journalism and an emotive perspective.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnedude you have just been caught with your pants smoldering on the forum floor and now you seek to cover the fact up with more vile insinuations, man you never learn. Call me anything you like but truth has a potency all of its own. You will learn that.
Anyone who has posted on this forum for any length of time, knows of your long history of lying. It's been well proven and documented by myself as well as quite a few others over the years. There's really not much point in denying it.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, seriously please stop this hand-flapping.
dude you have just been caught with your pants smoldering on the forum floor...
Your inappropriate ad hominems, agressive posturing and weak deflections do not in any way detract from the scale of the crimes and the shame that hangs over the religious organisation you happen to be a member of. Your defence of the wider Jehovah's Witness leadership and their teachings and policies does you no credit especially under these circumstances.
I'm certain that all here, while being dismayed at your responses in this thread, are equally sincere in their earnest hope that you eventually feel sufficiently replused to walk away and seek Jehovah independently for yourself, without prejudice or fear.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThey can all be supported by the evidence of your behaviour in this thread. It's all there for people to see and I would take a guess that most people would agree with me. That you choose to see it differently is hardly surprising.
yes,
you're a corporate religious apologist
entrenched in dogma
lost your moral compass
petulant brat
which I think we can agree are tabloid and sensationalist in nature.
You have refused to answer or even make reference to any of the points that I forwarded and I am therefore on the basis of such incontrovertible evidence forced to co ...[text shortened]... son or understanding and only interested in tabloid style journalism and an emotive perspective.
As for your question, it may well have been that the JW leadership at that time didn't legally have to report allegations to the police. But this is a mere technicality, as Gods organisation on Earth the leadership surely had a moral responsibility to the children within it's congregation. If you had read the report you would see that the same leadership was more concerned with the reputation of the church than reporting men who had confessed to molesting/raping children over to the authorities.
Originally posted by Proper Knoba mere technicality? so effectively you are blaming a flaw in the system on the brothers, thats what it amounts to, the fact of the matter is that if mandatory reporting had been law then the brothers would have reported these incidents to the authorities and let them deal with any criminality, is that or is that not the case?
They can all be supported by the evidence of your behaviour in this thread. It's all there for people to see and I would take a guess that most people would agree with me. That you choose to see it differently is hardly surprising.
As for your question, it may well have been that the JW leadership at that time didn't legally have to report allegations ...[text shortened]... hurch than reporting men who had confessed to molesting/raping children over to the authorities.
Originally posted by Captain StrangeNo he is totally biased, he has never once supported any point or issue that i have raised, no not once. He threw a flaky and canceled two games of chess we were playing because of a debate we were having, insisting that he should not play such a 'bell end' - his words and actions. My statements therefore stands. He needs to detach himself emotionally from the issues that are being discussed, its not that difficult.
Robbie your comments about PK are outrageous.
I have always found him to be one of the fairest and even handed posters on here.