Originally posted by FMFSorry I have discussed the subject at length elsewhere and my position has not changed, you may make reference to that. I will not provide any more basis for your transparent trolling attempt and suggest that you try to seek leverage for it elsewhere. All future attempts will be ignored.
The materials I uploaded for you are not in connection with "the charity commissions work". Don't know where you got that idea from. Is there some part of the findings of the Royal Commission in Australia [which is what I uploaded for you] that you think vindicates the JW organization's handling of child sex abuse over the last 50 years?
29 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've left a whole raft of points and questions unanswered [and/or dodged by way of deflections and name-calling]. In fact almost every single point put to you, you have studiously evaded. Anyone looking back at the last few pages of our conversation will be able to see this.
Sorry I have discussed the subject at length elsewhere and my position has not changed, you may make reference to that. I will not provide any more basis for your transparent trolling attempt and suggest that you try to seek leverage for it elsewhere. All future attempts will be ignored.
Originally posted by FMFStudiously evaded, why thank you, now go and get your jollies somewhere else, I have fed you quite enough! 😵
You've left a whole raft of points and questions unanswered [and/or dodged by way of deflections and name-calling]. In fact almost every single point put to you, you have studiously evaded. Anyone looking back at the last few pages of our conversation will be able to see this.
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy case has been made and my reasoning and evidence has been presented. That you choose to see it from a different perspective is hardly surprising. When have you ever accepted or acknowledged criticism of the Watchtower organisation? You are unable, simple as that Robert. It is entertaining though to see how you process such evidence.
You posted an article with a claim that the brothers had been instructed for 25 years to withhold information from lawful authorities, where is that evidence.
Here is the claim from the article that you yourself cited.
For more than 25 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses officials have instructed local leaders – known as elders – in all of the religio ...[text shortened]... om? You will of course be conversant with all the legal arguments and why they are taking place.
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by Proper KnobEvidence Nil - Thank you PK, you were caught citing articles which made the most ludicrous claims and when called out for it you resort to weaselling your way around with this disgraceful its my perspective v your perspective jive talk! Fine but you must be aware that if you are going to cite articles which make baseless or at very least uncorroborated claims, you are onto a hiding 4sure. Anyway wish you and all the ones you love well for the coming year.
My case has been made and my reasoning and evidence has been presented. That you choose to see it from a different perspective is hardly surprising. When have you ever accepted or acknowledged criticism of the Watchtower organisation? You are unable, simple as that Robert. It is entertaining though to see how you process such evidence.
30 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat are you havering on about you loon? I made the claim that the Watctower had been fined, in two separate court cases in the US, for failing to provide documents pertaining to a historical child sex abuse case. This is a fact. One was for $13.5m and the other for $4000 a day till the Watchtower provides the documents to the court. Do you deny this?
Evidence Nil - Thank you PK, you were caught citing articles which made the most ludicrous claims and when called out for it you resort to weaselling your way around with this disgraceful its my perspective v your perspective jive talk! Fine but you must be aware that if you are going to cite articles which make baseless or at very least uncorroborat ...[text shortened]... ou are onto a hiding 4sure. Anyway wish you and all the ones you love well for the coming year.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYour article made claims that you could not substantiate, it claimed that for 25 years the brothers had been told to conceal evidence from law enforcement, a vile insinuation! for which neither you or they were able to provide a shred of evidence. You also claimed that we have attempted to prevent the charity commission from investigating how we handle cases of abuse when infact the reality was that it was simply a legal ruling based on a technicality. It was pointed out to you that no one can prevent the charity commission from starting an investigation. Are you denying these demonstrable facts?
What are you havering on about you loon? I made the claim that the Watctower had been fined, in two separate court cases in the US, for failing to provide documents pertaining to a historical child sex abuse case. This is a fact. One was for $13.5m and the other for $4000 a day till the Watchtower provides the documents to the court. Do you deny this?
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes the article substantiate my claim that the Watchtower has been fined in two seperate court cases in the US for refusing to provide documents to the court pertaining to historical child sex abuse?
Your article made claims that you could not substantiate, it claimed that for 25 years the brothers had been told to conceal evidence from law enforcement, a vile insinuation! for which neither you or they were able to provide a shred of evidence. You also claimed that we have attempted to prevent the charity commission from investigating how we han ...[text shortened]... he charity commission from starting an investigation. Are you denying these demonstrable facts?
30 Dec 16
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhether it does or does not I cannot say, it did make a clearly vile and unsubstantiated insinuation though, an insinuation for which you and it failed to provide a shred of credible evidence. For me to answer your question in sincerity I would need to familiarise myself with the cases, read copious amounts of court transcripts and I simply have no time or inclination at present.
Does the article substantiate my claim that the Watchtower has been fined in two seperate court cases in the US for refusing to provide documents to the court pertaining to historical child sex abuse?
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have no inclination to find out if the Watchtower organisation has refused to hand over documents to US courts pertaining to historical child sex abuse?
Whether it does or does not I cannot say, it did make a clearly vile and unsubstantiated insinuation though, an insinuation for which you and it failed to provide a shred of credible evidence. For me to answer your question in sincerity I would need to familiarise myself with the cases, read copious amounts of court transcripts and I simply have no time or inclination at present.
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo I have no inclination to source court transcripts, read all the testimony and legal arguments and ascertain if anything was withheld and is so, why. Sorry it takes ages, possibly weeks. What I do know however, that despite what your article claimed, is that there has been no direction to elders covering a 25 year period which counselled them to conceal data from law enforcement and that vile insinuation itself is evidence enough that the article that you cited cannot be trusted.
You have no inclination to find out if the Watchtower organisation has refused to hand over documents to US courts pertaining to historical child sex abuse?
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere's direct evidence taken from a Watchtower memo directing elders to conceal data from 'secular authorities who maybe conducting a criminal investigation'.
No I have no inclination to source court transcripts, read all the testimony and legal arguments and ascertain if anything was withheld and is so, why. Sorry it takes ages, possibly weeks. What I do know however, that despite what your article claimed, is that there has been no direction to elders covering a 25 year period which counselled them to ...[text shortened]... at vile insinuation itself is evidence enough that the article that you cited cannot be trusted.
“In some cases, the elders will form a judicial committee to handle the alleged wrongdoing that may also constitute a violation of criminal law (e.g., murder, rape, child abuse, fraud, theft, assault). Generally, the elders should not delay the judicial committee process, but strict confidentiality must be maintained to avoid unnecessary entanglement with secular authorities who may be conducting a criminal investigation of the matter"
Section 14 -
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667064-watchtowernov62014.html
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe confidentiality issue may leave the brothers open to prosecution not from law enforcement but the penitent who may sue because they thought their testimony was confidential. This has actually been attempted.
Here's direct evidence taken from a Watchtower memo directing elders to conceal data from 'secular authorities who maybe conducting a criminal investigation'.
[quote]“In some cases, the elders will form a judicial committee to handle the alleged wrongdoing that may also constitute a violation of criminal law (e.g., murder, rape, child abuse, fraud, th ...[text shortened]... quote]
Section 14 -
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667064-watchtowernov62014.html
Ministers of religion have always enjoyed penitent privilege (as do lawyers and accountants although in a different way) until recently and to construe this as a deliberate policy of concealment on the part of Jehovah Witnesses is simply to ignore historical precedent and reality.
There is still debate yet whether or not it is lawful for any minister of religion to give information of a penitent up when they have been guaranteed strict confidentiality. This effects not only Jehovahs Witnesses but other minsters of religion that hear confession as well.
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry, I don't see how what you typed follows from what I posted. Have I missed something?
The confidentiality issue may leave the brothers open to prosecution not from law enforcement but the penitent who may sue because they thought their testimony was confidential. This has actually been attempted.
Ministers of religion have always enjoyed penitent privilege (as do lawyers and accountants although in a different way) until recently a ...[text shortened]... effects not only Jehovahs Witnesses but other minsters of religion that hear confession as well.
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by EladarFor goodness sake Eladar, I don't have 'hatred' for anyone, let alone 'fat' people. I was hoping to have a sensible conversation on the topic, it appears that is beyond you. But in the spirt of festive cheer we'll try once more.
So choosing a poor diet of high carb foods and sitting around doing a low movement job is gluttony.
You have a strange definition of gluttony. How about women with thyroid issues? Gluttons?
People with stress hormone issues? Gluttons?
I think your hatred of fat people has you screwed up in your head. Having one psychological disorder yourself, I can see why you hate others.
Here's the Oxford Dictionaries definition of gluttony -
[mass noun] Habitual greed or excess in eating:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gluttony
If someone continues to eat to excess what will happen? They will come obese. Granted, not all people are obese because they eat too much, there are other factors but they are in reality few and far between. The reality is that the vast majority of people are obese because they have eaten too much food. They have been persistently gluttonous and that is a sin. No different from any other.