Candace Conti's parents don't back he...

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#1123 Oct 16, 2012
array wrote:
I wonder why FHC that you only come on threads concerned with JW sexual abuse...
It might be that YOU only view threads that have to do with sexual abuse, as I'm actively posting in several other threads that have nothing to do with the topic.

Troll:...are you not interested in [defending] other [JW teachings]?

Reply: I have no interest in defending ANY JW teaching.

Troll:...some strange folk here and DW has shown without a doubt that she has no concern for JW child sexual abuse victims, nor do you...

Reply: I am concerned with any and ALL sexual abuse victims, without regard for the religious label either the victim or the abuser place on himself.

The simple FACT is, where it concerns Candice Conti, that I do not believe she is a victim of sexual abuse, at least not at the hands of Jonathan Kendrick.

And I [don't] believe as I do for very good reasons - her claims are so outrageous as to be logistically impossible, for reasons oft repeated by me, and NEVER refuted.

I [don't] believe as do for no other reason than that Candice Conti filed a civil action against JW legal entities and, for the moment, won.

A frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit; the failings, real or imagined, of either the party bringing suit or the party being sued means very little - to me - compared to the FACTS [or lack thereof] of the case.

You are happy because legal entities used by the JW sect lost [for the moment] and will suffer financially because of it, and because you can spin a bastardized version of the story to further your antiJW propaganda.

The actual FACTS of the case are the last thing that mean anything to you.

Not being so morally bankrupt I have no frame of reference; are you really proud of yourself?

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#1124 Oct 16, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder why FHC that you only come on threads concerned with JW sexual abuse, are you not interested in defending other JW teachings?
some strange folk here and DW has shown without a doubt that she has no concern for JW child sexual abuse victims, nor do you, but at least I will say something for DW she/he does try to defend other GB teachings.
It's because the wtb&ts lost.

If they had won, meaning the wtb&ts was not liable and Kendrick was found solely responsible, he would be demonizing Kendrick.

Mustn't never ever ever ever ever say anything bad about the wtb&ts. Spit on jesus once a year at the annual deny jesus festival but do NOT say anything bad about the wtb&ts.

“KeepProclaiming Christ Death ”

Since: Dec 09

Lynchburg, VA

#1125 Oct 16, 2012
Mythbusters wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the wtb&ts lost.
These JW defenders can't feel it when they hit the brick wall. They have a hard head.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1126 Oct 16, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
It might be that YOU only view threads that have to do with sexual abuse, as I'm actively posting in several other threads that have nothing to do with the topic.
Troll:...are you not interested in [defending] other [JW teachings]?
Reply: I have no interest in defending ANY JW teaching.
Troll:...some strange folk here and DW has shown without a doubt that she has no concern for JW child sexual abuse victims, nor do you...
Reply: I am concerned with any and ALL sexual abuse victims, without regard for the religious label either the victim or the abuser place on himself.
The simple FACT is, where it concerns Candice Conti, that I do not believe she is a victim of sexual abuse, at least not at the hands of Jonathan Kendrick.
And I [don't] believe as I do for very good reasons - her claims are so outrageous as to be logistically impossible, for reasons oft repeated by me, and NEVER refuted.
I [don't] believe as do for no other reason than that Candice Conti filed a civil action against JW legal entities and, for the moment, won.
A frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit; the failings, real or imagined, of either the party bringing suit or the party being sued means very little - to me - compared to the FACTS [or lack thereof] of the case.
You are happy because legal entities used by the JW sect lost [for the moment] and will suffer financially because of it, and because you can spin a bastardized version of the story to further your antiJW propaganda.
The actual FACTS of the case are the last thing that mean anything to you.
Not being so morally bankrupt I have no frame of reference; are you really proud of yourself?
na! I have many posts on different topics, this is just another. You must be exhausted doing so much damage control for pedophiles.

“KeepProclaiming Christ Death ”

Since: Dec 09

Lynchburg, VA

#1127 Oct 16, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>I have no interest in defending ANY JW teaching.The simple FACT is, where it concerns Candice Conti, that I do not believe she is a victim of sexual abuse, at least not at the hands of Jonathan Kendrick.A frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit; the failings, real or imagined, of either the party bringing suit or the party being sued means very little - to me - compared to the FACTS [or lack thereof] of the case.
Frivolous? mmmmkay! Do you speak for the WTS? mmmmkay! They can keep paying all the $$$$$$$$$$ after all it is their members contributions. JWs turn their heads, close their eyes, and allow it because I guess they think it's frivolous too!

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1128 Oct 16, 2012
Lordylordy9111 wrote:
<quoted text>
Frivolous? mmmmkay! Do you speak for the WTS? mmmmkay! They can keep paying all the $$$$$$$$$$ after all it is their members contributions. JWs turn their heads, close their eyes, and allow it because I guess they think it's frivolous too!
and the WT has secrets they want to keep from as many JW as possible, the UN the hedge funds, and of course the gag orders paid out to victims of child sexual abuse to keep everything hush hush.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1129 Oct 16, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>and the WT has secrets they want to keep from as many JW as possible, the UN the hedge funds, and of course the gag orders paid out to victims of child sexual abuse to keep everything hush hush.
.
. They can't.. the media ..has covered it..and it can be found by searching on the internet.. What they deemed as a welcome tool.. Will expose them.. GOD did say the preaching work would be speeded up.. he also spoke of those that would have insite.. Note ..that those scriptures in context are not speaking of those inside.. It's speaking of those that escaped..

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1130 Oct 16, 2012
Maravilla wrote:
<quoted text>
.
. They can't.. the media ..has covered it..and it can be found by searching on the internet.. What they deemed as a welcome tool.. Will expose them.. GOD did say the preaching work would be speeded up.. he also spoke of those that would have insite.. Note ..that those scriptures in context are not speaking of those inside.. It's speaking of those that escaped..
most JW would not believe it anyway, no JW I know has any knowledge about the gag orders, or the UN, and they would ignore it as lies anyway.

I remember four years ago at the DC one of the old bethel brothers said you will hear of lots of lies about JW, don't believe any of it its all lies of the media and apostates, he emphised all lies.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#1131 Oct 16, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>most JW would not believe it anyway, no JW I know has any knowledge about the gag orders, or the UN, and they would ignore it as lies anyway.
I remember four years ago at the DC one of the old bethel brothers said you will hear of lots of lies about JW, don't believe any of it its all lies of the media and apostates, he emphised all lies.
.
. That has been instilled in the members over the years..and they have been warned to not listen ..nor read material that does not come from the WTS.. Repeated so often that it is effectively blocking the truth.. Even when their own bibles are used to show them..they do not believe.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#1132 Oct 17, 2012
array wrote:
I remember four years ago at the DC one of the old bethel brothers said you will hear of lots of lies about JW, don't believe any of it its all lies of the media and apostates, he emphised all lies.
And, where it concerns this website - specifically, where it concerns this topic - and the claims made on it by, among others, you, that "old bethel brother" was wholly accurate in his statement.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1133 Oct 17, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
And, where it concerns this website - specifically, where it concerns this topic - and the claims made on it by, among others, you, that "old bethel brother" was wholly accurate in his statement.
well you certainly can stand by what you think is right, but don't deny others the same, especially those that have had personal experience with these matter. If you think that all abuse victims have lied then sadly you have ignored the many JW that have come forward in testimonies all the same in the way these crimes were handled. Datelin, Sunday Australia, and media coverage of those convicted of this crime and what the victims have said all are united in the same testimony, the way that the WT handled these crimes led to others to be abused, and destroyed their lives.
diogenes

San Antonio, TX

#1134 Oct 17, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>well you certainly can stand by what you think is right, but don't deny others the same, especially those that have had personal experience with these matter. If you think that all abuse victims have lied then sadly you have ignored the many JW that have come forward in testimonies all the same in the way these crimes were handled. Datelin, Sunday Australia, and media coverage of those convicted of this crime and what the victims have said all are united in the same testimony, the way that the WT handled these crimes led to others to be abused, and destroyed their lives.
Yes almost all of them say they were told not to go to the police. But when testimony is actually cross examined (Boer, Conti) it shows quite the opposite. Either the elders reminded them that it is their absolute right to report the individual or they reported the perp themselves.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1135 Oct 17, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes almost all of them say they were told not to go to the police. But when testimony is actually cross examined (Boer, Conti) it shows quite the opposite. Either the elders reminded them that it is their absolute right to report the individual or they reported the perp themselves.
you yourself have said on here name any that have been abused since the change, and you agreed that the the old policy never worked, and now that they are adviced to go to the police especially if it is known outside.

you are calling your b/s liars and I know for a fact they were not adviced to go to the police in fact they were told not to as this would bring reproach on KH and Gods name, that they would handle it and in most cases nothing was done because of the two witness rule, and that gave the peds a red flag to continue to abuse, we know and so do you but you lie.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1136 Oct 18, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes almost all of them say they were told not to go to the police. But when testimony is actually cross examined (Boer, Conti) it shows quite the opposite. Either the elders reminded them that it is their absolute right to report the individual or they reported the perp themselves.
they were found guilty and no matter what you say, the proof is there.

As with other cases, look at those peds that have made the headlines, and what their victims have said all the same story, no help from the elders.

unfortunately the rules of the GB have not helped any victim but rather made it easier for the pedophiles, and of course helped to protect the organizaiton which was the main objective. Children were sacrificed to the WT idol.

people are fed up with these religious organzations and the WT is one of them, that have gotten away for so long with this issue, those coming forward I have great respect for.

Do you honestly beleive that they should get awAy with their failure to protect children. What do you think God would think.

"The righteous one is knowing the legal claim of the lowly ones. He that is wicked does not consider such knowledge." -(Prov29:7)

"The righteous understands the cause of the poor, but the wicked is unconcerned." -

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#1137 Oct 18, 2012
array wrote:
well you certainly can stand by what you think is right...
It's not about what I think is right.

Right is right, regardless of what I think, what you think or what anyone thinks.

Troll:...but don't deny others the same...

Reply: I don't control this forum, and I have no power to keep you from saying whatever you want on it - nor would I deny you that privilege if I did.

Troll:...especially those that have had personal experience with these matter.

Reply: Your alleged personal experiences mean less than nothing where you offer nothing to substantiate your claims.

Troll: If you think that [all] abuse victims have lied...

[Emphasis added]

Reply: I don't think that, nor have I said such a thing.

Troll:...then sadly you have ignored the [many] JW that have come forward in testimonies all the same in the way these crimes were handled.

[Emphasis added]

Reply: "Many" by what measure? The cases involving alleged abuse by or among people associated with the JW sect are, relative to the total membership of that sect, few in number.

And while you, personally, put a lot of stock in testimony that is factually deficient and/or unsubstantiated, it means less than nothing to me.

Troll: Datelin, Sunday Australia, and media coverage...

Reply: And of course, the [legacy, lame-stream] media NEVER lies, embellishes or simply covers only one side of an issue in the name of ratings, right?

I could point out multiple points of embellishment and multiple factual deficiencies [and, in point of fact, have on several occasions] in the Dateline piece from 2001, but would it matter to you?

Troll:...of those convicted of this crime and what the victims have said all are united in the same testimony...

Reply: You're kidding, liars united in falsehood? Stop the presses.

Troll:...the way that the WT handled these crimes led to others to be abused, and destroyed their lives.

Reply: WT does not handle "crimes."

WT handles sins among its membership.

Fault the members for choosing to handle these crimes as sins rather than taking them to the proper authorities, and please spare me some unsubstantiated [Erica Garza]/demonstrably false [Vicky Boer] claim of threats of disfellowshipping or "hushing up."

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#1138 Oct 18, 2012
array wrote:
As with other cases, look at those peds that have made the headlines, and what their victims have said all the same story, no help from the elders.
If by, "no help from elders" you mean that elders - who are not officers of law enforcement or the criminal justice system - were limited in their ability to "punish" alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse based on unsubstantiated claims, then you would be right.

The circumstances would be the same with agents of law enforcement and the criminal justice system; people aren't convicted of serious crimes without actual proof of guilt.

In the court of public opinion? Certainly. "Civil" Court? Unfortunately. Criminal Court? No. "Justice" actually matters in Criminal Court.
diogenes

San Antonio, TX

#1139 Oct 18, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>you yourself have said on here name any that have been abused since the change, and you agreed that the the old policy never worked, and now that they are adviced to go to the police especially if it is known outside.
No that is not what I said. You misrepresent as usual. This is what I said:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#1140 Oct 18, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
No that is not what I said. You misrepresent as usual. This is what I said:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
there are many threads where you have asked the question, "name one abuse since the change" so you were admitting that before the change it didn't work to the advantage of victims, there are a few threads where this point has been discussed. You seemed to be proud of the change, compared to the non policy in place before that was to the disadvantage of victims and advantage for the peds and WTBTS.

And you said no abuser would ever be put in a position again ever, which as it turns out is a lie, we argued that point to. But as we can see from the elders manual its BS, just like what you tried to con others to believe.
diogenes

San Antonio, TX

#1141 Oct 18, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>there are many threads where you have asked the question, "name one abuse since the change" so you were admitting that before the change it didn't work to the advantage of victims, there are a few threads where this point has been discussed. You seemed to be proud of the change, compared to the non policy in place before that was to the disadvantage of victims and advantage for the peds and WTBTS.
Many threads??? I challenge you to find just one thread.

There is no such thing as a policy that completely eliminates child abuse. If you can dream one up you would win the nobel prize hands down.
anonymous

UK

#1142 Oct 28, 2012
On what basis did the jury believe candice?because of the accused's past lawsuits or because it has a problem with the supposed policy of the jw's concealing cases like this within the cong?whichever way,people see what they want to see..jehovah's witnesses do not condone such wrongdoing hence the accused being stripped of priviledges in the cong but have no such policy on concealing actions like that..the elders were not aware of all the alleged counts on the part of the accused,and for this reason you go on to blame the watchtower society?what a biased decison on the part of the jury..let's see what happens after the case is appealed..im sure the watchtower society would be vindicated as long as jah lives..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
tear down this body! 3 min the Mad JW 199
Is Jesus Coequal with the Father? 9 min Udere 4,332
The Gospel according to Jaded...and I-Hop, etc 12 min the Mad JW 199
The Twinity Dogma- the Most Ridiculous Dogma of... (Mar '15) 17 min the Mad JW 2,503
Run, run, RUN, Churchoids! 20 min the Mad JW 20
Why Do Animals Grow Old and Die? 26 min Tony Price 77 7
Did the Father & the 'Ghost' literally "INDWELL... 34 min Newtonian 49
What IS the Trinity? 52 min PrufSammy 52
New Today music thread 5 hr Said be a good boy 285
More from around the web