Dec 7, 2006
FH Chandler's Favorites
FH Chandler Profile
As far as I've seen from the cases that have made the news - and most of them have been discussed here over the past ten or so years - the only thing the so-called "victims " care about is money and creating bad publicity for JWs [not necessarily in that orderRight. Because, like I said in my previous response, the cost of settling out of court tends to be lower than litigating even to a successful verdict. WT has settled some cases, and it's won some cases. It's so-called losses have been, relatively, minor in terms of dollars. Of course the true goal is to create bad press, not to actually win cases or change lawsWT has "lost" more in terms of bad press than money. And the JW sect isn't afraid of bad pressThere have been few cases where the "policies " of the JW sect have been the problem; the problem, generally, has been the execution at the local levelThe problem Jackson refers to is the fact that sexual predators exist at all. People boasting JW beliefs can be sexual predators, the way persons boasting any other sort of belief or no belief at all can be sexual predators. The sexual abuse of children isn't limited to one subdivision of humanity or another. He isn't acknowledging the, "problem " as you and other dishonest ex/antiJWs see itEx/antiJWs have greatly embellished this matter - to the injury of those JWs out there who are and who might be legitimate victims of sexual abuse. (Thursday Feb 16 | post #68)
Not true. On day one - page one, really - I was attempting to discuss the subject of the thread, which is abortion [and whether or not it constitutes murder]. It was you who came into thread and attempted to derail it with talk of blood transfusions. To recap, you showed up for the first time on page 3 or 4 talking about blood transfusions rather than the topic of the thread: abortion. Despite the topic of the thread being abortion, as opposed to blood transfusions, I repeatedly answering your off-topic question. A brief check of page 4 of the thread will show several responses by me to you with not a single, "attack" , or anything resembling a richly deserved insult. Trouble began to brew when you insisted, on page 5, that I hadn't answered your question, even though I had, though it escapes me now why I bothered as your question had nothing to do with the topic at hand. In the very first response on page 6, still without anything resembling a rebuke, I answered your question an additional time, after which you began tossing out thinly-veiled barbs. It wasn't until post#:116, where I laid out very clearly the elements necessary for the destruction of life to constitute murder, that I was anything less than kind, and that only in stating - correctly - that your initial question [to say nothing of your numerous comebacks, each of them rife with said thinly-veiled (not to mention childish) barbs] was ridiculous. You showed no more maturity in your responses to at least one other poster who had also attempted to exchange with you, despite your immature manner, while at the same time mentioning your boyfriend, "el loco" once or twice, but I might not be remembering correctly. I know he isn't posting in this thread, but he owns such a vast amount of real estate in your defective brain that his various names are almost constantly on your tongue. I didn't respond to you again until after you made reference to my comment in reply to RHW on the topic of abortion and, for some reason that still makes little sense, acted as if I was responding to you about blood transfusions. Again, I attempted to set you straight on the matter on page 10, after which it was you who turned this so-called conversation between us into an exchange of, "attacks " when you began attacking ME in earnest in post#:200. (Thursday Feb 16 | post #235)
I don't know or care about what motivates the JWGB. If what you claim is true, they've done a poor job in my estimationYou posses mind-reading powers I apparently don't; that said, the most practical reason for settling out of court is that it can be less expensive that litigation, even if the result is the ultimate dismissal of a claimWhy should they? Many of the claims made against them are, and have been proven, wantingYou prove nothing in twisting both men's words. That said, they DO have a problem in this regard - albeit not the one you imagine. (Thursday Feb 16 | post #65)
Interestingly, Conti claimed - as they all do - that it's not about the money. And when someone says, "it's not about the money", you can bet your bottom dollar that it's about NOTHING BUT the money. She also claimed she'd never settle. Joke that her allegations were from minute one, she ended up settling for, I suspect, less than even a million dollars, despite the fact that dishonest ex/antiJWs on this site and others heralded its initial headline-grabbing judgment as the end of the JW sect. (Thursday Feb 16 | post #63)
The JW organization cannot be, at the same time, "relatively [compared to what?] small" and a, "behemoth ". And as the cases that have been brought and discussed ad nausem on this site have shown in numerous instances, "justice " was never much on the minds of the complainants, nor ex/antiJW supporters of said complainants, yourself included. (Thursday Feb 16 | post #62)
An irrelevant statement, seeing as how my beliefs aren't at issueI see no reason to where you're concerned. (Wednesday Feb 15 | post #233)
You had no credit to begin with. Your comments have no merit for reasons previously enumerated by me, and that in quite a mature fashion, at least at the outset. Repeating them again and again and again ad naseum won't somehow magically imbue them with merit. As you've failed to respond with anything but your typical immaturity, even when I attempted to engage you in a mature fashion, I see no reason to direct mature, reasoned discourse at you. (Wednesday Feb 15 | post #232)
You had no credit to begin with, therefore it's impossible to discredit you. (Wednesday Feb 15 | post #229)
Nothing I stated relied on your boyfriend as a source. (Wednesday Feb 15 | post #228)
There's nothing magical about it. Abortion, as disgusting a practice as it is, does not, generally, constitute murder - a fact supported by the current legal status of abortion. Denial of blood transfusions, also something of a disgusting practice even in the case of a legitimate conscientious objection, is also not murder, as evidenced by the fact that you can't cite a single instance of a parent being indicted for murder in such a situation. It's really easy to understand when you're not a mentally defective dunceMy beliefs regarding both abortion and denying blood transfusions based on a legitimate conscientious objection are irrelevant where it concerns whether or not either of those things constitutes murder under US law; it's very clear to anyone who isn't a mentally defective dunce that, regardless of how anyone views either of those practices [and, you'll notice - or maybe not, because you seem to have a reading comprehension problem - where I referred to both of those as, "disgusting practice[s]"] that under US law as presently construed, neither act constitutes murderYou're a mentally defective dunce. I don't need to justify referring to a mentally defective dunce as a mentally defective dunce. (Tuesday Feb 14 | post #226)
The lack of indictments of parents who either abort unborn children or who have, due to conscientious objection, denied their children blood transfusions belies this claim. (Tuesday Feb 14 | post #225)
And what a whiny little hypocrite you are, belly-aching over being called names, and yet you never miss an opportunity to revile your detractors as, "clowns" . That aside, your comments in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with you, "defending " yourself [from being accused of being another poster on an Internet website where most people use pseudonyms?] in the silly little personality clash both you and TPMP, among others, were all willing participants in on the Topix Puerto Rico forum. You're in here mouthing off for no other reason than to mouth off and attack people who you imagine are, "allies" of TPMP. It's pathetic that this stupid conflict you've been involved in [since, at least, 2011?] on this website takes up so much of your psychic energyFirst off, I don't know that your boyfriend's behavior both here and in the Puerto Rico forum is very, Christian-like, and I don't know that there are too many people lining up to defend him for the worst of his comments. That said, you're as bad, if not worse, and regardless of whether you label yourself a Christian, when one considers your behavior relative to the tenets of basic human decency. You're a jackass, a troll and a little whiny cry-bully, but worse than all of that you imagine you've been done some horrible wrong when someone directs your own buffoonery back at you which is what, from all accounts, your little personality clash with TPMP is all about. I can't imagine what a loser you must be to be so butthurt because someone imagined you were using different sockpuppets to stir shit up on an Internet forum, and how blind you must be to realize that you're as bad - if not worse - than the person you blame for all that butthurtIt's funny you use the term, "child", because the only creatures so easily amused by mindless buffoonery are little babies. (Tuesday Feb 14 | post #224)
Still living on the cheap in Larry's head, I suspect. (Tuesday Feb 14 | post #380)
In addition to not being a deep thinker, your reading comprehension skills seem to be stuntedDid I call you a liarI'm not sure what specific actions of mine you equate with your boyfriend TPMP, and I fail to see how illustrating how wrong you are about denying blood transfusions being the equivalent of murder is on par with any of the nonsense that's gone on between the two of you. In further illustration of that point, I'm not aware of a single instance of a parent being indicted on murder charges because of their conscientious objection to blood transfusions. You can feel free to point one out if there has actually been one, but given how much belly-aching the ex/antiJWs do on the subject they would have surely proclaimed it far and wide. That there has not been such a situation illustrates quite well how wrong you are in your assertions on the matterNo, no, child. I answered your questions. Once. Twice, and even a third time. And I explained why you were wrong from numerous angles. It was only after doing such that I called you names - which are more than appropriateI don't need to justify calling a mentally defective loony a mentally defective loony. (Tuesday Feb 14 | post #221)
Q & A with FH Chandler
NO, YOU MOVE.
Republic of Elbonia
Just off of Krem Ln, #666
Trolls to the left of me, griefers to the right...
I Belong To:
A roving gang of Tom Brokaw clones, the 'Burt Rettig' appreciation society and the "NOBODY LOSES TO DOUGLAS CLARK" protection plan.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm waiting patiently for the FBI [and their KGB handlers] with hot coffee, donuts, ponchiki and Stolichnaya vodka at the ready.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
Don't worry, I'll beam my posts into your brain.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Synthetic telepathy neural decoding your every thought. EW! You just wished you could sniff my socks! Also Snake People.
On My Mind:
You mother-[expletive] communications is corrupted. Whatever. WHATEVER. YOU GOTS ME NOW!
Blog / Website / Homepage:
NadINDYa's favorite (yes, FAVORITE!) song [SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE WARNING]: http://youtu.be/gncW1zqMFgs
I Believe In:
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC