TrueTomHarley

1 hour ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

We have to wait and see what happens.

  

Since we will will have to wait and see what happens (for once you do not tell it), why are you so quick to say what the WT says is wrong?

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That would be a neat trick, considering that Cruise Missiles can zig-zag, come in from an entirely different direction from that from which they were launched, and fly at tree top level, using inertial navigation systems as well as GPS. 

 

I'd just as soon not see it play out. It is not as though Russia has nothing but pea shooters.

Unlikely though it may seem, the Dilbert cartoonist is up on these matters and it appears that Trump has his ear.

He doesn't seem to let his advisers push him around.

All good points. For my money, I love Twitter.

I follow a hundred sources or so, as diverse as I can get them. That way you can almost hope to see through the liars and not let your worldview be dictated by any ones source.

And then you throw in individuals, too, whomever you find interesting.

One article I read said that they did it to themselves by consistently runnning very liberal opinion pieces in areas overwhelmingly conservative.

I liked the GIF of him taking a sip of water. 

"Drink water. Humans drink water."

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

People are not signing up like they used to to catch bullets.

 

That's why they invented the draft.

42 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Amen to THAT!

 

Oh, stuff it!

If there are two people who can be depended upon to change not one iota, and who, when you answer a question, will simply ask it again, I am looking at them.

Go back into the archives and construct my own answer for yourselves.

13 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Ever heard of the concept of an "emotional bank account"? It goes something like this: ... You might go up and say " Hi!

Hi, James!

Would you say I am getting the hang of it?   

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And if you have a problem with that?

I am not even sure what you think I have a problem with. But it doesn't matter. Often I do not know where you are coming from. I don't have to. On the list of seven things that God hates, that as by  miracle, expands to eight, is "any one stirring up contentions among brothers." I will not do it. And I don't think you are doing it with me, unless you think that I am not a brother. 

Maybe some of our miscommunication lies in the fact you have battled the villians in many nasty places, and I have not - and for over a longer period of time.  You have a terminology of internet lore unfamiliar to me. (Space Merchant is even more so that way)  I have been online for most of 12 years, but until recently I did not stray from my own platform, where I would take comments from opposers if they wished to make any, but I did not let them hijack the site.

About a year ago, as an experiment, I briefly forayed into an apostate site, being a very bad boy, but once they discovered I had no plans to defect, they were so unfailingly nasty that I soon withdrew. They were effusive in their warm welcome until they discovered I planned to stay where I was. 

Because I am playful maybe you think I am sometimes attacking you. I am not. Ever. If I say you are "abrasive," as I have, it is not said to put you down. It is just playful. Come now, would you have anyone believe here that you are not? You would probably be well-served to attend to that to the extent you can, just as I would be well-served to speak with less hyperbole, because it does get misunderstood. Not that I will do it. Not that you will do it. But I will nudge in the proper direction. You should too.

Otherwise, to the extent that you believe it about me, we are brothers. We must not fight. But if you do not believe I am a brother - well, I guess that's okay. It is not exactly the Kingdom Hall here, is it?

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Please get it in your head, people are scared of the GB and the Elders.

I'm not scared of them. Nor do I know anyone who is. But if you are going to follow them on their heels and announce to all that they are vile, perhaps you would have reason to be.

42 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

They would have much prefered to disfellowship me rather than have me just 'walk away' as I did. 

 

This is different from what you said previously. You said they gave you an option to fade and you refused because you did not want to relinquish your 'platform.'

45 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But however, the brothers and sisters are still too frightened to talk to me, even though I've committed no serious sin before God.  

 

You appear to think they are all eager to otherwise.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number.

"We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture."

The handful of people on this forum have come to live and breathe pedophile facts and counter-facts, but most of our people know almost nothing about it. They will say "Look, I am not a pervert. I don't know any perverts. I don't like perverts. I don't want to know about perverts. I think perverts are disgusting. And yet now I am called upon to be a pervert expert." It is all a huge diversion from the heart of the truth. Give them a quick retort so that they are not caught as a deer between the headlights. They can bring themselves up to speed if they see fit, as can their detractors. JohnB was dumbfounded that this issue was not on the top of everyone's aware list. I explained that it was because they have thousands of atrocities to choose from. A quick answer is enough to move everyone along.

It is not untrue as far as it goes. It simply does not address all the complications. it is like the quick answer we give our student to address a question that he has yet to build a foundation for understanding it. It is not wrong for him to ask it, and if he is persistent, we devote however much time it takes. But usually a simple answer suffices. It is even like the quick answer we give our 8 year old about the facts of life.

The analogy is not perfect. You needn't point that out. Furthermore, I may rethink it but for now I am okay with it. It is not the centerpiece of the chapter by any means. It does not represent a call-to-arms cry. I also understand that in playing devil's advocate as you do, you risk being seen as the devil. I think I know where you are coming from and I thank you for your condolances about the local tragedy.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

Not only do I agree with everything here, but it could almost be the Foreword for Part II of the book. I think, should you read it, you will be satisfied I do not over-rely on a number or encourage anyone else to do so.

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Remember who you're speaking with TTH! It's NOT important to get kicked out of a shameful website. Especially one that sets the standard for putting God to shame. So, whenever, YOU, EX-BETHELITE, JTR, ANNA, AND THE LIBRARIAN want to pull the plug, that's your legal right. Mine will be to show just cause to GO-DADDY and affiliations to demonstrate with PROOF of hate speech. So, threaten all you people want, the laws of the land have changed!

Allen, I don't understand this comment at all. 

However, I owe you a debt as well. I never would have thought of inventing all my 'friends' had it not been for accusations directed towards you about aliases. JWI seems convinced that you are or have been multiple persons, but I have never spent time trying to figure it out. 

I just thought it was a cool idea, and decided I would try my own hand at it.

What I want to do is use the 10 times better figure. But @JW Insider has shown me I cannot even use the 6 times better figure without severe qualification, and he would have me drop it altogether. I will not do that, but I will put a real muzzle on it. For all I know, he did it specifically as a favor to me, so that I would not go public with stats that quickly fall apart. No matter his motive. I am grateful to him.

I can call the other side ignorant. I can assert that they do not know law and until they do they ought to keep their mouths shut. But I will not win them over that way, even if what I say is true. If I write them off as hopeless and drop down a notch to giving my brothers a tool they can use to ward off the villains, I do not do them any favors if I give them one that can be ripped to shreds.

I wonder how the following will fly as part of the Pedophile chapter, towards the end:

There is only so far you can go with the ‘6 times better’ figure. It should not be relied upon as dogma. It is processed notifications into varying levels of severity on one side vs unprocessed notifications on the other. It is  most likely that notifications from the Witness camp will break down similarly to stats overall, but this cannot be guaranteed. Small variations alter the results dramatically and large variations make it meaningless.  It is good only for a ballpark figure - the best that can be hoped for given that the ones who should have put their talents to work in ascertaining truth chose instead to bury theirs in the ground. It will have to do for now. Skewed results from data clarification doesn’t have to work against Witnesses. It could work in their favor. If notifications in the greater Australian figures outnumbered victims, that could be true in the Witness figures as well. Maybe even all 17 reports stem from a single rotter like that fellow in San Diego. Kneecap that scoundrel and we are perfect. We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture.

Now I must brace myself for a lecture from Captain Truth, who, when he is not quoting the founding fathers who agree with Trump, is drawing up imbecile cartoons to embarrass the brothers. 

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Later, I campaigned to have this imposter, exposed. I got kicked out of many sites, but the TRUTH finally made its way, and he became an embarrassment to them ALL!

 

I respect this. I truly do. The only caveat I will add is that it is a little like killing a fly. 50 will come to the funeral. I tried something similar to this with AlanF. But he remained nasty throughout, impervious to all my submissions, and in the end the Librarian suggested that I should knock it off as it was getting old.

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I can say that ANNA and JWinsider can be the same person according to the logins.

Pursue your conspiracy theories if you must. Just stay away from A Nice Guy, Dr. Adhominem, 'Hammer' Urabi, Top Cat O'Malihan, Vic Vomidog, and Dr. Mike 'Ace' Inhibitor.  Such an above-board group of shining stars I have never seen. 

Rats!! As I am typing there appears a notice  that JWI has just chimed in. I hope he does not say something to make me want to gut everything I just said. 

32 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Now your off track. Let's NOT make a hero of someone that doesn't contribute to HONESTY! However, Fiddler on the roof, was a GOOD play and movie, whereas, deception is NOT! Write about that in your next book!

The entire thread, and even forum, does not contribute to HONESTY in that all of it ignores Jesus' counsel to '"let them be" with regard to opposers and blind guides. None of the blind guides will say they are blind. It is for the unblind to follow Jesus' counsel.

Evereyone here, self included, 'ought' to be looking at matters as does Jesus, and no one here, self-included, can quite make themselves do that. 

It is what it is, but no one should be making a hero of themselves for participation here. Even if a person succeeds in knocking his enemy  out of the ring, he has done so by demonstrating an unChristian trait.

Oh. And here's one for JTR:

 

How;s THAT for Christlike?

 

AF1QipMwCMd6ZM4SC_CrQIlOfIWia6zZyz3Mq6EYakng.html

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Even if it turns out to be correct, there is no 6.3 figure from any study or anything like a study, just as there was no 10-times-better or 18-times-worse figure. Imagine just a couple of tweaks to account for what are currently unknowns.

Oh, for crying out loud, just say there has never been an abuse case without a JW connection and be done with it!

Just take down the blue JW.org signs, replace them with the 'Pedophiles R Us' signs that JRT is working on, and be done with it!

Just tell all the brothers to holler "Molester! Molester!" as they approach, as their counterparts once did "Leper! Leper!" and be done with it!

It is not perfect. It cannot be perfect because everyone that could have put their talants to use instead buried them in the ground. It is processed notifications to unprocessed notifications. It will have to do as the best available. If some of theirs turned out to be duds, it cannot be assumed that all of ours will be grand slams.

If you don't behave, I am going to get Allen to assert that all 17 Witness notifications stem from just a single unfortunate child, which will elevate our cause 10,000 to 1! Kneecap that lone scoundrel perpetrator out and we are perfect!

8 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

JW Inciter, your smoove and kindly manner is maybe sort of reminiscent  of detectives in "Crime and Punishment", but it's been so long since I read that- not positive I remember right.

 

Whatever @JW Insider's motives may be, by throwing certain things back in my face he has more than once caused me to reevaluate and even retract some errors I otherwise would have made - errors that I would not have wanted to see go into print.

He was also kind enough to acknowledge that I had succeeded in giving him correct counsel on an occassion or two in the past.

If anyone is playing me like a fiddle, to use @tromboneck's phrase, it is he, but I tend to accept him at face value, and he is among the relative few here who consistently back up their statements with facts, even if I am not sure that the facts are good to broadcast to all and sundry in the first place. He pursues a model that I do not like, but I cannot say that I have not benefited by it.

For now I see no reason not to run with the 6.3 figure. If it is heralded as the be-all and end-all of truth, that is dishonest. But if it is held out as a rough figure that might alter pending added (and impossible, due to dearth of data) refinement of either side's stats, then it is an acceptable comparison of notifications to notifications.  That way our brothers have something to kick back with when their enemies press for the perception that JWs are the very last place you should go if you want to keep your kids safe. 

The ultimate details will never be known, compared and quantified. But we can run with a simple indicator so long as we do not pretend it is more than a rough indicator. Such kind of imperfect stats are built into models all the time, and policies or forecasts are drawn from them.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A real study could be done if Australia's CPS numbers had accurately kept track of religion both of perpetrators and victims.

Well, that is the real crime, isn't it?

In many settings, negligence is a punishable offense. Either the Australian CPS should have tracked religion for each perpetrator and victim or religions themselves should have kept stats on their own parishioners to hand them over upon demand. As it was, only Jehovah's Witnesses did and it was done for the reason of presenting to God a clean people and to not let perpetrators slide from one congregation into another, as they can anywhere else. 

It is a deed with good motive being spun as a bad without resistance from those who should resist it. All such issues before various courts constitute a classic example of "No good deed goes unpunished." That is the overall picture which supercedes any investigations into child abuse, greivious though the latter might be. The 6.3 becomes in this context a workable indicator so that our brothers do not have to look to JTR as their messiah.

It is quite clear that the GB can do no more. G Jackson pleaded for mandatory reporting laws across the board in all territories. Why has that not been done? That way elders can run roughshod over any family head who, for whatever reason, does not want to report abuse they are aware of to outside authorities. As was stated about the two from case 54, "they were adult survivors and it was their right not to report." Strip them of that right. Make it mandatory that everyone report everything. 

If the greater authorities are as serious about preventing child sexual abuse as they purport to be, seemingly no policy change could be simpler. Then there would be no swiping at people for not "going beyond the law." Make it the law if it is so crucial. If they refuse or neglect to enact that most basic proactive measure, yet they would still issue blistering criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, what does that tell you? Something more than Capernaum is here.

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You haven’t given the Watchtower any CREDIT for doing the best as humanly possible to address those human conditions.

Exactly. Once again, Allen earns his keep.

Does he interfere, obscurate, divert? Well, before concluding that, take into account the 'scholarly' contributions of JTR or Witness and you will see he yet ranks pretty high.

It infuriates me - the constant insinuation that the eight righteous men aren't really righteous and, to the extent they are not, it is the long arm of the law that will straighten them out and not their own fear of God.

16 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

[Allen], I just finished off my half gallon of Peach Schnapps which I have been nursing for almost two years. When I read your posts, it helps to be properly anesthetized.

 

Get out another bottle of Schnapps and drink some more.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again.

Okay. I did and I was wrong.

It was me who first put the quotes around "study" thus acknowleging it was not really a study, but simply an indicator, a fact, that could be built upon. Maybe it was wrong of me to do that, but we are a culture that loves to say it acts upon studies, and I saw no reason not to give it that status for purposes of discussion.

I also said when I introduced the "study" into this thread that it "seemingly shows" a child is ten times safer in the JW environment. I dropped that qualifier in later reiterations because I was dealing with someone who seemingly accepted the 10 times better as fact and yet it made no difference to him. I took this as an indication that he had lost his senses and I repeated the "10 times better" "fact" thinking that it would eventually penetrate, but it never did. I think a million times better would not have cut it. If there was even a speck of dirt, it justified to him a flamethrower.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But notice that these are multiple notifications

This is the fact that was missed. Updating a year as you have done, the 355,925 notifications stem from just 225,487 children, and so it is the latter number that should be used in the calculation. (these figures are from just under the heading: "How many notifications are made to child protection services in Australia each year?" and they appear before the charts you selected from.

The pie chart further down shows that, for whatever reason, the percentage of abuse cases that is sexual is no longer 13%, but 12% 

Thus 12% of 225,487 eqauls 27,058 notifications of child sexual abuse - out of a total Australian population of 24, 000,000.

The figures to be used for comparative purposes are: 

Greater Australia:  27,058   /   24,000,000   -  which represents 11.27%

vs

Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia:  12   /   67,418   -   which represents 1.78%

Thus, the Witness organization does not prevent child sexual abuse at a rate 10 times greater than all Australia. It prevents it at a rate of 6.3 times greater than all Australia.

You have lost me in some of your calculations, but it appears that you have qualified those notifications from all-Australia, but not the ones from the Witnesses. Some of their notifications turn out to be unsubstantiated, but you seem to assume that every one of ours are. I see no reason for that assumption. You can only compare like to like, not their 'processed' notifications to our 'unprocessed' ones.

For that matter, there is no guarantee that each of our notifications stems from a different child. They don't in all-Australia. Maybe not with us as well.  If even two of them stemmed from the same child, that would skew the numbers hugely in our favor. 

Is it valid to relate that, per reported figures, children would appear to be 6.3 times safer in a Witness environment? Or should they be left to suppose that it is even-steven, or even worse, for fear they may otherwise get complacent about fixing what remains?

I will give you an experience and admittedly, I am going borderline hysterics myself, like many who have contributed to this topic. Just recently a childhood friend of my son died. He left the truth as a teenager. He subsequently developed heavy addiction problems. But for the last three months he had been clean and was once again attending meetings. His mother went to pick him up on the night of the Memorial - last night. He had apparantly relapsed and overdosed. He was dead.

Now, I know very well that not everyone who leaves the truth developes addiction problems. And I also know that not everyone who recovers does so by becoming a Jehovah's Witness. But I  know too that opioid addiction has a 90% recidism rate. So it would have been a very fine thing, even a lifeline, had he continued coming to meetings where he could have gathered strength. And had he done that, I would not be thrilled at someone meeting him at the door and saying: "You know, we have child sexual abuse here just as much as where you come from. it might even be worse."

No. I want them to say 'Because we make a real effort to resist child sexual abuse and have good governance to that effect, we kick it 6.3 times better than the world. And we kick opioid abuse 20 times better. And whatever wretched problem you have encountered, we kick that multiple times better as well. I guarantee that he would not have said: "Yeah, but you're not perfect, are you?"

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I''m concerned about the repetition of a statistic that came from flawed and perhaps less-than-honest reasoning.

It is a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts, the simplest calculation of all, made possible because there were two groups proactive enough to keep records - the Witness organization and the Australian government itself.

All other data is extracted from specialized subsets that are not necessarily, or even likely, representative of the whole.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It might be repeated out of a false pride or presumptuousness.

It is more likely to be repeated out of a desire to make a defence for the faith, which I have never imagined was a bad thing.

I like the parables of Jesus where every word may convey meaning and none of it should be quickly dismissed as "filler" For example, the excuse proffered by the wicked and sluggish slave, and the master's rebuke:

"Finally the slave who had received the one talent came forward and said: ‘Master, I knew you to be a demanding* man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow.So I grew afraid and went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ In reply his master said to him: ‘Wicked and sluggish* slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my coming I would have received it back with interest." (Matthew 25:24-27)

22 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

There is this smugness among the JW leadership,

This is childish. Just because someone does not do what you want them to do, that does not make them smug. You just don't like them.

22 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

They've used the two-witness Bible principle as a crutch for their inaction through the years

Is it a 'crutch?' Or is it fundamental to civilized law?

According to the following article, discarding that crutch in favor of the new model of success -  to make a charge stick without having to prove it - has pushed nations to the brink of nuclear war:

"Unproven allegations against Trump and Putin are risking nuclear war - Stephen Cohen"

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/422673-russiagate-skripal-cold-war/

@JW Insider weighed in on this on another thread. He said the West should prove the allegations they make before flaming the alleged perpetrator (Russia) and taking decisive action. But he forgets that, in their eyes, they have proven their charges -  with methods roughly analagous (hidden info that only trained experts can recognize) to the methods of those who would re-define child abuse proof. The intelligence people have their own methods, and they expect the unwashed to go along with their conclusions. To be consistent with his stand on proof in matters of child abuse, it seems that JWI should go along with them.

I am all for elders being educated. I think that is happening. But does he really propose (I may have misread this) that elders be trained in these new techniques of abuse detection and make judicial decisions based upon them?

Here is one @AllenSmith will like about the California judge that just ruled Starbucks must post warnings about cancer risks of coffee. Starbucks is dragging their feet on this, so "the judge can set another phase of trial to consider potential civil penalties up to $2,500 per person exposed each day over eight years. That could be an astronomical sum in a state with close to 40 million residents, though such a massive fine is unlikely." These guys really do sow their wild oats.

http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/rochester/news/2018/03/30/california-judge-rules-that-coffee-requires-cancer-warning

On 3/29/2018 at 8:46 PM, JW Insider said:

And perhaps your point is true

There is no reason to think it is not,  [prevention rate 10 times superior to the general Australian population]  except that it is but one "study." We can do what is common in the greater world - wait for study after study after study and then spotilght the one that most closely validates what we already think, but I'll run with the study that actually exists. It may not hold. Perhaps the data from  other commissions, if there are any, will reveal JWs have 5 times the prevention rate, or maybe it will be 20. But we have an indication of the general pattern.

We will have to wait if we want more. Data is not plentiful, for reasons already discussed - most faiths neglected to keep any. But what data we have roughly corresponds with the 2007 statement accompanying a org settlement to the effect that child abuse among JWs is relatively rare, which corroborates roughly with what Ray Franz said that child abuse was not especially a problem and was overblown by media. (Anna has the particulars.) If anyone could be expected to say there was a problem, it would be him. 

I will agree with you that it is still "bad." But it is no worse than the "bad" record of believers of any sort of sin, which record is nonetheless head-and-shoulders above that of the greater world that makes no attempt to live by Bible principles. I'd love if it were perfect, just as I would love if the record in any category was perfect. For now, It can be put in the general category of 'You who say do not xxxx - do you xxxx?' of Romans 2, and it is primarily opposers who would make it the headlining concern.

Moreover, the ones who are likely to be most successful in fixing the problem, in my opinion, are the ones proactive enough to have prevented it 90% (or so) in the first place, not the ones who preside over a far worse record. 

Plus, probably the reason the overall world has such a poor record of prevention and doesn't do much to address it, as JWs do, is because addressing it effectively would require judgements of morality, and some enforcing of that morality. The ones who scream the loudest about reporting deficiencies would then switch to screaming about efforts to "control people."

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Under another topic which was unrelated to child abuse issues, the claim was put forward (again) that JWs may have only a tenth of the problem that others have with child abuse. 

On 3/28/2018 at 8:54 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Since I began frequenting this forum I have noticed that the claim that JWs are a veritible den of child abuse has been put forward (again) and (again) and (again) and (again) and (again).

Essentially identical threads dedicated to this perception have even been hosted (again) and (again) and (again)

So I have repeated a counterpoint to add a bit of perspective and balance.