TrueTomHarley

Yikes! The perfect batter will never miss a grand slam and the perfect pitcher will never permit a hit!
I’ve seen the light! I quit.

Yikes! The perfect batter will never miss a grand slam and the perfect pitcher will never permit a hit!
I’ve seen the light! I quit.

To the extent that it is unambiguous, it is a good thing, no doubt.

Yikes! Without more instruction it could be taken as a plea that you need some.

Yikes! Without more instruction it could be taken as a plea that you need some.

Yikes! Without more instruction it could be taken as a plea that you need some.

Each morning Todd would drive to the overlook so as to watch the sunrise. Toward the end of our stay, I began to accompany him. He would say things about God's timetable being precise, and so forth.
He would pull up with a minute or two to spare, watch the sunrise launch safely through his windshield, then drive back to where he came from. It doesn't take long for me to run with something like this and pad it a little (or a lot).
For example: It is actually his job to put the sun up every day, just like the company custodian was entrusted to raise the flag every day, (when they cared about such things and didn't leave it up continually as it flapped itself to shreds) and I could take an overcast day as proof that he had slept in that day. And if he didn't raise it 'right' in the morning, it might wobble all day - be a little surly, or refuse to go down on time, or go down too early, or cause the sea to sizzle when it sank.
It is a great meme, and I think it will be a permanent one with him. But I can't really do it in front of him, though. He doesn't get mad. He doesn't refuse it. But he doesn't quite know what to make of it. He pushes it away, for it seems to suggest to him that he is being made to look like God, raising and setting the sun. Yes, he knows it is a joke. But his inherent modesty is too much for him to join in the humor. Or maybe it is only me who thinks it is funny and it constitutes more evidence that I live in my own oddball world.
Photo: Little Gasperilla sunrise

What we have is nothing of the sort.
It's a good thing you didn't write any of the Bible. What a dull book it would be.
I guess they were about to learn a thing or two, weren't they? Not only can God do it - his Son can also.

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.

Yes!!! The Russian brothers and sisters enjoyed the Memorial of Christ Death. It was done in private homes. The brothers and sisters  sang kingdom songs very low  to avoid detection. 
For security purposes, details about it including the video will not be posted here. If you need the video, you can kindly message me. 
Jehovah always provide  a way  for all his servant to observe this important occasion (Psalm 43:1-7) - Thank You Jehovah! 
#jwrussia
 

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?

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?

Hi, James!

Would you say I am getting the hang of it?   

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.

"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.
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.

"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.
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.

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.
 
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?"
 
 
 
 

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. 
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.
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. 

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.
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.

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.