TrueTomHarley

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.

Get out another bottle of Schnapps and drink some more.

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.

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?"
 
 
 
 

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.
 
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.
 

Yikes! I said nothing about "proof" in either a situation of nations slinging accusations, nor did I even say that sexual abuse can be proven by hidden info that only trained experts can recognize. Proof (and by that I suppose you mean incontrovertible or overwhelming evidence) is rarely a part of sexual abuse allegations, except in extreme circumstances (multiple eyewitnesses, rape kits, video, DNA). Usually, a predator leaves only victims who he (or she) believes will never come forward to complain. (Most young victims don't complain until many years later -- based on fear, threat, "guilt," lack of understanding, lack of trust in any confidants.) But he often leaves circumstantial evidence based on patterns of grooming the victim(s), patterns of characteristics among the types of victims chosen, patterns of controlling the victims, patterns in the methods to gain time alone with victims. These become things to watch out for when trying to protect our children from suspected predators, too. But predators evolve their methods and may try dozens of "patterns."
There is nothing that can re-define child abuse "proof."
No. They need to understand such situations better for nearly the opposite reason. So they can understand the complexities, and know why they are not relying upon themselves to make legal and criminal determinations. Also, they can have more empathy for all involved, and realize that the perpetrator is going to be an expert liar, and will appear completely innocent. They should also realize that the victim will, more often than not, appear to be a complete liar, appear "guilty" of something, with inconsistencies in the story, his or her memories, timelines, etc. They may appear hateful and spiteful and unchristian, while the perpetrator may appear godly and humble and caring and concerned. They should realize what I said above about the unlikelihood of "proof" of any kind.

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.

One does not have to be a friend of something to enable it. Most enablers are not friends of what they enable.
I never accused you of being a friend of it.

Putting some final touches on the Pedophilia chapter, I managed to replace something bland with something more specific, resulting in this:
"It is similar today with the sexual abuse of children. Present protective policy has been extraordinarily long in coming. In 1987, Cleveland social workers and pediatricians removed over 100 children from their families suspected of sexual abuse. Public outcry was such, fueled by media alleging ‘overzealous’ and ‘intrusive’ agency overreach, that most were promptly returned, despite genuine evidence of abuse. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, credits ‘feminist campaigners’ with making the protection of children a priorty, and states “clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s.”"
From:   http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-welfare-child-protection-and-sexual-abuse-1918-1990
It does not change the specifics here. But it does add context. Since "clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s” it seems one can only go so far in the criticism of any agency operating during that time. As late as 1987, public opinion was firmly against "breaking up families'" for sexual abuse allegations, even where creditable. Furthermore, "where evidence of sexual assault emerged, the reaction of welfare workers was to limit harm, often by removing a child from an abusive situation. Reporting of abuse and securing convictions was a secondary concern."
 

Putting some final touches on the Pedophilia chapter, I managed to replace something bland with something more specific, resulting in this:
"It is similar today with the sexual abuse of children. Present protective policy has been extraordinarily long in coming. In 1987, Cleveland social workers and pediatricians removed over 100 children from their families suspected of sexual abuse. Public outcry was such, fueled by media alleging ‘overzealous’ and ‘intrusive’ agency overreach, that most were promptly returned, despite genuine evidence of abuse. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, credits ‘feminist campaigners’ with making the protection of children a priorty, and states “clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s.”"
From:   http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-welfare-child-protection-and-sexual-abuse-1918-1990
It does not change the specifics here. But it does add context. Since "clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s” it seems one can only go so far in the criticism of any agency operating during that time. As late as 1987, public opinion was firmly against "breaking up families'" for sexual abuse allegations, even where creditable. Furthermore, "where evidence of sexual assault emerged, the reaction of welfare workers was to limit harm, often by removing a child from an abusive situation. Reporting of abuse and securing convictions was a secondary concern."
 

I take it back. I do know a certain @Nana Fofana who probably appreciates it and veers down that same nebulous path herself. 

Not to worry. No offense taken.
About half of the upcoming book on Russian persecution was originally written on this forum. Since few reasons for opposition were presented at any court hearings, and the m.o. was mostly to provide quick legal cover for decisions already made, I have given the reasons, and their defence, in the second portion of the book. These include such things as cult accusations, brainwashing, shunning, and the white-hot topic (which did not figure in to Russian action) of pedophilia accusations.

Who is this masked one so learned in the ways of science and internet?
I half expect that one day he will take off his mask and I will hear: "Truetom, (or JB or AS or anyone active on this thread) I am your father!"
My upcoming book on persecution in Russia is a week or two away. My next one will be entitled: "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Unitarians But Were Afraid to Ask"

Having said that, what is the internet term for this:
Or this?
Or even this:

 

"Come here cat. I'm gonna make you a star."

Okay. What little I know of Unitarians is confined to UU, and I know little about them.
Okay again. I am a little sorry that I posted my "next" book title. It is no more than the sort of good-natured ribbing that I would do to my closest friends, and I hope it is not percieved as any sort  "one-uppence." I also hope it doesn't overshadow the valuable perspective you're offered for the subject at hand, if it is really the subject at hand, since as you said it did hijack another thread.
 

When I bring in folks like @Vic Vomidog, @Dr. Adhominem  Dr. 'Hammer' Urubi, and @Top Cat O'Malighan, I can almost write in the tenth person.

I don't think so. Which guy do you mean?
Having said that, it really doesn't matter. If you leave a record of loyalty to Jehovah, slapping back hard at villainous reasonings, and even people when they make themselves synonomous with them, also not chit-chatting with determined enemies of the truth as though they were chums, yet not saying vile things yourself, and even showing some kindness and empathy wherever the situation might warrent it, I'm not sure how you can go wrong, even if the guy is phony.
There was someone here who said he was a brother coping with homosexual tendencies some time ago. He painted himself very distraught. I think he said he had contemplated suicide at one time. I spoke with him at some length, as did several others here. But I always thought he could be just putting us on. It doesn't matter. If you sketch a character convincingly enough, you provide good opportunity for dealing with such a character, whether you are real or not.
It's not like I feel I'm being Perry Mason here, you know. Nothing here is real, necessarily. Real or not, people provide a good opportunity to develope communication skills appropriate to both friend and foe.
If you mean John, I don't think I've been gullible. Why would you think I have been? But even if I have, it hardly matters. I certainly mess with people's minds enough when I determine they are up to no good. If I am to stay here I must have that liberty. If someone turns the tables on me now and again, why should I complain? But I don't think it of John. He struck me as genuine, though you never know.
 

There! You see, @tromboneck? I win.
I didn't know you were still around John. You'll note I did not flag you. Yes, the second and third person would be beyond you. I have a few alternate personas and I bring them in every now and then, mostly for comic relief, that I'm not sure anyone appreciates other than me. But I need that outlet. I am playing here. If I actually thought I was patiently reasoning wiht "apostates" - as though thinking that the elders struck out but I know how to convince them - well - no way. That would be hugely presumptuous and not too obedient. But if I can make my own world, I can get around it. And I get to hone my writing abiltiy, which these days, is my sole gig.
That is not to say that when I interract with persons here that I am not being genuine. I am. But with some characters, it doesn't matter if they are real or not. If the persona sketched is realistic, it is just like the "phony" householder in a service meeting demonstration at the Kingdom Hall. It is an opportunity to improve reasoning abiltiy. Even beyond that, efforts are not wasted. Someone may come along later or be reading at present whose circumstances fit or are close enough to the one I am interracting with, that they are being addressed, even if I don't know of them.
As for John, he did something I have never seen anyone do here. He went from calling me a tool of the devil to offering me a heartfelt thanks. I'm not (overly) naive. I know he did not "come around." But I offered counsel intended to benefit him and he picked up on the spirit of it, if not the advice itself. I hope things work out for he and his family. People never yield on the internet, in any field, not just religion, and he did in a substantial way. Good enough I appreciate it. 
The only people that give up is some among US, who say 'you know the master IS delaying, so I'm going to beat my fellow slaves who misled me' or 'Actually Demas has a good point about the present system of things - I do kind of miss it - and here is an argument that gives me cover to follow his course.' These persons too, I hope to influence for the good in some manner.
 

I don't think so. Which guy do you mean?
Having said that, it really doesn't matter. If you leave a record of loyalty to Jehovah, slapping back hard at villainous reasonings, and even people when they make themselves synonomous with them, also not chit-chatting with determined enemies of the truth as though they were chums, yet not saying vile things yourself, and even showing some kindness and empathy wherever the situation might warrent it, I'm not sure how you can go wrong, even if the guy is phony.
There was someone here who said he was a brother coping with homosexual tendencies some time ago. He painted himself very distraught. I think he said he had contemplated suicide at one time. I spoke with him at some length, as did several others here. But I always thought he could be just putting us on. It doesn't matter. If you sketch a character convincingly enough, you provide good opportunity for dealing with such a character, whether you are real or not.
It's not like I feel I'm being Perry Mason here, you know. Nothing here is real, necessarily. Real or not, people provide a good opportunity to develope communication skills appropriate to both friend and foe.
If you mean John, I don't think I've been gullible. Why would you think I have been? But even if I have, it hardly matters. I certainly mess with people's minds enough when I determine they are up to no good. If I am to stay here I must have that liberty. If someone turns the tables on me now and again, why should I complain? But I don't think it of John. He struck me as genuine, though you never know.
 

You have much stature, Trom, and I appreciate that, but I have learned not to say such things. Even when they are gone, there is no saying they might not come back. I don't like to make it personal.
Someone may say "you don't?" because I have pushed back hard at times, even 'slapping' some. But I try to never go personal, and I think proof that that can work is the conciliatory note from John. Now, he is gone for now, but it is not necessarily permanent, and we might have made it so by going after him personally.
 

@TrueTomHarley Thanks Tom. 
 

@Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I do not know any specifics of your particular situation or the situation in your congregation. No matter what the case, Jehovah knows your heart, and no humans or organization actually holds the final word of judgment. What I can say is that I'm aware of why there was a time when we once announced the reasons for disfellowshipping or disassociation. Then it turned into "conduct unbecoming a Christian" or "so-and-so no longer wishes to be associated . . . " often with a related talk given within a week or so, designed to remind the congregation of the need to remain morally clean, and the specific worldly or immoral elements the congregation had shown vulnerability to were usually emphasized. 
It should be obvious why this has changed. We do not wish to embarrass the person over a specific wrong or reason that they may later wish the congregation had no specific knowledge about. Most persons disfellowshipped are somewhere in a process of repentance. The elders do not believe the process is ever perfect, but they especially do not want to create a situation where a person might regret having everyone else know what weaknesses they overcame. There are issues of fairness and justice to consider when a congregation may know all about one party in a wrongdoing but nothing about a second party to the same wrongdoing.
I don't think I need to spell out all the ways that one person may be hurt more deeply due to the unfairness of allowing a different level of information for two different persons where the wrongdoing may have been equal. The other side of that coin, is the case where two persons were involved in the same wrongdoing, but one person was much guiltier than the other, yet the announcement sounds pretty much the same for both. The best solution has appeared to be the minimization of all announcements, allowing persons to keep more privacy and dignity.
Perhaps in your case, you wish to "give a witness" about why you are choosing to disassociate. Because you have been a Witness, your motivation is understandable, but you are asking for an opportunity to explain yourself in ways that might be considered detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The elders are there to take care of the spiritual interests of the whole congregation. Most persons do not join a Christian congregation to get a sermon from someone who disagrees with the teachings that they joined to hear more about. You don't go to a meeting to have your belief system torn down, but to be built up. If you feel you have important points to make, why not write a book, or write to elders, or branch personnel, or go on the Internet, so that the congregation in general will have a choice as to what kind of information they risk exposing themselves to.
 
 

I'm not into the videos. But I love to talk to people, and I'll take any excuse. I can't do quirky, of course, because a few of the friends know that I'm not in full agreement with some of the less important* doctrines, and therefore a chance report that I'm being flippant in service wouldn't be good. (*Less important to me, I mean, as they might be plenty important to others.) I always try to play to our strengths, such as getting their opinion on why, in general, any Christian might be outside talking about their religion in the first place -- and then moving on to our specific reason for being out this time. If people sense you like what you are doing they are more willing to engage in a natural way. I'm retired and therefore more relaxed, but that isn't really it. I don't ask for commitments of any kind, but always let them know that a lot of people have questions about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and that we are always willing to spend time and even sit down and explain our beliefs in detail with anyone who has questions, and I let them know that I'd listen to their ideas, too. At least indirectly, everyone gets offered a home Bible study. It was kind of a cheat, but I learned very early on in my pre-Bethel days of regular pioneering that you get in your hours a lot easier with 10 to 12 Bible studies a month. 
Of course, this month, I've been out with Witnesses (most of them auxiliary pioneers) who struggle even to get to their 30-hour goal. Two or three good Bible students would make it impossible NOT to get 30 hours. (For those who don't know it, 30 is the goal for auxiliary pioneers during the Memorial month, and the month of a Circuit Overseer visit, too.)

You have no idea how avant garde I am about counting hours. It is almost to the point that if I say my goal was 30 or 50, I write down that figure at the end of the month, and I mentally review my activity - if I have any sense of 'cheating' on the figures, I don't do it again. I witness routinely in a crazy variety of times, places, and methods, and if I have to track everything it will drive me nuts.
My sense is that things will go this way eventually. We all know situations where it seems someone is overly concerned about hours, or where 'hours' can actually interfere with a productive ministry, as you just mentioned, or steering people away from productive times just because you can't accumulate too many hours there. 
It gets silly. It is not a bad idea, for it does make possible an overall cumulative report, which is a good thing, but if people start to obsess over time - how does that help anything. My report is .00000000001% (or so) of the total. If I deliberately lied through my teeth, it would not register.