Does the picture NEED to really be a picture of a particular raped girl? I believe it would be illegal first of all to post such a picture. But he said it was an "image' a pencil drawn image that merely represented in a fictional way a little girl who was raped. So I see no necesity that it must be an actual picture of a specific rape victim, as that would be illegal I am sure. Some of you need to open your mind a little and learn how to understand metaphor and symbolism. It's just a basic skill we should all have and it would prevent misunderstandings like this. seeing Rick Fearon this way is another bit of advice I would have. He is nbot to be taken literally in every instance. The picture did its job in making a point, a true point that there is a little girl who was raped by a JW in that congregation. It's none of our business what she really looks like so that picture is as good as any would be. Any picture but her actual picture would do.
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits 503 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
ScenicViewer
@ Smiddy,
Scenic Veiwer I liked your post
And Sizemik,
The screen shot Scenic Viewer posted is genuine from memory, as I have accessed the govt site many times over many months and seen the same information.
Thanks for your words of support. I still hope to understand why the link I posted has something wrong with it, but it yielded reliable results in the past, and seems to be doing the same today. Maybe tomorrow will tell.
-
sizemik
The more I am reading about this, Steven Unthank is not a fraud. . . . allcool
Says it all . . .
-
ScenicViewer
What am I missing?
Cyberjesus said,
HA that domain is blacklisted
check this out
http://www.robtex.com/ip/210.247.176.113.html#ip
When I click on the provided link I get this...
I see notations that the ozehosting sites are not blacklisted (circled in red). Granted, looking at a web pages like this makes dizzy, so maybe something is there that I'm not seeing. Please point it out.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
SweetBabyCheezits, When you initially PM'd Mr. Unthank about your concerns, did he respond to you before you started this thread that has since turned into a huge public witch hunt/spectacle/embarrassment? You did try to resolve this in private with him first, right?
No, Cowboy, I didn't PM him first. I suspect the elders will have some strong words of counsel for me tomorrow since I failed to "take it up first with my brother."
The image was my motivation for this thread and it was a public issue, not a private issue. He publicly made a claim regarding an image he displayed and described on his website. The claim was false. Frankly - and because I'm a cynical bastard - I suspect he knew this but wished to stoke the emotions, so up it went. (I could be wrong but I really don't think so.)
The message was NOT ambiguous or metaphoric as some contort it to be. Yes an image is a representation of something. He didn't say the image represents one of the many children who were abused, he said it is an image of a specific little girl in a specific congregation and then he went into unnecessary and almost morbid detail as to what happened to that girl. Had he not made that public claim, Cowboy, I never would've "started this thread that has since turned into a huge public witch hunt/spectacle/embarrassment."
Should we not consider that the little girl in this image is alive and exists somewhere in this world? I personally woudn't appreciate it if someone ripped an image of my innocent little girl off the Internet and then used it to support their sexual abuse cause, without consulting me, however noble it may have seemed at the moment. That Steven Unthank would volunteer this girl to be the poster child for JW rape victims is UNETHICAL, at best. Why lie or embellish when the truth is perfectly capable of doing the job? I don't understand that, particularly in a case that so demands justice.
That said, if his actions have led to any change at all for the better, I am thankful that he made a stand. But in the case of this image, the end does not justify the means, in my opinion. I'm not saying we should lynch the guy - he's human and obviously carries emotional baggage like many do. I just want to reiterate that fabricating or even just repeating false information is counter-productive when you describe yourself as fighting for truth and justice. It's a pet peeve of mine to read it in my Inbox or on JWN but especially frustrating to find it on a former JW site dealing with the serious topic of child abuse.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” (attributed to Nietzsche)
Thanks for the comments from those who were able to dig up facts on the .gov site that I couldn't find and also the testimony of smiddy, who actually attended one of the proceedings. Also, I apologize for allowing myself to get caught up in the moment when things weren't adding up. I posted some things that were more accusatory than just skeptical.
Anyways I guess this thread has served it's purpose as far as I'm concerned.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Oh, one last thing: a couple of you have snarkily asked how you can trust the nay-sayers in this crowd, as if you wish to turn the tables on the skeptics. That's a fantastic point. You don't know me. If I make outrageous claims, you should NOT take me at my word. Who am I but an Internet avatar, a ridiculous name, and a post count?
I'm not talking about Steven Unthank here, just my philosophy in general. Personally, I don't like being duped or manipulated. Presuming a claim is even worthy of skepticism, I'd rather be skeptical first and only persuaded by cold, unemotional evidence.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
SixofNine: All those cases, and this is the unthanks he gets?
Well-played, old chap.
-
still thinking
I would really like to know why it is not at http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/utility/home/ and why the snap shot on the previous page looks nothing like the govt official webpage.
I'd rather be skeptical first and only persuaded by cold, unemotional evidence.... sweetbaby
I am feeling much that way myself. I still say that if something is the truth, why get upset if people don't believe you? Present the facts and the evidence to support it, and shut everyone up....simple....isn't it????
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Valid question, Thinking. I really wanted to see a gov site report, too.
-
still thinking
the other thing that bugs me about that screen dump is that it has Moorabbin Magistrates' Court Listed. And yet on the govt website it is listed as Moorabbin Justice Centre.
I know, being picky. But shouldn't they be the same?
