by abbagail 17 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I cannot understand why the US does not hand its legal system over to the media completely and have done with. Imagine the millions of dollars saved if TV and newspaper reporters defined the legal system.
This man may well be guilty, but until a court of law pronounces him as such he is to be presumed innocent. Is this so hard to understand? It seems to me that is all is 'defenders' are saying. The rush to judgement that characterizes such events are truly disturbing.
HS
"As for the SNAP leader being emotionally unstable... I wonder why?... was he not abused as well? What is his side of the story?":
http://www.survivorsnetwork.org/Links_from_Home_Page/Clohessy_bio.htm
GRITS,
Great, educational post. I fully concur that everything JW/WATCHTOWER should be posted here and let the viewer decide. 'We report, YOU decide' mentality. Works for FOXNEWS. (Yet, I still am not quite sure why they will not 'report' anything re: the 'pedophile paradise'...perhaps IN DUE TIME ).
For three years this is how I have been 'operating' in yahoo rooms and other places in cyberspace. Unleashing every update that came down the pike. A few caught on as to how to accomplish what I was indeed succeeding At!...not tolerating any fresh lurkers to be loaded down with WATCHTOWER PROPOGANDA. Ask Cygnus how effective 'we' became. A few of 'us' were instrumental in SHUTTING down a select few chat areas and BBS (bulletinboard systems). So.....
Keep on truckin' lady. Stay FOCUSed. And take good care of your SELF.
The more Actions! we braimstorm, negotiate and finally execute, the closer we get to our goal(s).
Carry on!
Sincerely, sKally
But that's not going to stop me from "working for the abuse cause" in any way at any time, no matter WHO has the information that would benefit the public at large. Anybody have a problem with that?
GRITS, I have no problem with you and I agree that all the info we can get out hands on is good. Would you not agree though that already some of what has been posted like this gets the flames started and does little good but diverting the spotlight from the silent ones. Especially seeing that Bill is not here to defend his viewpoint? It would be great if the exchange of information was just that, but you know as well as I do, that particular idea has been fractured and the efforts have become dichotomized for reasons I don't need to mention. I should have looked harder at the real originator of the post, instead of seeing the info@sl address as being who sent it out. My apology. To the heart of your post. I also don't think you are going to find this happening with cops or other public officials where they stand up for any given JW. The Catholics spend lots of time and money developing community ties. It is no wonder you find people sticking up for someone they look up to as a public figure in high regard. If the facts betray their trust then so be it, but until then they are only doing what they feel is the stand up thing. Seeing that JWs do no public good or involve themselves with the community it is safe to assume they could care less about individual members of a congo who get accused of pedophilia. BTW, thanks for your hard work in regards the lambs.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
While doing some web searches on David Clohessy we find that his own brother is accussed of molestation. The only thing that disturbs me about this is that he was accussed of molesting an 18 year old college student. Wouldn't that actually be consentual sex?
Now, the moral issues not withstanding (priests are suppossed to be celibate) on what grounds would charges of molestation, even civil charges, be brought against a priest if the "victim" was 18 at the time and not raped.
The only reason this distrubs me is because Kevin Clohessy is now statisticlly figured in as a priest charged with molestation.
To his credit the chump has left the priesthood, but I'm still trying to figure out on what basis criminal or civil charges could be filed if the one making the allegations was 18 at the time the events occurred?
Yerusalyim,
You do raise a very good question.
I thought "molestation" charges could only be brought against someone if the victim was under 18.
However, I did a little research, and found this News Story:
http://www.hannibal.net/stories/041302/tri_0413020019.shtml
In this News Story, it says that the "College Student" was abused.
So, I believe that would be rape.
Hey hey sKally! Thanks for posting the SNAP page/background info. Thanks, TOO, for the encouraging words. Muchoooo appreciated. Your FOX analogy was perfect, "We report, you decide." I like that! And I can always use any tips 'n tricks from the more experienced "pros" like yourself.
Thanks again!
Grits, taking orders from sKally to ~~ Carry On! ~~
Salute!
Hi D.Overbeer, thanks for the reply. You asked:
Would you not agree though that already some of what has been posted like this gets the flames started...
With all due respect, D.O., it's PEOPLE who start the flames, rather than the "posted info" which is lifeless in itself. Do you (or anyone) start a flame with the guy on the 6 o'clock news if you don't like what he said? Or, if there is an editorial in the newspaper you disagree with, what would you do? Write to the source directly, or get on the horn and call the editor, etc.
...and does little good but diverting the spotlight from the silent ones.
IMHO, the only ones diverting the spotlight are the ones who keep the argument going. The way I see it, you guys keep taking what you see as "bait" and running with it.
Especially seeing thatBill is not here to defend his viewpoint?
Haven't the two "sides" already defended themselves to death? Besides, what does THIS info re: SNAP have to do with it? Is there something in THIS particular "SNAP" info of which Bill needs to "defend his viewpoint?" I don't think so. I think you are referring to the OTHER thread, are you not? If you want to engage Bill in a discussion about the info in the OTHER thread, by all means, feel free to write or call him.
It would be great if the exchange of information was just that...
Well, here's where we differ on how we perceive these SL "INFO" emails.
I don't look at info coming from BB's SL Email List as "exchanges" of information. I look at them as SL "disseminating" information. Therefore, I post them "farther and wider" simply to "spread whatever info/news" there is coming from the silentlambs.org (or from any other source, for that matter). And as I already stated, I look at this Child Abuse section of JWD like a Bulletin Board on the wall at the local grocery story. I don't necessarily seek or expect an "exchange" or discussion. I post it here, there, etc. so the info can be "viewed" by as many as possible, and move on. From now on, however, to CY(my)A, I think I will add a disclaimer at the top of each one: "FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. If you disagree with the contents contained herein, please contact the source: Silentlambs.Org, [email protected], or call 1-877-WT-ABUSE." There, think that will help?
Also, since I get this info from the SL Email List, I see it first in my inbox. If there is something further I want to know, I just zap off an email to B.Bowen. Everyone else is free to do the same.
Now if Simon does not want any emails/info from Bill or Silentlambs.org posted here in the future, because Bill won't come out and get into discussions, or for whatever reasons, then I'm sure Simon will let me, Undf, and some of the others (who post) know.
I should have looked harder at the real originator of the post, instead of seeing the info@sl address as being who sent it out. My apology.
Thank you. No problem really. I remember when Lin (I think it was) posted one of these emails from the SL Email List, and she did not put the header info in the thread as to where it originated, everyone just about had a holy fit, and ragged her all over the place. So I always make sure I include the source of the information.
To the heart of your post. I also don't think you are going to find this happening with cops or other public officials where they stand up for any given JW. The Catholics spend lots of time and money developing community ties. It is no wonder you find people sticking upfor someone they look up to as a public figure in high regard. If the facts betray their trust then so be it, but until then they are only doing what they feel is the stand up thing. Seeing that JWs do no public good or involve themselves with the community it is safe to assume they could care less about individual members of a congo who get accused of pedophilia.
Sorry, D.O., I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was not speaking of the cops/city officials standing up for JWs. What I meant was:
WT/JWs = Wall of Silence among themselves
Cops = Blue Wall of Silence among themselves
WT/JWs = Support the accused pedos (rather than the victims) by keeping the pedo in the congs, by JWs going to the trials and sitting on the side of the courtroom of the pedo, etc.
Cops = Support the accused pedo (rather than the victim) by speaking out publicly to the press, etc. (as the SF Chronicle article above described).
Hope that is a little more clear as to what I had in mind.
BTW, thanks for your hard work in regards the lambs.
Thank you sincerely, Overbeer! That was nice of you to say!
Peace!
