Another point where I thought WT was right, and a point that I think many of us forget, is how the understanding and handling of child abuse really has changed drastically over the years, and one can not totally fault them for their lack of understanding the best way to handle it in the past. Especially considering how society in general has also had to learn how to better help victims, right alongside WT.
However, on the flip side, with all the new insights we have gained, one would expect them to be more willing to change their policies and procedures where needed, or at least, be more humble about their shortcomings and show that they genuinely want to improve things. Reading their rebuttal, though, doesn't really give you the sense that that is their genuine desire. To me, they just come accross as "not at fault", rather than coming accross as desirous of helping those who have suffered.
Because of that, it makes one of their better points (the one I initially mentioned) sound as if it lacks substance, and only really comes accross as an "excuse" due to the overall tone of the rebuttal. Like everyone else has stated, they just make themselves look worse, and if they were in a judicial committee, one could argue that their response lacks "repentance", and they would be deserving of being DF'd. LOL!