So what if it's old news, I didn't see it or know about it when it happened. The fact that the Borg lied about 607 BCE is old News too but many new ones don't know it yet. It's good to know it's an old story and any updates are good but come on already DS.
Santa Ana, Calif. News Report: Jehovah's Witness molested 4-5 girls
For me this item was very useful, I shared it with some friends and later on when I found about the age of the article I informed them; still we were grateful for the information.
darkspliver: Rather than being an exampe of confirmation bias, I think this more an example of post-truth - it's not fake news, sadly the news report is true, but some 14 months old. But the way it was presented here, effectively makes it 'post-truth'.
You are full of shit, ds. You do not have a clue as to what you are trying to appear intelligent about. Pffft...post-truth my ass.
Bullshit. You are full of it. This is NOT post truth.
And I agree with previous posters - lay off the snarky comments. ESPECIALLY the sarcasm directed towards the posts that Barbara makes. I have followed your posts and you have targeted her posts in particular. Stop it. You are a jerk
'Old' news can be more important than 'new' news.
'Old' news can expose a devastating pattern and culture of behaviour over a length of time.
It can expose the depth of that behaviour across both time and countries, be it in America, Britain, Spain, Australia...
Ah, Australia! As a community we praised Angus Stewart for his high calibre, incisive, knowledgeable and often devastating cross-examination of witnesses in his role as Senior Counsel Assisting the Australian Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse.
Guess what? For what we say and what we post to be effective - and to work - we need to stand up to the same kind of cross-examination.
It was unfortunate that Barbara said "after the link was sent to me I looked around to find if the information was recent, but couldn't find anything." – particularly when I simply popped the post title she used into google and (at the time) the first/top results gave me the answer and original video - 'old' news is still good, if we know it's old news.
Barbara has done much - more than almost anybody else - to expose the mishandling of pedophilia with the JW's - not just recently, but over many years too. We - and I - have much to thank her for. I'm sure she knows we can't just be 90% accurate, or 99%, or even 100% accurate - we need to be 110% accurate - and by working together on this forum we can, if we want to, make sure we are 110% accurate.
Simon: Here's a hint: fuck off.
The principle is that there is a moral obligation to expose the JW's mishandling of pedophilia.
This is bigger than me. It is bigger than you.
But we can only succeed if what we say and post can hold up to thorough cross-examination. I would like to think that, each time I post, I ask myself: 'what would Angus Stewart pick up on and question about what I've written/posted?'
Yes, the easy option would indeed be to - 'fuck off' - but…. but I believe there is a moral obligation at stake. I can't take that easy option and just shut up. This is too big, too important. Sorry.
Finally, by private message, I have been kindly reminded that Barbara is not as young as she once was. I therefore realise that I should perhaps go a bit easier in future - and I apologise that I haven't done so before. My desire for 110% accuracy sometimes gets in the way, sorry.
Only a fool thinks 110% accuracy is even a thing.
Maybe you are just a poor communicator, but your intention always appears to be to cast doubt rather than clarify detail.
It's like a playbook from big tobacco fighting medical science or the oil industry fighting climate science - try and discredit.
You are not fooling anyone and this is your final warning to cease and desist this behavior.
ds: Finally, by private message, I have been kindly reminded that Barbara is not as young as she once was. I therefore realise that I should perhaps go a bit easier in future ...
That is crap.
Don't use age as an excuse to offer your lame apology. Barbara deserves an apology regardless of how old she is or isn't. She deserves an apology because she is an intelligent and brave person that doesn't deserve your smart ass comments thrown at her.
Bringing age into this is another underhanded way to discredit - the implication is that age makes a person fragile and not as smart as you.
Hey darkspilver - Why not try for 150% accuracy? I mean, what a slouch to only go for 110%. Or maybe you should try for 1,000% accuracy? What about 1 billion % accuracy?
I always find it amusing when someone like you tries to sound smart, but then offers that there is the possibility of having more than one hundred out of one hundred - which is what 100 per cent means.
If you cannot get a grasp on that simple axiomatic concept, the rest of your reasoning will be just as faulty.
Darkspilver, is it possible for you to reply without explicit or implied "better than others" tone? Your reference to Barbara's age is little short of gratuitous at worst and patronising at best. Somewhere in your replies is undoubtedly a worthwhile view but it is buried by your own need to not just "express" a point but to also rub it in.
Thank you steve2
Hi Barbara, please accept my fullest, unreserved and personal apologies to you for any offense I may have caused. That was, and is, never my intention. Apologies also to you for my admittedly somewhat abrasive tone, I promise you I'll work on it. I also promise, as and when I can, to continue researching.