The word “BROAD” and the Australian Royal Commission

by Londo111 9 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    Perhaps I am making too much of this, but was anyone else struck with the number of times the word ‘broad’ and ‘broadly’ were used?

    Sometimes I wondered if it was due to coaching, in particular when the questioning put a person in a tight spot.

    For instance, from the testimony of Bowditch:

    Q. And as an organization, in your experience, you don't seek to protect or take care of children who are outside of the congregation?

    A. That's a broad statement.

    From the testimony of Spinks:

    A. It's such a broad, sweeping, ill-informed comment.

    And finally from the testimony of Jackson himself:

    Q. Would you disagree, then, with anyone who said that the efforts to highlight and deal with child sexual abuse in the Jehovah's Witness church are engaging in apostate lies?

    A. I guess that's a broad question, because sometimes those who make these accusations make many other accusations as well.

    Of course, the Watchtower is the master of "broad statements" all the time, in particular when they call this matter "apostate-driven lies".


  • Gilbeath Haaraloth
  • Alive!
    Alive!

    Shameful - if nothing else, the testimony and witness of the elders and senior representatives, including Jackson - would have driven me away....

    These men 'should' have been backed by the spirit of Christ - he promised them that he'd give his people the right words at the right time - Christ wasn't there.

    'Let your light shine'

    There was no light emanating from the witness stand. Really.

  • dropoffyourkeylee
    dropoffyourkeylee
    At first I thought this topic was about sexual discrimination. My bad
  • cha ching
    cha ching

    Good catch Londo! Seems like they may use this word for court cases, whereas "evidently" or "apparently" are reserved for the written articles...?

    I liked that article, thx for the link, GH! Some quotes:

    #10: Bargain. Even when the jig is up, liars can often escape the worst by using a process psychologists call bargaining. "You want to soften, alleviate, or totally eliminate feelings of responsibility for the lie," explains researcher Mary DePalma. "If you can decrease responsibility for blame and the anger that goes with it, you're really looking at a much better outcome."

    #3 Tell the truth, misleadingly. The hardest lies to catch are those which aren't actually lies. You're telling the truth, but in a way that leaves a false impression. Technically, it's only a prevarication - about half a sin. A 1990 study of pathological liars in New York City found that those who could avoid follow-up questions were significantly more successful at their deceptions.

    #2 Lay your groundwork. Don't wait until you're under the interrogation lamp to start putting your story together. A 1990 study by psychologist Bill Flanagan showed that liars who had worked out the details of their stories beforehand had significantly more success than those who hadn't. As in everything, practice makes perfect.

    Really good liars, on the other hand, actually enjoy the process of deceiving other people. "The best liars don't show any shame or remorse because they don't feel it," says Cohen. "They get a thrill out of actively misleading others. They're good at it, and they enjoy the challenge."

    Is that why good ol' Geoffrey Jackson always has a smile on his face?

  • Gilbeath Haaraloth
    Gilbeath Haaraloth
    Cha ching as I said, good old Geoffy must have a PhD in deception. He nailed those points like a professional pathological liar.
  • cha ching
    cha ching

    He nailed it w/o blinking an eye ;-)

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Humming and hawing to avoid answering the question... because you know that answering honestly is gonna make you look bad.

    x

    Once again, for the lurkers, newbies, and trolls...

    ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/145224/barbara-andersons-paedophilia-cd-watchtowers-chocolate-cake-defence

    I thought this topic was pertinent:

    For every single case, every one, they employ the same stock answer - to each request, they say over and over again, that it is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous”; the information requested is “irrelevant” and will not “lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”. They don’t even bother to vary the wording, it’s just what lawyers call “boilerplate” language, there’s no attempt to argue each point, it’s simply stonewalling.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    You know something's fishy when all they're even bothering to use are stock answers from the "Dirty Lawyer's Playbook".

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit