The " hear we go again " remark I made has more to do with the worldwide prevalence and high volume in numbers of Jehovah's Witness elders and authority figures in that religion being brought up on charges of child molestation all the time ! Like ," oh no, here we go again." It's a common crime being committed way too often within Jehovah's Witnesses and an abuse of power by JW elders. THAT is why it's important to stand up for children and speak truth to power.
My comment was NOT an indicator that the FINAL court decision had been MADE in this particular case. My apologies, but I'm not a freaking journalist who gets paid to print or put out articles for the New York Times, Washington Post where I feel the need to put an " allegedly " behind every statement I make. Nor feel a need to " qualify " every statement I make. So I wasn't going to write " here we go again, allegedly " - I mean if we as humans had to qualify or put " allegedly " behind every damn thing we say how would folks like it if I stated , " Mr. Flipper took a crap this morning " ? Would they get as upset about that as not putting an " allegedly " behind whether a child molester has committed child abuse - a felony crime ? I mean I could write, " Mr Flipper ' allegedly ' took a crap this morning and it would be more accurate . Would THAT please the court of opinion as no one was THERE to see if Flipper actually had a bowel movement.
I'm giving this example to show how stupid it is to argue semantics. Part of the definition of semantics is looking at the contextual meaning of what somebody writes. If some here have any reasoning ability at all - when I stated ' here we go again ' - I would assume most people look at that comment as there's a lot of child abuse going on within the WT Society and JW organization involving abuse of power by elders. Period mark. It wasn't an indictment toward this particular individual. Get a grip folks