Australia: Victorian Child Protection Inquiry Hears Evidence Against Watch Tower Society

by AndersonsInfo 80 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  talesin

  This back and forth is carrying on, so I'm gonna put my 2 cents in ..

  You are both right, in a way,,,, I think the communication is failing though ....

  from my POV,,,

  *sound trumpets and choir ahh* dogpatch says,,, (meaning no offense, I'm sure)

  "When Barb speaks, pay attention"

  It was an unintentionally rude and autocratic thing to say, and the "we are not into sensationalism" statement, followed by a posting of several sensational newspaper articles, was contradictory.

  Dogpatch can be a bit dramatic at times,,, we all know that.

  (no offense intended to him, just sayin', because passionate people create drama, but they also get things DONE)

  BUT NO ONE on this forum wants to be told when so-and-so speaks PAY ATTENTION ---

  That is an automatic trigger for me (and not only me) to stick my fingers in my ears and go 'la la la, I can't hear you'.

  --- do you get what I'm saying, Mr. Flipper?

  ... and BP is right,,, a newspaper article was posted, that's it. about an inquiry that most likely will quickly fade into oblivion.

  That being said,,, Dogpatch has done a LOT, so has Ms. Anderson, for the cause of children,,,, but so has Blondie,,,

  and MANY OTHERS who choose not to make a BFD out of it ... it is our mission in life, and we don't want or need recognition for it.

  I respect anyone who works against child abuse --

  I'm one of them, as BP will most likely recall, who has gotten it onto the news, but declined to participate in the interview, to be honest,

  because of threats against my life from my abusers.

  We can't make individuals into infallible heroes,,, merely because they are more visible, are better writers, or went to Bethel --- yes, it was hell, but no more hell than being a child and being raped every day, or beaten by your own parents and/or siblings ---- EVERY ONE of us is a hero, in her/his own way.

  So can we PLEASE stop the bickering --- it was an interesting article, and if something comes of this inquiry,,,, those who are working very hard and spending most of their time on this issue, ie, dogpatch and Ms. Anderson,,,, will LET US KNOW.

  And next time, maybe we can just say "thanks for the info". finis

  The article was what it was,,, mildly interesting on the scale of what I've seen over the past 10 years, but certainly no big deal.

  I liked you BP, forever, and Mr. Flipper, you know I like you too, but you two are just not communicating.

  I'm hoping that what I've said promoted better understanding of each others' viewpoints, and didn't serve to just piss you both off at me.

  tal

  *spent most of the day crying, had an upsetting phone call a couple of hours ago, and don't want to see people I really like fighting over nothing* klass
• 

  Broken Promises

  (((((talesin)))))

  I get what you're saying, and agree with you.

  FWIW, I wasn't fighting with Flipper. Mummy and Daddy were just having a little disagreement, k? But we still love you and each other very very much, ok?
• 

  talesin

  kay, thanks Mummy *sniff, sniff*

  smiles bravely!

  t

  (yah, I'm being nauseatingly overly sensitive tonite, gonna try to read myself to sleep, it's almost 3 here)
• 

  flipper

  BP- I think you are making this way too deep and reading something into nothing. AND this is getting tired . I'm done. I've gotta go to sleep. Not worth debating over. Have a great whatever time it is on your side of the planet. Peace out, Mr. Flipper

  TALESIN- Perhaps some ex-Witnesses would react negatively to someone telling them to " pay attention " thinking it was done out of a motive of authority " - but as you said if we LOOK at it that way it is responding from former JW cult triggers. So THAT is the problem of BP the poster involved here - NOT the message Randy was getting across. It's her REACTION in misinterpreting what Randy meant by " pay attention " compared with what he actually meant. Which was just to listen to Barbara. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is trying to control anybody here. Peace out to you as well ! Nighty, night !
• 

  flipper

  BROKEN PROMISE & TALESIN - I respect both of your viewpoints. I just agree to disagree on some points. Love you both unconditionally as fellow posters too. I offer an olive branch for peace. Had no olive branches so I offer a sheep dumping in a thunderstorm on an island ! Both of you take care of yourself
• 

  sizemik

  I felt exactly as BP did when I read Randy's post . . . the last time I felt like that was when being spoken to by a CO.

  Neither have I seen anything offensive or disrespectful in her posts

  Like I said in a previous post . . . maybe it's a cultural thing flip . . . we just dont't fertilise our tall poppies down here quite so richly as you appear to in the US. Nor do we see tall poppies as above critique regardless of the great things they may have achieved. We're just a down-to earth people who balk when being told to "pay attention"

  The adulation of personalities in hollywood style is one of the biggest jokes on the planet to a lot of Kiwi's and Aussies . . . that's just the way it is with us . . . like I said . . . maybe it's a cultural thing.

  Talesin . . . very perceptive

  I hope this helps us understand each other a little better.
• 

  steve2

  I was pleasantly surprised by the matter-of-fact tone of Mrs Anderson's post here. It was even-handed and stuck pretty much to the Victorian Child Protection Inquiry hearing Mr Unthank present his case. Subsequent posts reflected that tone - even Broken Promises who queried some points and immediately she was criticised for daring to question Mrs Anderson. Then Randy chimed in with a most puzzling comment refering to the need to listen and a mysterious "we". Strangely, Randy then said "'we are not sensationalist" and then subsequently posted an article from one of the UK's most sensationalist broadsheets! Randy what gives?!

  It's also prudent to remember that the evidential hearing is not a court case per se; it's a standard hearing to decide if it goes through to a court hearing. I agree with most posters that it would be great if it did progress to the courts. I remain skeptical about Mr Unthank's capacity to hold the case together without lapsing into what I perceive as religious grandiosity. If he succeeds, not only will I be happy, I will take back what I have said about him:

  Whatever I think of Mr Unthank's religious beliefs, he has put a tremendous amount of work into this case.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  has this thread got way off topic or what?

  Its not about anybody, Its presenting information on the slow progression of a very interesting case in Australian Law.

  Who cares who shares the information?

  oz
• 

  sizemik

  if we LOOK at it that way it is responding from former JW cult triggers. So THAT is the problem of BP the poster involved here - NOT the message Randy was getting across.

  We don't have crystal balls down here flip (pun intended) . . . and you may well know Randy and his motives better then others.

  But his post . . . on face value . . . seemed every bit as much a result of "JW cult triggers" as any reaction to it . . . such is the nature of differering viewpoints I guess.

  Your reaction . . . though probably not intended . . . only reinforces the perception.

  There are a number of posters who have reacted similarly . . . not just BP

  Nothing personal here . . . I believe you're a great guy . . . just posting with the motive of promoting mutual understanding.
• 

  sizemik

  Who cares who shares the information?

  Good question Oz . . . here's your answer . . .

  When Barb speaks, pay attention. . . . Randy

  This is off topic . . . but a worthwhile debate . . . nobody was attacking anyone or being attacked . . . except BP . . . who simply asked a question. A question which I think, albeit obscurely, has been answered.

  Cheers to all.