Steven Unthank: What do we really know? (page 32)

cyberjesus

James Woods... I know it bother me when I saw it..... and I didnt want to check it out.... but once everyone used that as an excuse.... I couldnt resist the itching.

undercover

Threads about a troll and by a troll were deleted. I thought the reason would be clear.

Crystal

I need a gallon of gas and a match for this thread.

To Talesin and Nomad (and anyone else who thinks I was out of line in my subject or OP): Granted, I'm not beyond screwing up. But I caught the end of the Steven Unthank saga and got my first real impression of him from a deceptive image description. It seemed fishy, I investigated the image and dug up the source. Per my memory of shampoo commercials, "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression." I was immediately put off by that. (The lie, not the commercial.) And if I was immediately put off by it, yet aligned on the side AGAINST the WTBTS, how would the courts feel about this kind of thing? It frustrated me: Why did he feel the need to lie? When someone lies unnecessarily, it is just cause for doubt.

I then did a search to find out what I could from some verifiable sources. Advanced Google searches turned up nothing on .gov sites for Unthank or case number. I admitted in the OP that it could be due to some failure on my part and asked for help finding verifiable information. I wanted to be clear that I wasn't looking for, "Well, here's what it says on Steven's website" or "I trust so-and-so and she trusts him, therefore I trust him and you should, too." I saw lots of threads of repeated hearsay as if it were known firsthand. I wanted verifiable facts. Nothing more. Hence my question: What do we really know? Smiddy came through as did others. I thanked them and I apologized for the posts that were overly-critical, since Steven's overall actions seem to have persuaded the WTBTS to follow procedure.

Perhaps I'm not suppressing my biases well enough but based on the circumstances I absolutely do not see either my title or OP as a foul. You're entitled to your opinion but I believe 100% that Steven was being intentionally deceptive in his use of that image. Did he have good intentions? Probably. So did my parents when they raised me to be obedient to JW authority. But I don't give them or Steven points for good intentions when truth is the goal.

Also, while I intended on dropping the issues and moving on, I must say on the matter of honesty and forthrightness, I am no more convinced by the replacement image image & description than I was by the original. I think he continues to fabricate some stories to manipulate emotions which, in my opinion, it is unwarranted and unethical. That does not settle well with me and I would rather risk being a douche canoe than to risk being deceived. This is not a double standard with me. If I get caught in a lie, I should expect that it will raise further doubt. If not, you are naive and I wish you the best of luck, because you're going to need it in life.

I believe this principle still applies: When taking a stand for children, truth, and justice, one should be careful not to step on any one of the three in the process.

james_woods

James Woods... I know it bother me when I saw it..... and I didnt want to check it out.... but once everyone used that as an excuse.... I couldnt resist the itching.

Well, for one thing - when I first saw it, I immediately noticed that it was a rendering of a 3-dimensional object. Not at all childlike.

sizemik

The level of layer in threads in that thread ball is very deep.. This child must be a genius, because of the amount of detail..... its just far too complex...... However it looks that the picture has been actually created/modified digitally in a photo applicatication like photoshop... I am not saying retouched but edited..... lets do some photo forensics..... CJ

Yeah lets . . . lets all get together and do that. I reckon it's a lost Picasso.

.... but what do I know I am full of shit and am a defender of pedophiles because I say this... and because i didnt take the wT to court. . . . CJ

Oh dear . . . all this time an XJW and still playing the victim card

Johnny, I do not think you are welcome here by your remarks. . . . allcool

I think some might read this thread again one day and feel pretty embarrassed . . . I hope so for their sakes. Despite being told he was unwelcome I think "Johnny" gets the medal for most reasonable and accurate statement so far . . .

Seems pretty par for the course for the dregs that remained on this once great site. From the looks of things even Simon doesn't give a rat's ass about this place anymore and judging by the posts I've read so far it's not hard to see why. . . . Johnnytwofeet

You stick around Johnny . . . you show good judgement.

james_woods

And well said, SweetBabyCheezits.

It was an important thread on an important issue.

cedars

Sizemik:

You stick around Johnny . . . you show good judgement.

As much as I am a huge fan of yours, I think you might have put money on the wrong horse there. The poster you mentioned has just been kicked out for trolling.

Cedars

MeanMrMustard

All,

IMHO, not that it matters (I am an anonymous poster after all), I really, really, really, really hate that I can't verify any of this. The link that was originally posted to search up court cases is not the official Magistrates' Court of Victoria website. The official site does have a search option. I can't find any documents/links/hits... anything on the offical site for any of the case numbers provided on the seemingly fake site. But, if you go into the search on the official site and do a search with no criteria, you get documents with case numbers. Has anyone been able to verify this from official sites?

It appears to me that cyberjesus' skepticism is warranted. As it stands now:

1) The crying girl picture was not real

2) The sun image appears to be modified in photoshop

3) I can't verify any of the court case numbers on the original site

4) The site given to verify the court case numbers appears to be invalid

5) Steven has a relationship with Rick Fearon

Can someone please help me out here... why are we mad that we are checking this stuff out? I don't want to be gullible.

MeanMrMustard

undercover

Seems pretty par for the course for the dregs that remained on this once great site. From the looks of things even Simon doesn't give a rat's ass about this place anymore and judging by the posts I've read so far it's not hard to see why

I guess us dregs can be thankful that Simon gave enough of a rat's ass to delete the trolls that infilitrated the thread...

cedars

Meanmrmustard:

Can someone please help me out here... why are we mad that we are checking this stuff out? I don't want to be gullible.

Because most if not all of us have deeply entrenched emotional issues having survived many years as members of a cult. We therefore find it extremely difficult to trust anything or anyone. At the first hint of conspiracy, many posters on here are hurriedly grabbing the torch and searching for ghosts under the bed. It's quite depressing really.

Cedars

Steven Unthank: What do we really know?

Share this