Oh dear . . . all this time an XJW and still
playing the victim card
Just to give new light.... that was a "sarcastic" statement of mine .... I dont play victim.... cuz I dont really care what people think of me in this site.
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits 503 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
cyberjesus
-
cyberjesus
Err correct me if I am wrong didnt he just get kicked by Simon? Orwas that someone else?
Dont ask or else this thread will be deleted as well
-
Leolaia
This thread makes me sigh. I have to agree with talesin. There has been no restraint in this thread in checking facts before making accusations of lying and hoaxing; a mere suspicion has been enough. For instance, the matter with the string drawing. Because it looks too detailed, and because it shows high ELA values, it is not only considered suspicious, but a lie ("One lie comes with 100 hundred", as it was stated in the post about the photo forensics). I don't see any reasoned argument of how the ELA pattern is supposed to indicate this. Looking at the tutorial page, it is quite normal for an original digital image to have high ELA values throughout the image with darker areas with lower ELA values. And to me, the image doesn't look too detailed at all. It looks like an ink or paint (with two colors, red and yellow) impression of a ball of string -- exactly the kind of things I made in kindergarten. Hence the detail and 3D look. And looking at the coloration and specks in the background when the levels are adjusted, it does look like a cutout that has been scanned. So what is the basis for implying that the claim about the image is a lie? That's different from saying that one is skeptical or has suspicions. I try to be skeptical of most claims when I see them, or at least want to see the evidence first, and I totally understand why people here are trigger-happy with accusations on account of what has happened here in the (recent) past, but there has been absolutely no caution shown here. Before running with the suspicion that the whole entire court proceedings were a hoax, surely some fact-checking could have been done first.
I think the question raised in the OP is a totally valid one and certainly the caption aroused my suspicions when I first read it in this thread. But it would have been far better to first privately ask Steven to clarify what he meant by that statement before doing a public expose. If he actually was claiming that the image was depicting the actual girl, that would have confirmed it. But if he did mean what he later claimed, this would have allowed him to explain what he meant without being viewed as backpedaling in face of contrary evidence. I still don't know what to make of that statement. It doesn't make much sense viewed either way. It does seem at face value to make the claim that the image depicts the actual girl, but the wording is strange if that is what he meant: it would be an image of "the" (specific) girl who was raped, not an image of "a girl" -- which is not specific. It sounded a bit like maybe he inadvertantly omitted some words (like "This is an image of a girl illustrating the girl ....", a homoteleuton writing error). It doesn't make sense to me why he would make a claim that compromises the identity of the girl in question, so that makes it quite plausible to me that he didn't intend to mean what the statement seems to say. Breakdowns in communication between writer intention and reader interpretation do happen. I remember in high school I wrote a satirical story that the leader of the writing club (who was Jewish) interpreted as blatantly antisemitic. Due to a string of coincidences, it seemed for all the world to be antisemitic even though it was not; the story was a religious allegory dramatizing the conflict between the JWs and the born-again evangelists on campus, I mistyped Jewits "Je(hovah's) Wit(nesse)s" as Jewists which I pronounced in my head as Jeh-wists as I wrote it (it didn't even occur to me that it could be read as Joo-ists), and I had borrowed a motif from Francois Rabelais of the Jewists hiding inside a Trojan hog which they ate from the inside. My explanation didn't seem credible, but it was the truth. So I do feel that it would have been better to have asked for clarification first. At the same time, I am troubled by the use of the image without permission to illustrate a girl that was raped, and especially the graphic content in the following sentence that describes the rape; such statements are inappropriate and can be very triggering to those who have experienced sexual abuse and/or rape.
-
cyberjesus
firsthand account of Smiddy
of which we dont have evidence either, just hearsay..
I kid you not... 3 years ago I thought Jehovah talked to me on my sleep. I actually went to the elders and told them that... I told my children that.. I was sure.... now I know he didnt...
People see UFOs tooo many first hand accounts....
I am not saying anything... all I am saying is that... since people have asked who I am.... for all you know I might be Steven Unthank with another account attacking my own facts just to later be on my own side...
-
cyberjesus
The same poster who has been posting the progress..
-
MeanMrMustard
@cedars:
You wrote:
MeanMrMustard - unless you actually live in Australia, specifically the State of Victoria, there's very little you will be able to verify from the comfort of your laptop from abroad. It's best to take the eye witness accounts of people who actually saw Steven duelling with the Society in the court room. Contrary to what cyberjesus will tell you, not everything in life can be verified or unverified over the internet. It isn't always that simple. Yes it happened, no - unless you live in Victoria you won't be able to prove conclusively with it did. If you have a problem with that, book a flight to Oz and do your detective work there. Otherwise, it's best to let it go.
Cedars
Not really. There is an offical site. If I had gone to the search option, typed in the case number (given as proof), and seen an entry, I would be moving on... But I was kinda taken in by this. I don't like it one bit.
Is absense of evidence, evidence of absense? Not in all cases. But if someone claims that if you walk into that room over there, there will be a huge elephant, and you do walk into that room - and there is no elephant... well... The question is --- is this an elephant? *SHOULD* we be able to find documents on the official website, especially if the offical website *IS* listing court documents?
I admit it is possible I am not looking in the right spot. Hence the question - has anyone else been able to verify this?
MeanMrMustard
-
sizemik
The poster you mentioned has just been kicked out for trolling.
Cedars . . . I don't back horses . . . not a gambler. Personally, I don't think Johnny said anything worse than a good many others on this thread . . . regardless of "allegiances". It just looked like the normal bait and snap frenzy that seems to constantly dominate this site nowadays. That's why my agreement was with the quoted statement . . . not a personal attachment to whoever it was. The troll numbers here are extraordinarily high by standard troll definition. A good many posts are simply designed to malign and inflame coupled with a strange inability to ascertain facts the easy way.
Who knows . . . maybe backing the wrong horse will get me kicked off here as well. I have no doubt whatsoever that many would be thrilled. What a terrible personal tragedy that would be for me.
-
Witness My Fury
Nevermind thought it was current,. ...ignore.
OK here it is anyway...
-
cedars
MeanMrMustard - it's obvious to me that you're genuinely troubled by this, and I appreciate your sincerity. The only thing I would say is this: in this "information age" we may have grown used to getting answers straight away with the click of a button. There is often a perfectly valid reason why a piece of information cannot be found in the place we expect to see it. Furthermore, it sometimes takes time (and a little human interraction) to iron these things out. Why don't you try phoning the court long-distance and verifying with some of the clerks that the cases took place? Either that, or (provided you're willing to wait a week or so) you could write a letter and ask for simple verification that the cases were heard. All I'm saying is, what's the rush??
Cedars
-
MeanMrMustard
@Leolaia: It's a bit bigger than that now. Why? Because when this happened, it made us all want to verify the fundamentals. Posts were made with verifyable facts about the reality of these cases - and they seem fake too. We could be wrong. I am not calling anyone a liar. But I don't like this at all. I can't verify any of these cases from the offical court sites. It's grown into suspicion about the cases themselves because when we went to comfort ourselves about the fundamental reality (that all this WAS REALLY HAPPENING), the proof evaporated.
Now, if someone could find a document on the offical site, this could all go away. Really, it could. But I don't like being gullible.
MeanMrMustard