Steven Unthank: What do we really know? (page 44)

soft+gentle

talesin even if it is child rape we don't need to agree with someone who cannot get his facts straight and who is shooting from an angry place.

undercover

All of this for posting one picture falsely.

Well... when you've got a group of people who have been lied to, decieved and cheated a good portion of their lives and they see the potential of someone else possibly pulling the wool over their eyes, they're gonna jump and jump hard.

Someone said it early on... we're all pretty much damaged goods. We're highly suspicious of anyone or anything that comes up with a question mark.

Can't say it wasn't completely unexpected.

Leolaia

james_woods....I am not saying that there shouldn't be public comment. I'm saying that seeking clarification prior to making one's doubts public would have been in the best interest for everyone. Steven's clarification made after the fact is now seen merely as backpedaling, even if it is the truth. And if he had confirmed that in fact he meant what the statement seemed to say, then the OP would have had a stronger case. I think that's a missed opportunity.

But I dont really mean that, ok Is not a pencil drawing is a photoshop edited picture of a young child who is NOT in the Traralgon Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses that was NOT recently raped by a fellow member of the church... That what I meant.. I actually dont know the girl in the picture is and I dont know whose daughter she is and have no clue why shes crying but I think it will serve to illustrate the pain a kids goes thru... I apologize if my wording is not right.. I know my fellow JWN friends will understand....

cyberjesus....But as I pointed out, a very common writing error (which even has a technical name) can produce exactly what we see in the caption, and it is consistent with Steven's own clarification that "image" meant "representation". That doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened here, but I notice how quick everyone here was to dismiss Steven's clarification without consideration.

who should be checking facts? Us correct? but then when you go and check them what are you called?..... i wont say cuz the sizemik is gonna say I am playing the victim card. Suspicion is enough to research. you are a resercher and you know it.

I am not criticizing either skepticism nor research. Of course not. It's the rush to judgment.

Posting our findings here are part of collaboration... may I remind you LEO that you have participated in finding facts in the same manner in other threads.... well its the same here.

Again, its not the fact-checking and questioning per se; in the course of the investigation I try my best to withhold judgment until the facts are in. In the original Johnny the Bethelite thread I was extremely skeptical and posted various problems I found with both Rick and Johnny, but I refrained from stating or implying more than what the facts allowed -- I instead invited Rick to address the problems (which afaik he has never addressed per se). I think the Berta and Bonnie thread is an excellent example of group collaboration and research of rather sensationalistic claims. These claims are still largely unverified but the research has verified the credibility of the (hearsay) witness involved, and raised a whole host of interesting facts and problems, and I have indeed concluded that lies were made where the evidence is justified (e.g. regarding what Rutherford wrote about Rose Ball and what Bonnie is reported as saying about her age and her relationship with Rutherford), but I have also been critical in that thread of jumping to conclusions.

Talesin, Leo, Size: It bears repeating since nobody seems to give a shit: That drawing bears very close resemblance to a living, breathing child. Who is taking up for her right (and her parents' rights) to not have her image plastered on all over the internet and described as a Lego-rape victim?

Actually I already said in my prior post that I found that very inappropriate, particularly the graphic description of the rape.

sizemik

LOL Nomad . . .

Shitquakes actually occur you know . . . I've seen intact turds flowing down the streets in knee deep water . . . Liquefaction with lumps LOL

BTW . . . I've never said the naysayers are pedophile supporters, that's ridiculous . . . only that they run the risk of unwittingly supporting their interests if they don't check facts . . . big difference.

There's some really emotive imputation of motive going on here. I'll leave you to that . . .

soft+gentle

cedars, scientology is not a religion in the uk, I thought you'd got that at least so I did not come back to correct you. In fact I have studied new movements like scientology.

I will post on your threads whenever I feel like it. go piss on someone else

talesin

I'm sorry, I'm just pissed off with your consent cyncism. It seems like you're always picking on my threads. I would pay money if you'd leave them alone.

Agreed, Cedars, except I would NOT say I was sorry.

Using "soft + gentle" as a name is a good way to fool people into thinking you are 'nice',, you're NOT.

tal

talesin

so piss off yourself!

soft+gentle

thankyou talesin i will take that as a compliment.

cedars

soft+gentle - The humble thing is to accept that you're wrong on the relevant thread, rather than admit it when cornered on another. It seems I've caught you in your usual "hit and run" tactic. Say something critical and negative, and nip out the back door quickly to avoid the backlash.

If you want to deliberately target my threads - then fine. But I'll be waiting.

Cedars

soft+gentle

you have trouble understanding english cedars. nice deflection btw.

Steven Unthank: What do we really know?

Share this