Part 2 of the 2013 Conti and Simons interview now on YouTube (questions posed by JWN members)

by cedars 54 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Chaserious

  Juan,

  Thank you for the clarification. I mean no disrespect to the Contis. Although I think it has been overlooked, a main theme of my comment and responses is that that question should not have been asked and/or Simons should not have allowed her to answer it. A secondary opinion is that if they did choose to answer it, it would have been better to be more direct, although apparently I am in the lone minority in the opinion that the answer was not direct. Again, I noted that they did not actually state whether there was selling of drugs or involvement with stolen property, so I don't see how everyone can assert that she fully answered the question, although of course she is not obligated to.

  So my question is why, in light of what you say here:

  <<Those kinds of questions completely miss the point of the case: The women are not on trial for any actions they may have taken or events in their lives.>>

  why the question about prostitution was even asked. Perhaps you cannot answer this since you said you didn't come up with the questions. I ran a google search and I couldn't find a single page on the internet linking Ms. Conti to prostitution. So who are the "apologists" even making this accusation, and do you know why it was asked?
• 

  mind blown

  these sick "apologists" are on other forums. I've see it for myself. They've made horrible statments, like, Candace asked for her molestation, the prostitution comment, as well as other terrible comments. I couldn't believe this hate speech was coming from JW's, period.

  I know for a fact, not all JW's are as these, but it sure was a real eye opener.
• 

  DeWandelaar

  Something people do not know (and I am now reacting BEFORE I have seen the video's) or seem to forget: When a kid gets raped or abused something happens to that child. Some kids become violent, robbers and are starting to do a lot of bad stuff (like prostitution and getting addicted to sex). They most certainly would NOT become like that if they were NOT abused... they become like that because of what happened.

  Now... IF the society uses these things to charge her in person then they are for certain a devilish system since they are not able to get her on other grounds. For me it is more proof about the love of the organisation for money!

  When I find the time I will check out the video's!
• 

  cedars

  Chaserious

  So who are the "apologists" even making this accusation, and do you know why it was asked?

  There was a thread on this forum about the apologist rumors, but it appears to have been deleted. I allude to the deleted thread on my posting on the following thread...

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/228359/2/Candace-Contis-Rap-Sheet

  As I recall, the now-deleted "rumors" thread appeared at roughly the same time as the questions were being gathered on JWN for the interview series. I therefore decided to put the drugs/prostitution allegation on the list of questions for Candace to answer on a strictly "take it or leave it" basis, and she decided to answer it even though she was under no obligation to - which, to be honest, I would have done too in her position. There were other questions put forward by JWN posters (a very small number) that for various reasons were not answered - but this wasn't one of them. So far, you are the only person I am aware of who has voiced any disapproval at the answering of the question.

  Cedars
• 

  Phizzy

  My personal reaction as I watched the video was, first of all, disgust that such an attack was made, her later life has no relevance, and then second admiration for the way Candace calmly answered and put down the attack.

  I felt at the time she could perhaps have been just a tad stronger in making the point that such accusations have nothing to do with the case, which concerns what happened to her as a minor.

  It looks as though we are in for the long haul from what Mr Simons said about the Court appeal procedure, as someone posited on another thread, that is probably what the WT wants, so they can appear to have battled long and hard against the minions of Satan, when it is all finally wrapped up it can be presented as old news to the R&F, and spun and spun again, so that Candace comes out as the evil one, not them and their policies.

  We MUST make sure that does not happen.
• 

  yourmomma

  Maybe I missed it, but could someone please explain how that even if all the made up JW aplogists BS was true, how would it change the fact that Candace was sexually abused by Kendrick? And, how would it change what the elders did about it?

  this is a text book ad hominem attack.

  the people on topix also flat out DEFENDED Kendrick when he molested his step daughter. They claim that since she was "promiscuous" she "seduced" him.

  on the one hand I give Candace credit for answering the question, but on the other hand I find it to be beneath her to even entertain comments made by people who clearly DEFEND child molesters and the molesting of children.

  and some of them by their comments either are child molesters themselves or were molested as children and in a sick stockholm syndrome type of way defend their molesters.
• 

  mind blown

  The only reason I "think" Candace answered that question, was to clear the air for those who are not Candace haters.

  The only reason I answered this question is not for Chaserious benefit (still suspect of passive/agressive posts re Conti case), but because there are MANY invisible peepers of all sorts.......

  yourmomma!
• 

  LisaRose

  I have read the original comments from Chaserous and I have to say I don't think what he said was so wrong. I dont agree with him, but the answer did seem a bit....awkward, I guess. He was just making a comment on how a question was answered, he is entitled to his opinion, and commenting on one minor thing in this one interview is completely different from the attacks against Candace that are being made on Topix and other forums. There is a thread on Topix right now from one of the apologists, what he posts is disgusting. If you think what Chaserous said is so bad, go check out that thread. These questions will be asked, and I don't think it helps her cause to denounce someone for having an opinion or asking a question. I think most of us here feel a bit protective of her, because of what she has gone through, but I don't see how attacking someone for having an opinion on one minor point is helpful to her.
• 

  mind blown

  "personally" I'm not buying it. I feel there's a smarminess to Chaserous other posts re the Conti case as well. What I'd like to know is if Chaserous has been on other forums? Also, It seems he/she has experience with law and knows exacty what he/she is doing.

  144,000, Band and others have had opinions and statments re the Conti case as well, but for some reason Charserous posts read with motive, in my opinion of course.

  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unctuous unctu·ous·ness, unctu·osi·ty (-s-t) n. Synonyms: unctuous, fulsome, oily, oleaginous, smarmy These adjectives mean insincerely, self-servingly, or smugly agreeable or earnest: an unctuous toady; gave the dictator a fulsome introduction; oily praise; oleaginous hypocrisy; smarmy self-importance/ smarm·y (smärm) adj. smarm·i·er, smarm·i·est 1. Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous. See Synonyms at unctuous. 2. Sleek. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy Definition of SMARMY 1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker> 2 : of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>
• 

  cedars

  I personally doubt that Chaserious has a vindictive or malicious agenda, but it's one of those cases where if you know the Contis well and were involved in the production of the video (like Juan and I were) you hold your head in your hands in astonishment that someone could watch that question being answered so emphatically and declare that it wasn't absolute enough, or that the question shouldn't have been answered in the first place. That's not to say that Chaserious isn't entitled to his opinion - it's just that he doesn't know the full background and wasn't privy to the conversations leading up to this part of the interview being filmed - and I feel that lack of background should perhaps have influenced the way his comments were framed. That's just my opinion.

  Cedars