Give Bill a deserved break!

by Derrick 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Trauma_Hound

  So, let me get this straight:

  If you don't support victims of child abuse in the manner defined by you "your (sic) a scumbag"?

  I believe it is you who are missing the point, TH. The so-called "policy" penned by Ray Franz was never intended to be used in the way it has been used by the WTS. How can you or anyone else hold him responsible for how it has been corrupted?

  It like me taking your words above completely out of context and making them sound like something you did not intend. Who is responsible for that? Me or you?

  Well if you penned it, and it was corrupted, don't you think you have a responsibility to come out against it, since it's being used by the society to coverup child rape. Unless you really don't care about kids getting raped, and nothing being done about it.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  So, let me get this straight:

  If you don't support victims of child abuse in the manner defined by you "your (sic) a scumbag"?

  I believe it is you who are missing the point, TH. The so-called "policy" penned by Ray Franz was never intended to be used in the way it has been used by the WTS. How can you or anyone else hold him responsible for how it has been corrupted?

  It like me taking your words above completely out of context and making them sound like something you did not intend. Who is responsible for that? Me or you?

  Well if you penned it, and it was corrupted, don't you think you have a responsibility to come out against it, since it's being used by the society to coverup child rape. Unless you really don't care about kids getting raped, and nothing being done about it.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  So, let me get this straight:

  If you don't support victims of child abuse in the manner defined by you "your (sic) a scumbag"?

  I believe it is you who are missing the point, TH. The so-called "policy" penned by Ray Franz was never intended to be used in the way it has been used by the WTS. How can you or anyone else hold him responsible for how it has been corrupted?

  It like me taking your words above completely out of context and making them sound like something you did not intend. Who is responsible for that? Me or you?

  If you wrote it, and it's being used to cover up child rape, then you have a responsibility to come out against it. YOU WILL NEVER convince me otherwise. If you want to defend someone that wrote this despicable policy, then go right ahead, but your no better than a person that watches someone get raped and does nothing about it.
• 

  wasasister

  YOU WILL NEVER convince me otherwise.

  As your mind is firmly closed on this subject, the discussion is moot.

  Your extremist analogies and flawed logical leaps do not prove your point. (I try to reason with you on Ray Franz's early writings, therefore I support child rape.)

  Maybe I can convince you of just one thing, TH.

  "Your" is the possessive form of the pronoun "you."

  "You're" is the contraction of the two words "you" and "are."
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Your extremist analogies and flawed logical leaps do not prove your point. (I try to reason with you on Ray Franz's early writings, therefore I support child rape.)

  I didn't say you supported rape, or are you to stupid to read what I said? Let me quote myself. "but your no better than a person that watches someone get raped and does nothing about it." Where in there did I say you supported rape? I didn't.

  Edited by - Trauma_Hound on 13 October 2002 4:18:36
• 

  abbagail

  HS: Thought you "retired" from here and moved on to bigger, better, more creative things?

  You wrote on Oct 12, 2002 12:38 -- "GRITS, You seem to be under the perception that I have criticized the victims of child abuse..."

  What I wrote was in reference to a VICTIM (singular, not plural), i.e., Pat. I "got my information" from Bill's post to you of Oct 8, 2002 17:49: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=38136&site=3&page=2
  which I quoted here also: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=38318&site=3&page=5

  To repeat:

  All I can say is the purpose of my emails to HS was to defend Pat. There was private information disclosed therein that I did not think she would have wished shared on a public forum, thus the reason for my private email. I will continue to defend her and support the decision she made to speak out about her abuse. At silentlambs we support ALL abuse survivors and simply tell them they are believed, I have no ego when it comes to this. I am sorry that portions of private email is being allowed to cloud the real issues that must go forward, I am sorry that some allow bitterness to keep them from seeing the big picture.

  From day one I have never defended myself from personal attacks, I have only defended when victims are attacked or what the purpose of silentlambs as an organization is. I will continue that venue.

  Why would BB state twice in that reply to you that he felt compelled to defend Pat (singular victim) and further down victimS 'who are attacked or what the purpose of silentlambs as an organization is'? It would be a reasonable conclusion that something was said/written about Pat (singular victim) and/or victimS by you. If you later made a comment in reply to that post of BB's, I haven't been back to check, but I'm sure you'll fill me in.

  You continued... "and this seems to be your ONLY defense against Mr. Bowen's behavior both toward myself and toward Mr. Raymond Franz."

  Yes, that was quite sufficient for me, not only what Bill wrote but what I have read myself written by you in the other "critic" threads. If he got "fed up" with your criticisms or whatever else you may have said/written and called you names, well, if the shoe fits... Are we to assume you did NOT say/write anything critical of Pat or other victimS because you're the "good guy" here? Please get off your high horse. I'm not impressed in the least bit. As for Ray Franz, I have no specific feeling one way or the other. Yes, I trust something -- s-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g -- must have brought that on, but what? Since I have not communicated directly with B.Bowen about it, I do not know (he went out of town). All I can comment on is what I know he wrote to you about what you said, and what he wrote to me about what you said (because I wrote and asked, as anyone can if they want). That's what I am referring to, and nothing else.

  You continued... "Let me make this very, very clear. I have never criticized the victims of child abuse, especially not Pat Garza. On the contrary I criticized her ADVISORS for putting them in an untenable position."

  Well, now I suppose I'll have to go back and re-read every negative post and every negative comment -- NOT! I do recall you making light of the fact that she PRAYED beforehand, did you not? etc. etc. etc.

  You continued... "Yours is alibellous allegation and I call on you to retract this statement immediately."

  Quite demanding, aren't we? No Can Do, HS, for reasons outlined above.

  More... "While your loyalty to Mr. Bowen is admirable, it should not be so overwhelmingas toobscure the principles oftruth and justice."

  TRUTH? What do YOU know about TRUTH? Pat had a right to speak HER TRUTH, which you and the others criticized before most of us were even back home from NY.
  JUSTICE? Whose VERSION? Yours and your political attorneys?
  I said it before: If Bill Bowen wants to defend ANY victim(s), more power to him.

  Ah Hummmmm, you continue further.... "As you have not even bothered to read my posts with care and attention before running off with a head of steam on you..."

  I read you loud and clear, HS, and it sure "ain't" a pretty picture. (Are you an only child, by any chance?) Why do you feel your opinion is the only right one (re: how silentlambs should be run, how Pat should or should not have told her story, etc. Yes, I also remember how you made light of the "white shirts" we wore, etc. I read you loud and clear indeed).

  "...does that now give me the freedom to describe you as a 'dumbass dickhead'? HS"

  You are completely free to call me what you like. If I'm not mistaken, though, d***head is reserved for p****s of the male gender. Are you really that much of a "sissy" you can't hold your own with a down-home-country-boy like Bill Bowen? C'mon. Get over it already. Take off the white gloves, get off the lilly pad, and learn how to swim. The fact that YOU felt compelled to share Bowen's backchanneled email to the world shows what a "sissy" you really are, for lack of a better word to describe exactly what THAT "childish action" conjures up. Why didn't you "put up your dukes" right back at him via email or phone, rather than copping-out by posting his email here? That reminded me of little boys who run to their Mommas crying saying, "Lookie Lookie what Billy did to me!!!!!! MAKE HIM STOP!!!!!"

  Now, are we done?

  GRITS

  Edited by - GRITS on 15 October 2002 17:49:7

  Edited by - GRITS on 15 October 2002 17:50:11
• 

  DannyBear

  Grits,

  At first I admired your passion. Now you are making a fool of yourself.

  Ever wonder why very few if any bother to reply to your long winded diatribes? You need not wonder anymore.

  It 'fantaticisim' just like you have displayed here, that drives reasoning people away. You have bitten off more than you can chew, when attacking HS this way. You blast onto this board, relatively unknown, espousing a good cause, but ending up driving your purported cause into the ground.

  Danny
• 

  Derrick

  At the risk of taking a brief side excursion off the trail this topic is leading to, I have a question to anyone who knows Pat:

  Could they get Pat online and have him/her (I assume it's her, but Pat can also be a male name as well) describe exactly what happened?

  Perhaps the horrific details will help those "doubting Thomas's" like myself to get a sense of the REALITY of Pat's claim (based solely on what I have read on this site) that a member of the GB, years ago while in a lower level of responsibility as CO in the Los Angeles county area, was held down by "brothers" while he raped her (and all the horrible "rites of passages" so to speak that she endured while being groomed for this dubious and unbelievable sex crime)?

  Also, there is a forum called "The Judicial Machine" run by a "Brother Thomas" who attends a congregation in the Los Angeles area, at this web address:

  http://h2o.aimoo.com/forum/categories.cfm?id=311102&CategoryID=2972

  I'm sure that Brother Thomas would like to hear of a judicial crime in "God's organization" that, if proven, could cause this GB member and possibly the entire body to get DF'd and replaced by other baptized JWs in good standing.

  Perhaps someone could get Pat to post her account over there, as well as over here? Many JWs pass through Brother Thomas "Judicial Machine" forum all the time, and might be interested in hearing about this unbelievably shocking testimony.

  Derrick
• 

  BeautifulGarbage

  Derrick,

  With all due respect, this doesn't seem to be about whether or not Pat is believed by the people of this board. What was questioned was the intelligence of her legal council allowing her to make very public, without proof, slanderous statements against a member of the governing body. It was the lack of prudence of such an action that raised the ire of some people here.

  I, for one, believe that Pat believes that it happened. In the end, though, does it matter what "I" think? I'm not sure of all the legal detail, but if this charge is to be pursued legally, then there needs to be PROOF. For that a judge or a jury needs to be convinced that it happened. And not just any judge and jury. "Worldly" people have to be convinced. And they do not have the prejudices that most of us carry here.

  If this allowed Pat to further her healing, then good for her. She "has" opened herself up for legal action, however. If legal consideration for her allegations is what she seeks, then her "case" has ,indeed, been damaged.

  Andee

  Edited by - BeautifulGarbage on 15 October 2002 20:24:46
• 

  hillary_step

  GRITS,

  Please forgive my tardy reply. I connected to the Board today specifically to read your note. It is so full of misguided rhetoric and distorted realities that I wondered for a moment if you were quite serious. It was a dismal moment when I realized that your were, and that once again the adage that those who talk the loudest usually understand the least has been publicly proven.

  My repeated call is for you to read my posts, all of them and then amend your accusation that I had in any way insulted Pat Garza, or any other victim of child-abuse.

  You note, as if in some sort of defence for your comments :

  Why would BB state twice in that reply to you that he felt compelled to defend Pat (singular victim) and further down victimS 'who are attacked or what the purpose of silentlambs as an organization is'?

  Mr. Bowen would state such a thing, because like yourself he did not act sensibly and actually read my post before he reacted to things that he imagined that I was saying. Unlike yourself, Mr. Bowen has at least been gracious enough to admit his error. Will you admit yours, or will you continue to convince yourself that you have some sort of moral monoploy on this issue?

  You have been outrageous enough to defend your libel by stating the following :

  What I wrote was in reference to a VICTIM (singular, not plural), i.e., Pat. I "got my information" from Bill's post to you of Oct 8, 2002 17:49

  A post that Mr Bowen has since apologized for and that clearly did not reflect what I had written, eiether in my publicly made points on this Board, or in my private mail to Mr. Bowen.

  You have not answered my point, I will ask it again : Where did I criticize the Pat Garza or any other victim of child abuse? Prove that to this Board or retract the libellous comments that you have made about me, now on a number of posts.

  If you cannot produce this evidence you will stand publicly exposed as a liar, and a hypocrite and the very sort of person whose selfish rush to judgmement is undermining the cause that you purport to defend so honorably. It seems to me that your honor is the rage of the mob, this especially given your repeated penchant for lynching without trial anybody who does not view things exactly as yourself.

  Here is an example of your blinkered reality after I said these words :

  "Let me make this very, very clear. I have never criticized the victims of child abuse, especially not Pat Garza. On the contrary I criticized her ADVISORS for putting them in an untenable position."

  This next statment is surely going down in the annals of on-line cowardice :

  Well, now I suppose I'll have to go back and re-read every negative post and every negative comment -- NOT! I do recall you making light of the fact that she PRAYED beforehand, did you not? etc. etc. etc.

  Yes, that is exactly what I asked for and exactly what I expect you to do, given that you have publicly libelled me by your cowardly suggestions. It is incumbent upon you to do just that Grits, re-read the posts, every one of them and prove to this Board that I was critical of Pat Garza in particular, and child-abuse victims in general.

  I will return to this Board next Monday to check whether you have deemed fit to admit your serious error in judgment.

  HS

  Edited by - hillary_step on 16 October 2002 0:39:52