https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
Why not? By whose authority
We can debate back and forth whether or not Eden One related statements are opinions or not. I have already stated that I do not know.
I suppose that someone with authority could decide, but not me. And would have to ask Eden one and not me; I don't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
An internet forum, by definition, isn't a court room. It's an arena of opinions.
You are talking to the wrong person.
Why would you have to even raise that question here?
Why not?
Makes no sense other than stir confusion.
How?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
Labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
That IS exactly what I am saying.
OK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
Her father appears to be one appaling case of a sick abuser narcissist invested and kept in an authority role by the WT.
What you have said above can be interpreted as or contrued to mean that WT is keeping a known child abuser in a position of authority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
consistent with thousands of other cases involving children abused in the context of the Jehovah's Witness religion and how the WT instructs the elders to deal with it
It has already been established by Richard Oliver in another thread that in the US, WT has been complying and is complying with US law; so, consistently, how does the video show that WT is not complying with US law?
What do you mean by covering up by the WT since WT complies with US law?
Violating state mandatory child abuse reporting law is a crime or a violation of said statute. Can you cite one case filed against the WT in the US where wt was found guilty of violating a mandatory child abuse reporting statute as you are suggesting below that wt may be guilty of?
serious signs of covering up by the WT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boizyklif4q.
............those who question her integrity.
The video makes what seems to be criminal and other accusations. The accuser's integirity is not being challenged, but the truthfulnes of her accusations cannot be determined based on accusations; accusations do not legally determine or establish guilt or legal liability; that is for a Court of competent jurisdiction to decide.
"the response of the jehovah’switnesses and watchtower bibleand tract society of australialtd to allegations of childsexual abuse".. this report is 110 pages.
it is imperative to look it up on the arc website each and every one of you.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/report-of-case-study-no-29.
AJ1 Thanks for the links.
i have made a poll to try to determine the impact of the wt's no blood policy on ex members.. if you are an exjw, please participate.. vote here:.
*oops...hang on here...i have to make a new poll...this one lets you vote more than once.
i will post the new one .
Thank you Richard Oliver for doing your best to clarify in your posts what "Bloodless Surgery" means when hospitals refer to a medical technique that they use- as Bloodless Surgery.
I hope that my linked videos that explain and illustrate what "Bloodless Surgery" in fact is, clears up any misconceptions or colorful views on "Bloodless Surgery" to everyone.
All Bloodless Surgery means when a Hospital or doctor uses the term, is that the hospital will use as little blood as possible. And if possible zero blood, but that is not always the case.
So, a person trying to avoid a blood transfusion as much as possible during surgery, may opt to use this technique, but doctors do not guarantee that they won't use blood. They won't use blood if they don't need to but they will if they have to, and if they have to, they will try to use as little as possible -a fraction. And regardless of whether or not blood is used in the medical procedure, hospitals still use the term "Bloodless" to describe the therapy.
Some JW that want to avoid a blood transfusion may opt for this procedure with zero guarantee from the hospital that the hospital will not use blood, but with the assurance from the hospital that if blood is needed, the hospital will only use a fraction using this technique.
