I'll put my remaining questions aside for a moment and say that, based on Smiddy's testimony, which I have no reason to doubt, I appreciate Steven's time and efforts in taking the WTBTS to court, which has drawn more attention to the unjust and unloving policies surrounding the sexual abuse of children in the organization. I feel confident in that much. I also understand that others may have more or less confidence than I do.
SweetBabyCheezits
JoinedPosts by SweetBabyCheezits
-
141
THANK YOU Steven Unthank
by cedars inohiocowboy has just posted this information on the two other threads dealing with the sudden collapse of the unthank cases.. i don't know steven unthank, but i just want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for having the courage against overwhelming odds to try and bring the watch tower society to justice over their deplorable neglect when it comes to protecting children from abuse and molestation.. steven is a man of justice and integrity who i deeply admire.
his actions will never be forgotten, and i only hope he can find it within himself to continue his work in whatever avenue may become available in the future.. they have won this battle, but they can never win the war.. .
cedars.
-
-
-
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
What does the society have to say about neanderthal man?
Gladiator: They look up to him - he is called Don Alden Adams.
Great line, Glad. Hope alls well with you way over yonder.
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
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?
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
MeanMrMustard, I'm relying heavily on the firsthand account of Smiddy, who testified that he attended one of the proceedings and met Steven Unthank personally. I'm considering Smiddy to be a third party who has no vested interest in Steven Unthank.
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
I need a gallon of gas and a match for this thread.
To Talesin and Nomad (and anyone else who thinks I was out of line in my subject or OP): Granted, I'm not beyond screwing up. But I caught the end of the Steven Unthank saga and got my first real impression of him from a deceptive image description. It seemed fishy, I investigated the image and dug up the source. Per my memory of shampoo commercials, "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression." I was immediately put off by that. (The lie, not the commercial.) And if I was immediately put off by it, yet aligned on the side AGAINST the WTBTS, how would the courts feel about this kind of thing? It frustrated me: Why did he feel the need to lie? When someone lies unnecessarily, it is just cause for doubt.
I then did a search to find out what I could from some verifiable sources. Advanced Google searches turned up nothing on .gov sites for Unthank or case number. I admitted in the OP that it could be due to some failure on my part and asked for help finding verifiable information. I wanted to be clear that I wasn't looking for, "Well, here's what it says on Steven's website" or "I trust so-and-so and she trusts him, therefore I trust him and you should, too." I saw lots of threads of repeated hearsay as if it were known firsthand. I wanted verifiable facts. Nothing more. Hence my question: What do we really know? Smiddy came through as did others. I thanked them and I apologized for the posts that were overly-critical, since Steven's overall actions seem to have persuaded the WTBTS to follow procedure.
Perhaps I'm not suppressing my biases well enough but based on the circumstances I absolutely do not see either my title or OP as a foul. You're entitled to your opinion but I believe 100% that Steven was being intentionally deceptive in his use of that image. Did he have good intentions? Probably. So did my parents when they raised me to be obedient to JW authority. But I don't give them or Steven points for good intentions when truth is the goal.
Also, while I intended on dropping the issues and moving on, I must say on the matter of honesty and forthrightness, I am no more convinced by the replacement image image & description than I was by the original. I think he continues to fabricate some stories to manipulate emotions which, in my opinion, it is unwarranted and unethical. That does not settle well with me and I would rather risk being a douche canoe than to risk being deceived. This is not a double standard with me. If I get caught in a lie, I should expect that it will raise further doubt. If not, you are naive and I wish you the best of luck, because you're going to need it in life.
I believe this principle still applies: When taking a stand for children, truth, and justice, one should be careful not to step on any one of the three in the process. -
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
I'm hoping to let this thread get buried but feel like I need to address this first.
Talesin: In my part of the world (out of the KH for over 35 years, by the way), it is customary to go to the SOURCE of one's complaint before broadcasting it in public. That's just common courtesy in polite society.
Talesin, had Unthank sent me a PM that showed the girls' image found on his website, I would've quietly taken it up with him via PM. But this wasn't a private issue. Without obtaining permission from the subject's guardian, he overtlydisplayed some unfortunate, random child's portrait on his website with a very descriptive statement of what supposedly happened to her.
In my part of the world (which I hate to claim, since it's the armpit of the US), that kind of action crosses a number of lines beyond a lack of common courtesy.
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Valid question, Thinking. I really wanted to see a gov site report, too.
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
SixofNine: All those cases, and this is the unthanks he gets?
Well-played, old chap.
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Oh, one last thing: a couple of you have snarkily asked how you can trust the nay-sayers in this crowd, as if you wish to turn the tables on the skeptics. That's a fantastic point. You don't know me. If I make outrageous claims, you should NOT take me at my word. Who am I but an Internet avatar, a ridiculous name, and a post count?
I'm not talking about Steven Unthank here, just my philosophy in general. Personally, I don't like being duped or manipulated. Presuming a claim is even worthy of skepticism, I'd rather be skeptical first and only persuaded by cold, unemotional evidence.
-
503
Steven Unthank: What do we really know?
by SweetBabyCheezits ini'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
SweetBabyCheezits, When you initially PM'd Mr. Unthank about your concerns, did he respond to you before you started this thread that has since turned into a huge public witch hunt/spectacle/embarrassment? You did try to resolve this in private with him first, right?
No, Cowboy, I didn't PM him first. I suspect the elders will have some strong words of counsel for me tomorrow since I failed to "take it up first with my brother."
The image was my motivation for this thread and it was a public issue, not a private issue. He publicly made a claim regarding an image he displayed and described on his website. The claim was false. Frankly - and because I'm a cynical bastard - I suspect he knew this but wished to stoke the emotions, so up it went. (I could be wrong but I really don't think so.)
The message was NOT ambiguous or metaphoric as some contort it to be. Yes an image is a representation of something. He didn't say the image represents one of the many children who were abused, he said it is an image of a specific little girl in a specific congregation and then he went into unnecessary and almost morbid detail as to what happened to that girl. Had he not made that public claim, Cowboy, I never would've "started this thread that has since turned into a huge public witch hunt/spectacle/embarrassment."
Should we not consider that the little girl in this image is alive and exists somewhere in this world? I personally woudn't appreciate it if someone ripped an image of my innocent little girl off the Internet and then used it to support their sexual abuse cause, without consulting me, however noble it may have seemed at the moment. That Steven Unthank would volunteer this girl to be the poster child for JW rape victims is UNETHICAL, at best. Why lie or embellish when the truth is perfectly capable of doing the job? I don't understand that, particularly in a case that so demands justice.
That said, if his actions have led to any change at all for the better, I am thankful that he made a stand. But in the case of this image, the end does not justify the means, in my opinion. I'm not saying we should lynch the guy - he's human and obviously carries emotional baggage like many do. I just want to reiterate that fabricating or even just repeating false information is counter-productive when you describe yourself as fighting for truth and justice. It's a pet peeve of mine to read it in my Inbox or on JWN but especially frustrating to find it on a former JW site dealing with the serious topic of child abuse.
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” (attributed to Nietzsche)
Thanks for the comments from those who were able to dig up facts on the .gov site that I couldn't find and also the testimony of smiddy, who actually attended one of the proceedings. Also, I apologize for allowing myself to get caught up in the moment when things weren't adding up. I posted some things that were more accusatory than just skeptical.
Anyways I guess this thread has served it's purpose as far as I'm concerned.