Landy: I objected to your description...
Yes, I got that.
Landy: You used the term to elicit a particular response.
No I didn't. I said the children were innocent simply because they are. I suppose your argument is that all small children are innocent, therefore it doesn't need to be mentioned. Fair enough, but I will ask the question again, Are you really finding fault because I said sexually molested children are innocent. Isn't that a bit nit-picky?
Landy: Whether unconsciously or not. It was unnecessary.
At the same time it doesn't hurt a thing, nor does it do anything to slant the judgement of people reading it.
Does finding fault over trivial remarks make you feel superior? This is an attitude that I remember well from being a Jehovah's Witness. It's as if nit-picking wins points and makes the nit-picker somebody. It doesn't.
In the OP you said you were about a 6 on your scale of being anti-Witness, but you come across more like a solid 1.
What is really unnecessary is your fault finding over small details. I suppose it's all to draw attention away from the larger problem of JWs sexually molesting children and covering it up for the sake of public image.