vincent tool said that he is exclusively working the phones for child abuse cases, but never said he is not the only one.
for now, let's assume the rate of abuse cases averages over time to the three or four cases he gets per month.
let's further assume that, since he isn't the only person working the phones and is on vacation at some point, the number is 4-5 per month, or 4.5 per month.
lol i wouldnt call a google search "a lot of work" but i admit im slightly irritate that we both got statistically the same number
Oh, well, I was just trying to make you sound more impressive. I like my men impressive....(and that's what Fermi estimations are for!)
Fermi Estimates, for those who aren't physics nerds....
i just sent this email to angus stewart:.
i hope this email finds you well.
i would like to say thank you for your work on the royal commission, particularly in your handling of the jehovah's witnesses elders and experts during questioning.
I would be careful with publicly presenting the e-mail sent by mr. Stewart. In fact it's breach of confidentiality. I'm not so sure mr. Stewart will appreciate this, Viviane. I don't mean to criticise you, I'm just worried that your good intentions might harm mr. Stewart, while he's doing such a great job and even is so polite to reply to the messages he receives.
No worries. I get criticized all the time.
Posting his email is not a breach of privacy. Legally, it's no different that repeating a conversation we had. We had not privileged relationship, no contract of confidentiality, the very nature of email means that there are at least several copies of it spread around the world outside of either of our control, there was no disclaimer (which are 99.9% useless) in the email, he wasn't sending me confidential info, etc. Whether or not someone likes it or it is etiquette, etc., is a different conversation, but in this specific case, there was no breach of any kind of confidentiality.
vincent tool said that he is exclusively working the phones for child abuse cases, but never said he is not the only one.
for now, let's assume the rate of abuse cases averages over time to the three or four cases he gets per month.
let's further assume that, since he isn't the only person working the phones and is on vacation at some point, the number is 4-5 per month, or 4.5 per month.
Interestingly close to viv's number of 3240. But my methodology was much better and is therefore valid
In other word, you did lot of work and took me 2 minutes.... (you know I am just funning with ya!)
I was doing this after a lot of no sleep and got excited and ahead of myself.
How do you know your assumptions are anywhere near ballpark or consistent? 4.5 calls/month, 60 years, etc.Based on what, apparently, the worst attorney in all of Australia said. The lawyer for the branch that handles these calls said he personally gets 3-4 calls on child abuse per month.
I'd guess there might also be other demographics at play too that could push those numbers one way or another.
vincent tool said that he is exclusively working the phones for child abuse cases, but never said he is not the only one.
for now, let's assume the rate of abuse cases averages over time to the three or four cases he gets per month.
let's further assume that, since he isn't the only person working the phones and is on vacation at some point, the number is 4-5 per month, or 4.5 per month.
Im not sure that assumption is valid. You included far too many variables that are unproven (number of calls, people taking calls) as indicated by your frequent use of the word "assume".
I reached that conclusion in my second post. Keep up,slow poke.
While you were sleeping, I was making assertions and realizing they were wrong. ;)
i actually started clapping at that point, as his honour explained to the wt type creep sycophantic slithery lawyer that........" i understand that we all have issues to face in life and .....that is a part of life...........however it has become obvious that this man ....is in such a position to assist with this investigation.....".
it boils down to the fact that stewart outright accused the latest witness of misleading the royal commission and this lead to some document searches which led his honour to conclude that they had been protecting mr jackson.
this was a warm and fluffy moment folks.................brilliant stuff!!!!!
I could listen to Angus Stewart tear these guys a new one all day, is there an email address people can email him...if there is I presume he is getting inundated but I personally want to thank him.
How about a thread?
vincent tool said that he is exclusively working the phones for child abuse cases, but never said he is not the only one.
for now, let's assume the rate of abuse cases averages over time to the three or four cases he gets per month.
let's further assume that, since he isn't the only person working the phones and is on vacation at some point, the number is 4-5 per month, or 4.5 per month.
True on the varying number of JWs.
Also, prior to the instructions to call the service department, we lack any way to know how many calls or cases wen't completely undealt with. It's absolutely higher, by far, than the 1006 cases over 60 years.
Also, Angus produced a letter from the branch to the GB mentioning the list of names! The list is confirmed to exist!
vincent tool said that he is exclusively working the phones for child abuse cases, but never said he is not the only one.
for now, let's assume the rate of abuse cases averages over time to the three or four cases he gets per month.
let's further assume that, since he isn't the only person working the phones and is on vacation at some point, the number is 4-5 per month, or 4.5 per month.
Vincent tool said that he is exclusively working the phones for child abuse cases, but never said he is not the only one. For now, Let's assume the rate of abuse cases averages over time to the three or four cases he gets per month. Let's further assume that, since he isn't the only person working the phones and is on vacation at some point, the number is 4-5 per month, or 4.5 per month. Over the past 60 year, that works out to ....
...3240.
Or more than 3 times the amount we know about.
In Australia alone.
Think about that.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
By any possible standard, not to mention that you are breaking forum rules, exposing your children to the things you posted on the previous page is abusive by any possible standard.
Oh, it's nothing compared to your poop stain's stuff. Child rape, genocide, murder, slavery.... what I posted, namely the words fuck and shit, aren't even a poop nugget in the mountain of explosive shit your poop stain did.
Stop being dramatic.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
You have shown ample evidence to the contrary.
thought i would put this in its own thread.
it another embarrassing statement from the rc (royal commission not regional convention lol).
it's not even one about abuse, its about the jw's stance on science and the bible.
