TrueTomHarley

Allen, I don't understand this comment at all. However, I owe you a debt as well. I never would have thought of inventing all my 'friends' had it not been for accusations directed towards you about aliases. JWI seems convinced that you are or have been multiple persons, but I have never spent time trying to figure it out. I just thought it was a cool idea, and decided I would try my own hand at it.

What I want to do is use the 10 times better figure. But @JW Insider has shown me I cannot even use the 6 times better figure without severe qualification, and he would have me drop it altogether. I will not do that, but I will put a real muzzle on it. For all I know, he did it specifically as a favor to me, so that I would not go public with stats that quickly fall apart. No matter his motive. I am grateful to him. I can call the other side ignorant. I can assert that they do not know law and until they do they ought to keep their mouths shut. But I will not win them over that way, even if what I say is true. If I write them off as hopeless and drop down a notch to giving my brothers a tool they can use to ward off the villains, I do not do them any favors if I give them one that can be ripped to shreds. I wonder how the following will fly as part of the Pedophile chapter, towards the end: There is only so far you can go with the ‘6 times better’ figure. It should not be relied upon as dogma. It is processed notifications into varying levels of severity on one side vs unprocessed notifications on the other. It is most likely that notifications from the Witness camp will break down similarly to stats overall, but this cannot be guaranteed. Small variations alter the results dramatically and large variations make it meaningless. It is good only for a ballpark figure - the best that can be hoped for given that the ones who should have put their talents to work in ascertaining truth chose instead to bury theirs in the ground. It will have to do for now. Skewed results from data clarification doesn’t have to work against Witnesses. It could work in their favor. If notifications in the greater Australian figures outnumbered victims, that could be true in the Witness figures as well. Maybe even all 17 reports stem from a single rotter like that fellow in San Diego. Kneecap that scoundrel and we are perfect. We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture. Now I must brace myself for a lecture from Captain Truth, who, when he is not quoting the founding fathers who agree with Trump, is drawing up imbecile cartoons to embarrass the brothers. I respect this. I truly do. The only caveat I will add is that it is a little like killing a fly. 50 will come to the funeral. I tried something similar to this with AlanF. But he remained nasty throughout, impervious to all my submissions, and in the end the Librarian suggested that I should knock it off as it was getting old. Pursue your conspiracy theories if you must. Just stay away from A Nice Guy, Dr. Adhominem, 'Hammer' Urabi, Top Cat O'Malihan, Vic Vomidog, and Dr. Mike 'Ace' Inhibitor. Such an above-board group of shining stars I have never seen. Rats!! As I am typing there appears a notice that JWI has just chimed in. I hope he does not say something to make me want to gut everything I just said.

The entire thread, and even forum, does not contribute to HONESTY in that all of it ignores Jesus' counsel to '"let them be" with regard to opposers and blind guides. None of the blind guides will say they are blind. It is for the unblind to follow Jesus' counsel. Evereyone here, self included, 'ought' to be looking at matters as does Jesus, and no one here, self-included, can quite make themselves do that. It is what it is, but no one should be making a hero of themselves for participation here. Even if a person succeeds in knocking his enemy out of the ring, he has done so by demonstrating an unChristian trait. Oh. And here's one for JTR:  How;s THAT for Christlike?  AF1QipMwCMd6ZM4SC_CrQIlOfIWia6zZyz3Mq6EYakng.html

Oh, for crying out loud, just say there has never been an abuse case without a JW connection and be done with it! Just take down the blue JW.org signs, replace them with the 'Pedophiles R Us' signs that JRT is working on, and be done with it! Just tell all the brothers to holler "Molester! Molester!" as they approach, as their counterparts once did "Leper! Leper!" and be done with it! It is not perfect. It cannot be perfect because everyone that could have put their talants to use instead buried them in the ground. It is processed notifications to unprocessed notifications. It will have to do as the best available. If some of theirs turned out to be duds, it cannot be assumed that all of ours will be grand slams. If you don't behave, I am going to get Allen to assert that all 17 Witness notifications stem from just a single unfortunate child, which will elevate our cause 10,000 to 1! Kneecap that lone scoundrel perpetrator out and we are perfect!

Whatever @JW Insider's motives may be, by throwing certain things back in my face he has more than once caused me to reevaluate and even retract some errors I otherwise would have made - errors that I would not have wanted to see go into print. He was also kind enough to acknowledge that I had succeeded in giving him correct counsel on an occassion or two in the past. If anyone is playing me like a fiddle, to use @tromboneck's phrase, it is he, but I tend to accept him at face value, and he is among the relative few here who consistently back up their statements with facts, even if I am not sure that the facts are good to broadcast to all and sundry in the first place. He pursues a model that I do not like, but I cannot say that I have not benefited by it.

For now I see no reason not to run with the 6.3 figure. If it is heralded as the be-all and end-all of truth, that is dishonest. But if it is held out as a rough figure that might alter pending added (and impossible, due to dearth of data) refinement of either side's stats, then it is an acceptable comparison of notifications to notifications. That way our brothers have something to kick back with when their enemies press for the perception that JWs are the very last place you should go if you want to keep your kids safe. The ultimate details will never be known, compared and quantified. But we can run with a simple indicator so long as we do not pretend it is more than a rough indicator. Such kind of imperfect stats are built into models all the time, and policies or forecasts are drawn from them. Well, that is the real crime, isn't it? In many settings, negligence is a punishable offense. Either the Australian CPS should have tracked religion for each perpetrator and victim or religions themselves should have kept stats on their own parishioners to hand them over upon demand. As it was, only Jehovah's Witnesses did and it was done for the reason of presenting to God a clean people and to not let perpetrators slide from one congregation into another, as they can anywhere else. It is a deed with good motive being spun as a bad without resistance from those who should resist it. All such issues before various courts constitute a classic example of "No good deed goes unpunished." That is the overall picture which supercedes any investigations into child abuse, greivious though the latter might be. The 6.3 becomes in this context a workable indicator so that our brothers do not have to look to JTR as their messiah. It is quite clear that the GB can do no more. G Jackson pleaded for mandatory reporting laws across the board in all territories. Why has that not been done? That way elders can run roughshod over any family head who, for whatever reason, does not want to report abuse they are aware of to outside authorities. As was stated about the two from case 54, "they were adult survivors and it was their right not to report." Strip them of that right. Make it mandatory that everyone report everything. If the greater authorities are as serious about preventing child sexual abuse as they purport to be, seemingly no policy change could be simpler. Then there would be no swiping at people for not "going beyond the law." Make it the law if it is so crucial. If they refuse or neglect to enact that most basic proactive measure, yet they would still issue blistering criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, what does that tell you? Something more than Capernaum is here.

Exactly. Once again, Allen earns his keep. Does he interfere, obscurate, divert? Well, before concluding that, take into account the 'scholarly' contributions of JTR or Witness and you will see he yet ranks pretty high. It infuriates me - the constant insinuation that the eight righteous men aren't really righteous and, to the extent they are not, it is the long arm of the law that will straighten them out and not their own fear of God.

Get out another bottle of Schnapps and drink some more.

Okay. I did and I was wrong. It was me who first put the quotes around "study" thus acknowleging it was not really a study, but simply an indicator, a fact, that could be built upon. Maybe it was wrong of me to do that, but we are a culture that loves to say it acts upon studies, and I saw no reason not to give it that status for purposes of discussion. I also said when I introduced the "study" into this thread that it "seemingly shows" a child is ten times safer in the JW environment. I dropped that qualifier in later reiterations because I was dealing with someone who seemingly accepted the 10 times better as fact and yet it made no difference to him. I took this as an indication that he had lost his senses and I repeated the "10 times better" "fact" thinking that it would eventually penetrate, but it never did. I think a million times better would not have cut it. If there was even a speck of dirt, it justified to him a flamethrower. This is the fact that was missed. Updating a year as you have done, the 355,925 notifications stem from just 225,487 children, and so it is the latter number that should be used in the calculation. (these figures are from just under the heading: "How many notifications are made to child protection services in Australia each year?" and they appear before the charts you selected from. The pie chart further down shows that, for whatever reason, the percentage of abuse cases that is sexual is no longer 13%, but 12% Thus 12% of 225,487 eqauls 27,058 notifications of child sexual abuse - out of a total Australian population of 24, 000,000. The figures to be used for comparative purposes are: Greater Australia: 27,058 / 24,000,000 - which represents 11.27% vs Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia: 12 / 67,418 - which represents 1.78% Thus, the Witness organization does not prevent child sexual abuse at a rate 10 times greater than all Australia. It prevents it at a rate of 6.3 times greater than all Australia. You have lost me in some of your calculations, but it appears that you have qualified those notifications from all-Australia, but not the ones from the Witnesses. Some of their notifications turn out to be unsubstantiated, but you seem to assume that every one of ours are. I see no reason for that assumption. You can only compare like to like, not their 'processed' notifications to our 'unprocessed' ones. For that matter, there is no guarantee that each of our notifications stems from a different child. They don't in all-Australia. Maybe not with us as well. If even two of them stemmed from the same child, that would skew the numbers hugely in our favor. Is it valid to relate that, per reported figures, children would appear to be 6.3 times safer in a Witness environment? Or should they be left to suppose that it is even-steven, or even worse, for fear they may otherwise get complacent about fixing what remains? I will give you an experience and admittedly, I am going borderline hysterics myself, like many who have contributed to this topic. Just recently a childhood friend of my son died. He left the truth as a teenager. He subsequently developed heavy addiction problems. But for the last three months he had been clean and was once again attending meetings. His mother went to pick him up on the night of the Memorial - last night. He had apparantly relapsed and overdosed. He was dead. Now, I know very well that not everyone who leaves the truth developes addiction problems. And I also know that not everyone who recovers does so by becoming a Jehovah's Witness. But I know too that opioid addiction has a 90% recidism rate. So it would have been a very fine thing, even a lifeline, had he continued coming to meetings where he could have gathered strength. And had he done that, I would not be thrilled at someone meeting him at the door and saying: "You know, we have child sexual abuse here just as much as where you come from. it might even be worse." No. I want them to say 'Because we make a real effort to resist child sexual abuse and have good governance to that effect, we kick it 6.3 times better than the world. And we kick opioid abuse 20 times better. And whatever wretched problem you have encountered, we kick that multiple times better as well. I guarantee that he would not have said: "Yeah, but you're not perfect, are you?"

It is a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts, the simplest calculation of all, made possible because there were two groups proactive enough to keep records - the Witness organization and the Australian government itself. All other data is extracted from specialized subsets that are not necessarily, or even likely, representative of the whole. It is more likely to be repeated out of a desire to make a defence for the faith, which I have never imagined was a bad thing.

I like the parables of Jesus where every word may convey meaning and none of it should be quickly dismissed as "filler" For example, the excuse proffered by the wicked and sluggish slave, and the master's rebuke: "Finally the slave who had received the one talent came forward and said: ‘Master, I knew you to be a demanding* man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow.So I grew afraid and went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ In reply his master said to him: ‘Wicked and sluggish* slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my coming I would have received it back with interest." (Matthew 25:24-27) The master does not deny the slave's allegation that he 'reaps where he does not sow,' letting pass without comment only the slave's perception that he is thereby 'demanding.' The slave has a bad attitude, for the master does not expect to make his own disciples personally - he expects his slaves to pull with him, and the slave ought to have gotten his head around that. Nonetheless, it seems that even with that bad attitude, the master could have worked with it. All it took was to deposit the money with the bankers - essentially a one-time only trip - and the master would have rolled with it. He may not have jumped for joy, but he would not have rebuked the slave. So there are be ones today who don't have the greatest attitude. They don't have to. It is better if they do, for immersing oneself in the kingdom work as it exists is the best way to strengthen faith and be happy, they surely build up the brotherhood more, and they may be heading for shipwreck if they do not, but it is only by actively opposing and 'beating his fellow slaves' (from Matthew 24:48) that the master gets riled - burying the money in the ground, which is the exact opposite of setting the lamp on a lampstand so all will see the light. Still pondering if I have the right read on his one. I am not sure it has been commented on in detail.

This is childish. Just because someone does not do what you want them to do, that does not make them smug. You just don't like them. Is it a 'crutch?' Or is it fundamental to civilized law? According to the following article, discarding that crutch in favor of the new model of success - to make a charge stick without having to prove it - has pushed nations to the brink of nuclear war: "Unproven allegations against Trump and Putin are risking nuclear war - Stephen Cohen" https://www.rt.com/op-ed/422673-russiagate-skripal-cold-war/ @JW Insider weighed in on this on another thread. He said the West should prove the allegations they make before flaming the alleged perpetrator (Russia) and taking decisive action. But he forgets that, in their eyes, they have proven their charges - with methods roughly analagous (hidden info that only trained experts can recognize) to the methods of those who would re-define child abuse proof. The intelligence people have their own methods, and they expect the unwashed to go along with their conclusions. To be consistent with his stand on proof in matters of child abuse, it seems that JWI should go along with them. I am all for elders being educated. I think that is happening. But does he really propose (I may have misread this) that elders be trained in these new techniques of abuse detection and make judicial decisions based upon them? Here is one @AllenSmith will like about the California judge that just ruled Starbucks must post warnings about cancer risks of coffee. Starbucks is dragging their feet on this, so "the judge can set another phase of trial to consider potential civil penalties up to $2,500 per person exposed each day over eight years. That could be an astronomical sum in a state with close to 40 million residents, though such a massive fine is unlikely." These guys really do sow their wild oats. http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/rochester/news/2018/03/30/california-judge-rules-that-coffee-requires-cancer-warning There is no reason to think it is not, [prevention rate 10 times superior to the general Australian population] except that it is but one "study." We can do what is common in the greater world - wait for study after study after study and then spotilght the one that most closely validates what we already think, but I'll run with the study that actually exists. It may not hold. Perhaps the data from other commissions, if there are any, will reveal JWs have 5 times the prevention rate, or maybe it will be 20. But we have an indication of the general pattern. We will have to wait if we want more. Data is not plentiful, for reasons already discussed - most faiths neglected to keep any. But what data we have roughly corresponds with the 2007 statement accompanying a org settlement to the effect that child abuse among JWs is relatively rare, which corroborates roughly with what Ray Franz said that child abuse was not especially a problem and was overblown by media. (Anna has the particulars.) If anyone could be expected to say there was a problem, it would be him. I will agree with you that it is still "bad." But it is no worse than the "bad" record of believers of any sort of sin, which record is nonetheless head-and-shoulders above that of the greater world that makes no attempt to live by Bible principles. I'd love if it were perfect, just as I would love if the record in any category was perfect. For now, It can be put in the general category of 'You who say do not xxxx - do you xxxx?' of Romans 2, and it is primarily opposers who would make it the headlining concern. Moreover, the ones who are likely to be most successful in fixing the problem, in my opinion, are the ones proactive enough to have prevented it 90% (or so) in the first place, not the ones who preside over a far worse record. Plus, probably the reason the overall world has such a poor record of prevention and doesn't do much to address it, as JWs do, is because addressing it effectively would require judgements of morality, and some enforcing of that morality. The ones who scream the loudest about reporting deficiencies would then switch to screaming about efforts to "control people."

Since I began frequenting this forum I have noticed that the claim that JWs are a veritible den of child abuse has been put forward (again) and (again) and (again) and (again) and (again). Essentially identical threads dedicated to this perception have even been hosted (again) and (again) and (again) So I have repeated a counterpoint to add a bit of perspective and balance.

One does not have to be a friend of something to enable it. Most enablers are not friends of what they enable. I never accused you of being a friend of it.

This could only be said by someone who would enable child sexual abuse. There is a solution that cuts occurances by 90%. He finds that "unimpressive."

Come on, John! Not only have you not read the ARC info that you make such heated claims about, but you also haven't read my prior posts that explain it in detail.

Take it to anyone. You have decided that Witness figures are lies. That can be said of anyone's figures. You just don't like them. It actually cannot be said of any religious organization's figures because none kept any records. That is where you ought to direct your rage if your concern is primarily the safety of children. What - the Lutherans would have us believe there has never been a case of abuse among them? Drag their butts before the authorities and grill them! This is completely irrelevent. The figures reported and investigated are those of allegations, without regard for whether there were witnesses or not. It may be that God's human organization should be condemned for being human. If that is your position, say it. Ten times the prevention record of anyone else is not adequate for you? You expect perfection? Say it. Say 'I will not abide by any earthly organization unless its human leadership is perfect.'

"Will the greater world really condemn the ones who prevented child sexual abuse ten times better than anyone else, but failed to prevent it completely, over allegations that they neglected to report instances to the authorities who oversaw a record ten times worse? It makes no sense to me, and I cannot escape the suspicion that the overall intent is to thwart the preaching of the good news, for that is plainly the effect. How can it not be the intent? This is not to say that everyone so involved, or even most, is deliberately pursuing this agenda, for the flashpoint is not imaginary and it is easy to get caught up in a cause. But as in the Russian ban itself where allegations of child sexual abuse played absolutely no role, there are entities desperate to stop the spread of Jesus’ message."

Putting some final touches on the Pedophilia chapter, I managed to replace something bland with something more specific, resulting in this: "It is similar today with the sexual abuse of children. Present protective policy has been extraordinarily long in coming. In 1987, Cleveland social workers and pediatricians removed over 100 children from their families suspected of sexual abuse. Public outcry was such, fueled by media alleging ‘overzealous’ and ‘intrusive’ agency overreach, that most were promptly returned, despite genuine evidence of abuse. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, credits ‘feminist campaigners’ with making the protection of children a priorty, and states “clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s.”" From: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-welfare-child-protection-and-sexual-abuse-1918-1990 It does not change the specifics here. But it does add context. Since "clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s” it seems one can only go so far in the criticism of any agency operating during that time. As late as 1987, public opinion was firmly against "breaking up families'" for sexual abuse allegations, even where creditable. Furthermore, "where evidence of sexual assault emerged, the reaction of welfare workers was to limit harm, often by removing a child from an abusive situation. Reporting of abuse and securing convictions was a secondary concern."

It does. And I make the point repeatedly that banning JWs and the NWT and confiscating their property does damage to the country's reputation by suggesting that, no matter how outlandish the allegation, it just might be true, and perhaps what is seen is but the tip of the iceberg. (Also, I predict Bethel will jump into the spirit of things by expelling Jack's 'spies')

Not to worry. No offense taken. About half of the upcoming book on Russian persecution was originally written on this forum. Since few reasons for opposition were presented at any court hearings, and the m.o. was mostly to provide quick legal cover for decisions already made, I have given the reasons, and their defence, in the second portion of the book. These include such things as cult accusations, brainwashing, shunning, and the white-hot topic (which did not figure in to Russian action) of pedophilia accusations.

I take it back. I do know a certain @Nana Fofana who probably appreciates it and veers down that same nebulous path herself.

"Come here cat. I'm gonna make you a star."

Having said that, what is the internet term for this: Or this? Or even this: Â

Okay. What little I know of Unitarians is confined to UU, and I know little about them. Okay again. I am a little sorry that I posted my "next" book title. It is no more than the sort of good-natured ribbing that I would do to my closest friends, and I hope it is not percieved as any sort "one-uppence." I also hope it doesn't overshadow the valuable perspective you're offered for the subject at hand, if it is really the subject at hand, since as you said it did hijack another thread.